Fw: "Human Capital Crisis In Radiation Safety"??

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>]

----- Original Message -----

From: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@prodigy.net>

To: William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>

Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 10:35 AM

Subject: Re: "Human Capital Crisis In Radiation Safety"??





  I agree with Bill's position in questioning the HPS position statement,

but

 perhaps for other reasons.

 I would be cautious in pushing more people into the radiation safety field.

 In time, I believe rationality will prevail and the nonsense put out by

 ICRP, NCRP, etc. will be seen for what it is. When that happens, concern

 over low-dose radiation exposures will go away along with collective dose,

 ALARA policies, and the vast funding allocated toward avoidance of doses

 <10 times normal background levels. Since thats what most radsafe people

are

  currently involved with, the future for the profession may not be so

 promising.

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>

> To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 4:46 AM

> Subject: "Human Capital Crisis In Radiation Safety"??

>

>

> > I noticed the recent position statement of the Health Physics Society,

> > "Human Capital Crisis In Radiation Safety,"  which states that,

> > "...present demand for radiation safety professionals is approximately

> > 130% of supply."

> >

> > This can be accessed at:

> > <http://www.hps.org/documents/humancapital.pdf>.

> >

> > While I'd like to believe this statement, and demand a significant

> > salary increase, I'm not about to storm into my supervisor's office just

> > yet.  Is this real demand or someone's perceived need?  If this is true,

> > why do I keep seeing positions advertised which require a professional

> > health physicist, but pay < $40K, and require the ability to lift 50

> > pounds?  Are the academics asking for federal funding to train people

> > for that?

> >

> > Does the public really want the "rigorous oversight" that would

> > supposedly go away if the government doesn't come up with the money?  If

> > "rigorous oversight" means forcing a homeowner to spend thousands of $$

> > for radon remediation which he probably doesn't need and might not work,

> > I would say, "no."  If "rigorous oversight" means requiring licensees to

> > spend $10,000 to avoid 1 man-rem, when a significant part of our

> > population has trouble obtaining basic health care, I would say, "no."

> >

> > The bottom line is the basic engineering concept, "You can't push with a

> > rope."  If radiation protection standards and implementation are

> > inadequate, which I doubt, the solution is not to train more hp's, but

> > to make a case for improving the standards and implementation.  This

> > will generate real "demand."  If the demand is really there, students

> > will be lining up for hp programs, with or without scholarships; take a

> > look at your nearby medical and law schools.

> >

> > While I'm sure that this statement was written in good faith, I'm

> > dismayed over actions the HPS takes which seem to be a solution in

> > search of a problem, and which ultimately weaken our credibility.

> >

> > The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

> > It's not about dose, it's about trust.

> >

> > Bill Lipton

> > liptonw@dteenergy.com

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ************************************************************************

> > 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.