[ RadSafe ] ARTICLE: North American First RespondersLack Radiation Train...

Tue Nov 8 09:58:48 CST 2005

Our training is not "bureaucratic-accepted" training. In fact, the
bureaucracy in our system recognizes that they don't know enough to put
their stamp on it, so we, in the Office of Radiation Protection, are
free to develop what we think the responders want, based on feedback
from prior classes. They seem to really like the classes and get a lot
out of it, especially since we limit the radiation basics to just enough
so they know what they're finding, how to read their instruments and how
to protect themselves, if necessary.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of Muckerheide, James
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:58 PM
To: mpatterson at canberra.com; Edwards, Richard W
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] ARTICLE: North American First RespondersLack
Radiation Train...

Being a little more specific:  Training of first responders requires
companies and government to pay the responders to take training.  It
also requires paying instructors to provide bureaucratically-accepted
training. 

When experienced Civil Defense-era experts wanted to contribute to
training people (led by Al Brodsky and others) their contributions were
largely rejected.  It is unacceptable to have experts provide training,
which could not be assured to cover precisely the content of training
materials produced by contractors, to be presented without missing, or
correcting, the emphasis established by Washington bureaucrats, who may
or may not know the subject, or the context, of the situations faced by
first responders.  This is bureaucratic 'training,' not real world
training (like the training of fire fighters who have to deal with real
world fires), much less 'education' to prepare people to understand the
context for real world contingencies and decisions.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
========================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On 
> Behalf Of mpatterson at canberra.com
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 2:26 PM
> To: Edwards, Richard W
> Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl; radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] ARTICLE: North American First RespondersLack 
> Radiation Train...
> 
> Richard,
> 
> Just my personal observations and thoughts.  You bring up many 
> important issues.
> 
> Hmm.  The old saying " You get what you pay for comes to mind."
> 
> Volunteer community service is noble but I wonder how many other 
> professionals feel compelled to provide detailed, customized  training

> courses or other services for free.
> 
> How many chemistry professionals provide free, customized, 
> comprehensive training courses for the fire and police departments? 
> for Schools? for Hospitals?
> How many chemical companies provide free training on chemical hazards 
> for first responders?
> How many mechanics provide free training courses on how to fix police 
> cars or fire trucks?
> How many vehicle manufacturers provide free cars or trucks or
ambulances?
> Free service on them?
> How many doctors and nurses provide free emergency training for EMTs?
> How many lawyers provide free legal service to FD, PD, hospitals etc?
> 
> All of these things would be nice community services, but that is not 
> generally how things seem to work in our country.  If someone thinks
> something is important then they are willing to pay for it.    I am
sure
> that many people on the list do participate in some type of community 
> service but most work full-time and have families and some are even 
> pursuing additional education for their own jobs.  This means that  
> there is a limit on the time they have to spare for volunteering and 
> there are many noble causes vying for that time.
> 
> -Sincerely,
> Melissa Patterson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Edwards, Richard W" <richard.w.edwards at boeing.com> Sent by: 
> radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> 11/07/2005 11:02 AM
> 
> 
>         To:     <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>         cc:
>         Subject:        RE: [ RadSafe ] ARTICLE: North American First
> Responders Lack   Radiation
> Train...
> 
> 
> Having been involved with supporting emergency response and training 
> emergency responders for a number of years, the last 15 in western 
> Washington State (an area covered by the program referenced by Al 
> Conklin), I have a number of comments regarding this issue.
> 
> (1) Training is merely one element of a response program. Adequate 
> operational protocols, equipment, and specialized support are also 
> necessary elements. Until those elements are developed, training must 
> be too general to enable adequate response in the real world.
> 
> (2) Emergencies with sources of radiation involved are extremely rare 
> for most response agencies. Emergency services have a reasonable 
> tendency to focus training (as well as development of operational 
> protocols and acquisition of resources) to those areas they view to be

> most likely to occur...or to those areas that someone else will pay
for.
> 
> (3) Outreach on the part of the radiation safety community is 
> suboptimal (okay...it's abysmal). In my experience, the number of 
> radiation safety professionals that are willing to learn enough about 
> emergency services to be able to be effective in working with them to 
> upgrade operational protocols, equipment, and training is a tiny
fraction of our community.
> In many ways, radiation safety professionals do more to inhibit the 
> improvement of radiation emergency response capabilities by mystifying

> radiation, amplifying the risks of radiation exposures without 
> comparison to other risks emergency responders accept on a daily 
> basis, suggesting only radiation specialists are capable of guiding 
> decision-making during radation emergencies, and developing parallel 
> (or
> skewed!) response methods rather than adapting the responders' 
> existing response methods to radiation response needs.
> 
> (4) Existing, capable resources supporting radiation emergency 
> response is not well advertised or easily accessed. Typically, these 
> are state level capabilities that are not (or not understood to be) 
> directly accessible to the first in responder.
> 
> For all these reasons, the maturity of emergency services in radiation

> emergency response spreads clear across the spectrum. If you look to 
> the response to other hazardous materials, you will see many of the 
> same issues, although not necessarily to the degree seen in radiation 
> emergency response.
> 
> So my question to you is what are you doing about it in your
community?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard W. Edwards
> 
> Boeing Radiation Health Protection
> 206 544-5888
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/