Re: Re[2]: Low Doses?

["J. J. Rozental" <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>]

        1) There are  papers presented at the International Conference on
Low Doses, held in Seville, Spain, 17-21 November (IAEA TEC-DOC 976,
November 1997) considering low doses in the range 0.01 and 1 Gy;

	2)  In the same document there is a paper "Low Doses -- A Real Problem for
Radiation Protection and Radiobiology or a Semantic Crossword",  where the
authors among many questions, examine  the following:  "Which Dose is Low
Dose?" -- The same question mentioned  here two days ago by Mr Muckerheide:
"What is the dose one could hardly call 'low'? "

	3) I am sure that some remarks, and topics discussed here are delicious
dishes for ante nuclear activists from German, Sweden and Japan.

J. J. Rozental <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>
Israel



At 09:21 AM 1/26/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>     
>A recent article in Nuclear News by Michael Osterheim cites "1 to 3 kG" as an 
>"adequate margin of safety for common food-borne pathogens"  The auther calls 
>this a low dose, but 100,00 to 300,00 rad doesn't sound "low.".  I don't know 
>what "high" and "low" mean in this context. When food is cooked, the heat is 
>certainly much higher that paople can comfortably (or uncomfortably)
tolerate --
>I burn myself if I touch a hot burner.  Why not just gove the dose and forget 
>about characterizing it as high or low?
>
>
>Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
>Transportation Systems Department
>Sandia National Laboratories
>Mail Stop 0718
>P. O. Box 5800
>Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
>505-844-4791
>505-844-0244 (fax)
>rfweine@sandia.gov
>
>
>CLEARLY MY OWN OPINION AND NO ONE ELSE'S RESPONSIBILITY.
>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: Re: Low Doses?
>Author:  sandyfl@ix.netcom.com at hubsmtp
>Date:    1/24/98 1:00 PM
>
>
>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 -
>
>