You need JavaScript to view this

PAGs - Public perception and acceptance[Protective Action Guides (PAGs)]

Abstract

Full text: While Protective Action Guides or PAGs have been a part of the lexicon of the radiation protection field for several decades, the concept of accepting higher levels of risk under certain situations has not received adequate scrutiny by the general public, the media or elected officials. Consequently there is a question as to how implementation of PAGs would be perceived by the above groups in the event that such implementation became necessary. A personal case in point involves the response of an executive in the food industry. When the concept of selling a food product meeting the PAGs was explained his response was, 'we won't sell a contaminated product, we would dump the unprocessed raw food. Our industry image is that of a natural unadulterated food'. While this may be an isolated view, there is a need to determine what is the perception and consequently what would be the response if PAGs were implemented today. If the response was negative by anyone of the three groups listed previously, then there is an obvious need for a program to assure receptiveness by those concerned. However, this may face formidable obstacles. This is because the terms radiation and radioactive have  More>>
Authors:
Quillin, Robert M [1] 
  1. Radiation Control Division, Colorado Department of Health, Denver, CO (United States)
Publication Date:
Sep 01, 1989
Product Type:
Conference
Report Number:
EPA-520/1-89-032; INIS-XA-N-178
Resource Relation:
Conference: Workshop on protective action guides for accidentally contaminated water and food, Washington, DC (United States), 13-14 Sep 1989; Other Information: PBD: Sep 1989; Related Information: In: Protective action guides for accidentally contaminated water and food. Proceedings of a workshop, 134 pages.
Subject:
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; CONTAMINATION; EMERGENCY PLANS; FOOD; POLITICAL ASPECTS; PUBLIC ANXIETY; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC INFORMATION; RADIATION ACCIDENTS; RADIATION PROTECTION; REACTOR ACCIDENTS; RECOMMENDATIONS; SOCIAL IMPACT
OSTI ID:
20528792
Research Organizations:
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, DC (United States)
Country of Origin:
IAEA
Language:
English
Other Identifying Numbers:
TRN: XA04N1201095058
Availability:
Available from INIS in electronic form
Submitting Site:
INIS
Size:
page(s) 81
Announcement Date:

Citation Formats

Quillin, Robert M. PAGs - Public perception and acceptance[Protective Action Guides (PAGs)]. IAEA: N. p., 1989. Web.
Quillin, Robert M. PAGs - Public perception and acceptance[Protective Action Guides (PAGs)]. IAEA.
Quillin, Robert M. 1989. "PAGs - Public perception and acceptance[Protective Action Guides (PAGs)]." IAEA.
@misc{etde_20528792,
title = {PAGs - Public perception and acceptance[Protective Action Guides (PAGs)]}
author = {Quillin, Robert M}
abstractNote = {Full text: While Protective Action Guides or PAGs have been a part of the lexicon of the radiation protection field for several decades, the concept of accepting higher levels of risk under certain situations has not received adequate scrutiny by the general public, the media or elected officials. Consequently there is a question as to how implementation of PAGs would be perceived by the above groups in the event that such implementation became necessary. A personal case in point involves the response of an executive in the food industry. When the concept of selling a food product meeting the PAGs was explained his response was, 'we won't sell a contaminated product, we would dump the unprocessed raw food. Our industry image is that of a natural unadulterated food'. While this may be an isolated view, there is a need to determine what is the perception and consequently what would be the response if PAGs were implemented today. If the response was negative by anyone of the three groups listed previously, then there is an obvious need for a program to assure receptiveness by those concerned. However, this may face formidable obstacles. This is because the terms radiation and radioactive have gained generally negative word associations, e.g. 'deadly' radiation and radioactive 'desert'. The former term was recently heard in a taped presentation at a Museum of Natural History on a completely unrelated subject. The latter term was part of a recent article heading in the Wall Street Journal. Incidentally the article was discussing television. Thus beyond the scientific issues of setting PAGs and the administrative and procedural issues of implementing PAGs there is the issue of society's understanding and acceptance of PAGs. Particularly, how can such understanding and acceptance be achieved in a situation which is associated with an actual or perceived radiation emergency? These are not questions that radiation or agricultural scientists can answer alone. These are questions requiring the additional input of social scientists. These are questions that also require the sponsorship of more than one particular discipline, agency or organization. This is to achieve a broader perspective and understanding of the issue and to stimulate creative ways of making PAGs work effectively if the need ever arises for their actual use. While PAGs may have a sound technical base, this is not sufficient alone to assure that they will work in today's sociopolitical environment. (author)}
place = {IAEA}
year = {1989}
month = {Sep}
}