[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: To Luxel Users
Thank you to Bill Lorenzen, who posted my request to inform everyone
that my laptop lost Windows 98 this morning, and that I was not
ignoring any of the comments, or criticisms directed towards me for
my comments posted on Saturday, the 25th, with respect to the Luxel
dosimeter. I am now up and running again, and would like to clear the
air, once and for all.
I am also copying Craig Yoder, Vice President - Operations, Landauer,
whom I have deep respect for, and, consider a personal friend, as
well as a professional colleague. There's no rule that a competitor
must also be a adversary.
John Laferriere suggested that I crossed the line, and, might also
bear the disdain of my HP professionals for providing comments
regarding a competitor's dosimeter. Bill Lorenzen stated that he
tended to agree with John's comments. Others stated that I had not
crossed the line, and only provided technical commentary.
Let me categorically deny the suggestion that I was bad mouthing a
competitor. Again, let me state that I was NOT bad mouthing a
competitor. I have made it fact that I do not address another
product, and, don't discuss the products that we market. This is
keeping within the Radsafe etiquette rules and requirements. However,
I feel that I can address technical issues if someone else raises an
issue or question that I have input.
These are the specifics:
(1) As a professional HP, who happens to work for a dosimetry
service, am I supposed to not address issues that are within the
dosimetry discussions? When it comes to addressing specific products,
whether they are good or bad, and if there are any flaws .. I
categorically do NOT post to Radsafe or any other professional
listserver. I do not bad mouth the competitor's products. If I
receive a private e-mail, I do answer questions and make suggestions
as to what they can ask their vendor, whomever they are. It is for
them to make a decision as to what is best for them. I am not going
risk my professional integrity over an account. Believe me! I've
worked to hard to rise to the position I am in, and a few $$ aren't
going to make me chuck everything for it.
(2) Brent Colby raised some issues on another listserver. I gave him
some suggestions as to what problems he was seeing, and told him to
contact his vendor.
(3) Lorna and then Sue posted to Radsafe. Again, I did NOT respond to
either of these posts on Radsafe. I did not write them and say you
have a problem dosimeter and need to get off of it. Those are the
facts!
(4) Mike Lantz posted a note to Radsafe and addressed the 1mrem
background, in reference to Sue's posting.
(5) I then addressed Mike's comments, and provided my own questions
and thoughts on a 1 mrem MRD. The questions I posed are the same
questions that I am asked, and, as a NVLAP assessor (not as ling as
MIke) I ask EVERY facility.
(6) I asked about the LLD and measurement of uncertainty. Many others
provided a lot of good information on LLD in subsequent postings.
(7) 15 CFR 285.33(c)(g) and (h) address the quality requirements.
NIST Handbook 150-4, Ionizing Radiation Dosimery, addresses LLD, MRD
and all of the other requirements that each processor, (commercial or
in-house) must meet. THOSE are the questions I asked. I did not
question whether or not the luxel badge meets these criteria. I asked
that since NVLAP only tests down to 30 mrem, there is a leap to 1
mrem, and has anyone asked for this information. THIS is a fair
question.
(8) Several months ago I posted a checklist of questions every
processor should be asked. I believe this, or wouldn't have poste
dit. I've been asked since then, and that's good. Every facility
should know their own occupational environment, and ask for the right
dosimeter for each application. This has nothing to do with whom
provides the dosimetry .. but allows a facility to know what they are
wearing, as they should.
In conclusion. I state again that I did not bad mouth a competitor,
did not attack a specific dosimeter and did not cross any line,
either professionally, or otherwise.
If there are those of you do still feel that I did, then we will
simply leave it at that.
As a professional, with specific expertise, I feel that when it is
ethical, that I provide my opinions. They can be accepted at face
value, rejected outright, or modified. But I will not remain silent
because there are some that feel as if I offended them.
I hope this answers everyone's questions, comments or concerns.
Respectfully submitted ..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100
Director, Technical Extension 2306
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division Fax:(714) 668-3149
ICN Biomedicals, Inc. E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html