[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: PROFESSIONALS?
Dear Cpt Scott:
I agree with you here. I am proposing something to Dr.
Stabin (custodian of RADSAFE) and key other persons.
When Hector first set up RADSAFE in July 1993, it was
originally designed to be an open bbs forum for all
radiation protection professionals in any organization
or company all over the world to actively discuss
problems, solutions and implementation ideas in Health
Physics, Medical Radiation Physics,
Radio-environmental Engineering and Nuclear Radiation
Protection Engineering etc.
For people who subscribe to RADSAFE there are people
who are:
1) Pro-nuclear in its current form.
2) Pro-advanced nuclear and concerned about
nuclear energy in its current form.
3) Anti-nuclear and pro-radiation in medical and
other "beneficial" applications.
4) Anti-nuclear and anti-radiation in all cases.
The problem is here that derogatory or trite comments
really do not belong here, irrespective of the
individuals views on nuclear power generation or the
use of radiation sources. As radiation protection
professionals it seems to me that part of our job is
to try to explain the benefits and risks associated
with radiation sources and radiation producing
machines to the best of our ability with current
knowledge. For the most part, RADSAFE is still doing a
wonderful and very professional job.
Do you work with Jim Franks or David Sliney? If so
please say hi.-[more later I have to go now]-
Paul Shafer, MS, MA, AAPT Physics Teacher and former
Nuclear Radiation Protection Engineer LaCrosse BWR and
Pathfinder SBWR
--- "Scott, Andrew L CPT AMEDDCS"
<Andrew.Scott@CEN.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen,
>
> I believe in liberty and equality, two of the
> founding principles of the
> United States of America. Admittedly, this may be
> idealistic and may not
> apply to individuals from all countries on this
> list, but I say to you that
> as scientific professionals, we must hear and listen
> to debate on scientific
> theories in our discipline. If we refuse, where
> does that leave us? I
> think most of us understand enough to recognize
> reasonable arguements and
> that last time I checked, you were not required to
> respond to any given
> posting.
>
> I would like to believe that scientific communities
> are the most tolerant
> and willing to hear alternative views, although
> there are numerous
> historical examples to the contrary. I would
> propose, however, that we do
> not engage in personal attacks in this forum. If
> there are any questions as
> to a person's qualifications, post your own CV and
> challenge them to post
> theirs, then let educated and intelligent (I hope I
> am not assuming too
> much;-) subscribers make their own determination.
>
> Maybe I'm idealistic and naive, but there you go.
>
> Andy Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DAVID LOVETT [mailto:dlovett@PRODIGY.NET]
> Sent: 13 August 2001 20:43
> To: Raymond Shadis; Franz Schoenhofer;
> SAFarberMSPH@CS.COM;
> radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Subject: Re: PROFESSIONALS?
>
>
> I agree with Ray............. No matter what
> diffeerent opinions are here,
> all needs to be heard..........We just don't want to
> monopolize the board.
>
> Dave Lovett
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Raymond Shadis" <shadis@ime.net>
> To: "Franz Schoenhofer"
> <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>;
> <SAFarberMSPH@CS.COM>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 3:48 PM
> Subject: PROFESSIONALS?
>
>
> > FRANZ,
> > You write,
> > "Another question of course is that you are not
> only no professional, but
> > > that you lack obviously any knowledge about the
> matter you write on.
> > > Therefore the harsh reaction of other RADSAFErs
> is well understandable,
> > > especially since it is not the first time that
> somebody - for instance
> > once
> > > a declared anti-nuclear activist with as little
> knowledge as you -
> wanted
> > to
> > > explain to us, what radiation protection is,
> what are the hazards of one
> > > single radioactive atom and one single quantum
> from a radioactive
> element
> > > etc. etc.
> > > But you - and so many others! - who have not the
> slightest idea about
> > > radiation, nuclear technology, radioecology etc.
> etc. - you want to tell
> > us
> > > professionals what is right and wrong? It is bad
> enough when we look
> what
> > > charlatans are in the mass media, in authorities
> and influencing the
> > > decision makers and politicians.
> > >
> > > This list is - if I remember correctly - for the
> exchange of information
> > for
> > > professionals. Also non-professionals have been
> tolerated, at least to
> my
> > > knowledge nobody has been denied to read the
> contributions. Many
> > > non-professionals have asked for advice in
> questions concerning
> > radiation -
> > > and they have been given it to the best of our
> knowledge. This list has
> > > always been very tolerant.
> > >
> > > If you have a little bit of self-criticism,
> please stop sending messages
> > to
> > > the list. Read the contribution, you might be
> able to learn a little."
> > >
> > Franz,
> > When I first signed on to the list, I indeed
> thought it would not only be
> an
> > exchange among professionals, but also that the
> exchanges would be
> > professional. I received generous replies and
> references to a question on
> > calculating dose from hot particles, to a question
> on the work of W.I
> > Vernadsky, Soviet scientist, and to a question on
> Pu-240 concentrations in
> > various types of fuel.
> > However I found the list contibutions peppered
> with ridiculous and
> > unsubstantiated assertions which were anything but
> professional. I think
> it
> > is plain that threshold of acceptance on radsafe
> is more philosopical than
> > it is professional. The demonstrated inabilty of
> some radsafe responders
> to
> > follow a simple linear progression of reason does
> not bode well for the
> > future of radiation professions.
> >
> > " But you - and so many others! - who have
> not the slightest idea
> about
> > radiation, nuclear technology, radioecology
> etc. etc. - you want to
> tell
> > us
> > professionals what is right and wrong? It is
> bad enough when we look
> > what
> > charlatans are in the mass media, in
> authorities and influencing the
> > decision makers and politicians."
> > Franz,
> > I just completed service on the US NRC's Initial
> Implementation Evaluation
> > Panel on the new Reactor Oversight Process.
> Federal law says these FACA
> > panels must be made up of experts. I have been
> invited, on Friday, to
> > present my views (for the fourth time) at a
> Briefing of the NRC
> > Commissioners. Now, I admittedly don't know much
> after only twenty-two
> years
> > of generalized nuclear study, but it is wrong to
> say that I haven't the
> > slightest idea about " radiation, nuclear
> technology, radioecology, etc."
> I
> > do have a "slight" idea. What is surprising to me
> is not that youngsters
> > with a fresh HP ticket may also have only a
> "slight" idea, but that so
> many
> > PhDs act like graduates of a Skinner box;
> incapable of considered and
> > thoughtful dialogue. Some of the "charlatans" in
> the mass media and
> journals
> > have the same professional credentials that many
> members of your list
> have.
> > Should we also listen to them without question?
> All-in-all, I would much
> > rather live in an overly protective frame of
> reference where we hope we
> are
> > wrong, than in an attitude of non-conservative
> assumptions about risk in
> > which one is so afraid of being wrong that you
> can't stand a single
> > contradiction or disagreement, even on semantics.
> > I will attempt initiating no further dialogue.
> >
> > Thank You, Ray
> >
> > >
> > >
>
************************************************************************
> > > You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe
> mailing list. To
> unsubscribe,
> > > send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Put the text
> "unsubscribe
> > > radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the
> e-mail, with no subject
> line.
> > >
> >
> >
>
************************************************************************
> > You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe
> mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> > send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Put the text "unsubscribe
> > radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the
> e-mail, with no subject line.
> >
>
>
************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing
> list. To unsubscribe,
> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put
> the text "unsubscribe
> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
> with no subject line.
>