Re: Low Doses?

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@mediaone.net>]

Hi Sandy,

It seems that these perspectives reflect a rather narrow rad protection view
of the world. ("To a small boy with a hammer, all the world is a nail :-) 

Low doses in irradiation means low relative to sterilization doses. (Remember,
non-food sterilization and current food irradiation for the astronauts,
tranplant patients, etc and the Army research on long life non-refrigerated
food used sterilization doses, turning meat grey - and rather unpalatable).
The approved limited doses 3 - 4.5 krad for non-frozen meat? to just
substantially reduce ecoli, salmonella, etc are 'low doses'. They're not
'lying', but not everyone wears rad protection and biological effects glasses.
 (Actually, it would seem that if they were being sensitive to 'public
acceptance' about 'low doses' as suggested, they would be unlikely to do it
the way you suggest :-)  

Perhaps we need to have a little more perspective about the rest of the world
when using the term "_we_ should" and harm "our credibility". I doubt "they"
consider "us" part of their "we", (and likely don't care much what "we" think
about what they should say - much less "our credibility" in the disingenuous
efforts to clean dust off dirt in the desert, and kill Brookhaven, etc etc, in
the name of a few mrem for $100s Billions - what integrity? :-). 

Consider also that the Rad Society of North America meeting has 50,000-60,000
attendees; the SNM 15,000 - (ANS and HPS 1500?) We should consider the
perspective on "low" vs "high" doses by people who use the tools for real
contributions to the human condition (despite rad protection constraints and
often debilitating wasteful costs :-) 

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
========================
  
> No, you are NOT incorrect. The exposure output from the machine is
> extremely high, which is necessary to kill the bacteria present in
> the food. The exposure to the operators of the equipment, and to
> those around them is negligible. What I believe we are seeing in
> these articles and briefings was an attempt to minimize the radiation
> that is put forth, and in so doing, compromised what they were
> saying, all in an attempt to obtain public acceptance. If I am
> correct in my assumption, these types of statements only harm our
> credibility when we have to discuss radiation issues with the public.
> If I am incorrect in my assumption, then they were way off base with
> the comment that there are "low doses", since these articles and
> statements are not quite focused enough, and leave the details to the
> reader. THAT is a mistake. If one is going to communicate to the
> public, be open, be honest and give all of the facts. If not, don't
> say anything!
> 
> > I have seen a couple of articles recently, including ones our local
> newspaper
> > and in the January issue of Nuclear News which refer to the food
> irradiation
> > as "low doses".  I don't think we should refer to doses of several
> hundred
> > thousand rads from cobalt as low doses.  Am I wrong?
> >
> > Ted Allen, CHP
> > Las Vegas, NV
> >
> >
> ------------------
> Sandy Perle
> Technical Director
> ICN Dosimetry Division
> Costa Mesa, CA 92626
> Office: (800) 548-5100 x2306
> Fax:    (714) 668-3149
> 
> sandyfl@ix.netcom.com
> sperle@icnpharm.com
> 
> Personal Homepage:
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205
> 
> ICN Dosimetry Website:
> http://www.dosimetry.com
> 
> "The object of opening the mind, as of opening
> the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
>               - G. K. Chesterton -