A LNT Experience - if the state/board requires it

[Paul lavely <lavelyp@UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU>]

Title: A LNT Experience - if the state/board requires it

J. Muckerheide wrote

> Wrong again.  Working from
>
> facts!
>
>
> The issue IS whether LNT is used to achieve ignorant results, like
>
> this
>
> "case-in-point."  I thought YOU  added the !!NOT!!
>
> to the subject above.

> That's the fact we're working
>
> from.

Could you at least address the text of my posting and not the "fact" that you feel is given in the title. That is, no the fact we should be working from is the action by the state of NM or board and not the "fact" in my posting title. More than a few of the posts on radsafe depart significantly from the subject construed from the title.

If there was no action by a board/advisory committee/the state/etc. there was no use of LNT to achieve ignorant results in NM. That is, what ignorant result? I have read the experience and I believe that it happened, but was this dentist required to do this by some agency or board? If the answer is yes, they required dentists to do this then I will agree 100% that it was done based on a misunderstanding and use of the LNT model. However, we are now theorizing as to a result (the requirement) for which we have no demonstrable evidence.

Can we at least determine if the state of NM or some board has actually placed this requirement? Or, is it better to assume they have or that they will if pushed by "present rad protectionist's".

For example, Peter Jenkins  wrote that "The State of California has asked that our dental school use at least E-speed film." No matter why or what the state may "ask" this is not a requirement. The posting by Ruth W. stated that this dentist was required to use high speed film - "The local Dental Board requires him to use fast film and not to use slower film. "

Paul lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>

--