Re: Low Doses?

[Ivor Surveyor <isurveyor@vianet.net.au>]

At 12:41 AM 25-01-98 -0600, Muckerheide wrote:
>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'. >>
credibility when we have to discuss radiation issues with the public.

Comment:

I am sure most people undestand a number scale.   Provided terms are not
mixed up. In the same explanation one should not switches from mSv to rad
to krad to MSv and then to Grey,  rem etc.

I usually start an explanation with reference to background radiation and
to how it might vary by a mSv or so from the immediate coastal area to our
"hill areas".

On this scale one may point out , the absorbed dose from a diagnostic test,
 the absorbed dose that causes bodily harm,  the exposure dose to workers,
the killing dose for bacteria (30,000 mSv) or sterilizing dose for medical
products (250,000 mSv ).   Depending on what is relevant to the explanation. 

On the same level .  I dislike phrases such as "a bit of radiation, only
weakly radioactive and so on.  These are meaningless and /or ambiguous
terms.   Meant to be re-assuring of course.   But readily seen by some
critical minds as a deliberate attempt at obfuscation or even worse as a
"talking down." 
Surprisingly most people do understand a number scale, how else would
commerce and trade be possible. 
 
Ivor Surveyor		[isurveyor@vianet.net.au]
Emeritus Consultant Physician,
Department of Nuclear Medicine
Royal Perth Hospital.