Re: Low Doses?

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@ix.netcom.com>]

Hi Jim,

You stated the following regarding the use of the word "low dose". 
You have reiterated the point I was trying to make, that of clear 
communication when dealing with sensitive issues that the public is 
not only interested in, but is fearful of.

> 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,

When one addresses radiation issues, be it risk, dose, causal 
relation or benefits, it is very important to maintain a proper and 
consistent perspective. One can not minimize radiation tests on 
members of the public, who participate knowingly, or unknowingly, be 
it at MIT or any other facility, and conclude that there was no harm, 
and, that there was "LOW DOSE". One can not address the leaks around 
BNL, and minimize the those leaks stating that there was in fact "LOW 
DOSE". The public has been given a scale to address radiation 
exposure. They have now been informed of what "low dose" is, and when 
it isn't, they will obviously conclude that this is NOT "low dose".

In the food irradiation communications, the point being made by those 
supporters, was that food irradiation was safe, and that the foods 
irradiated was safe. The public thought otherwise, not in total, but 
in enough numbers. Before I go to far, let me say that I do support 
food irradiation. The press briefings were to negate the crap being 
spewed by the anti forces.  In so doing, the term "low dose" was 
used. Now you state that this is in the context of the doses required 
for sterilization. Come on Jim, you can't seriously believe that was 
why they used this term. They used it solely for the purpose of 
propaganda, and, to sway public opinion. There is not one mention of 
sterilization, and, in all honesty, what difference does it make if 
Krads are used and the doses are far below that needed to cause 
sterilization? Absolutely nothing. IF that were the point they were 
trying to make, then they should have stated it, clearly and 
concisely. But we all know that this was not the case at all. The 
term "low dose" was used to ensure the public there was safety, and, 
for the public to use the term "low dose" in the context that they 
have been accustomed to hearing, from the rest of us, when we discuss 
radiation exposure, risks and causal effects.

When it comes down to it, when we discuss radiation, aren't we for 
the most part, relating that radiation and it's effect om man? There 
isn't much risk to a wall, or other inanimate object.

Communication isn't easy, but if it is to be used, don't downplay the 
intelligence of the audience. I firmly believe that those articles 
and briefings made on the support of food irradiation was calculated, 
and well-planned. The use of the term "low dose" was intentional, 
and, it had nothing to do with sterilization. It was used to mold the 
public into thinking that the exposure used to irradiate was low, 
and therefore should be of no concern. It was crafty, and as usual, 
didn't circumvent the inquisitive mind, asking .. WHO are they trying 
to kid?
------------------
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 -