Re: Warning - long Rant ahead

["Michael S Ford" <MFORD@pantex.com>]

I suppose I'm in minority of the respondents to this thread when I say that I disagree AND to find that I disagree with Ruth and Al MUST be a first (!).

I, too, find the technical information presented on RADSAFE to be extremely informative and helpful; however, I find it difficult to understand how one can effectively separate the technical from the social — when at the root of what we do and why we do it (technical things) is the manifestation of a social or political belief, interpretations based on environmental or human philosophy, or just plain grasping at straws.

The eventually tactical decisions that are made — how to analyze an air sample, whom to provide a TLD, how to deal with waste —- all stem from strategic POLICY decisions that are generally NOT based on demonstrative science — but on the NEW science or the science of feeling and opinion.

The "situational ethic" has crept its way into the HP profession, especially in the HPS, NCRP, ICRP and IAEA.  When the chairman of the ICRP states at the HPS annual meeting that "there is no safe threshold" OR that "10 mrem might be an acceptable dose for some, but not for others" we have now fully entered the era of Situational Health Physics (i.e., sometimes 2+2=4, and sometimes it doesn't).

While WHAT we do on a daily basis may be based on strong technical procedures and good science, WHY we do these things is certainly NOT for many of the activities that are undertaken in the name of Health Physics and Radiation Safety.

Separating the technical from the social/political drivers of our profession (Health Physics deals with "people" after all) is an ill-advised venture.  By focusing on one and losing sight of the other, we begin to approach a pedantic practice of Health Physics that ignores the utility of our actions in encouraging the safe a beneficial uses of radiation and radioactive materials.  

When trillions of dollars are expended world-wide in the name of worker and public health — monies that could be used to save real lives and benefit the real health of millions — we should be prepared to show that the policies requiring the "technical procedures" subsequently driving the expenditures of those monies are based on  solid science.

Can we show that now?  Not exactly.
v/r
Michael
TRAB

>>> antatnsu%pacbell.net@internet.pantex.com 03 Aug 00 5:53:00 PM >>>
Exactly!....

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html