for the record

["Michael G. Stabin" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>]

> but I'm noticing that there are several folks on this list who seem to

think

> smearing every other rad health professional is the name of the

game--hence

> the reduction in participants

> --can anyone tell me what has happened (privately, if you don't mind)?

> I would think that respect and dignity among

> professional peers would be an expectation that isn't unreasonable), we

> really need to shape up and act the part, folks.



I absolutely agree that the quality and tenor of the list is the

responsibility of the participants, with some control by the moderator. We

all have a responsibility to act respectfully towards each other and

maintain a high level of dialogue. When this does not occur, I have the

option of commenting or imposing disciplinary measures. I choose not to

pounce on every negative comment that is made and frequently throw people

off the list, as I think that would stifle conversation. I permit a heated

comment here or there to go by (I have said some heated things myself at

times), and intervene if a thread continues in a strongly negative tone or

an off-topic rabbit trail. If you don't like the points of view of some

participants, there are delete buttons and email filtering mechanisms. It is

*not mandatory* that you read and appreciate every word put out on this

*free* list. Read what you want, ignore the rest. I do. Or get the digest

and just read what interests you.



Regarding the recent exchange, I think Ruth's comment was not meant to be

rude to Kurt, I thought she was just saying "this is not a huge safety

concern, why should we wring our hands about it?" (correct me if I'm wrong,

Ruth). The reply, accusing her of pomposity, was more of the kind that would

be considered by some for discipline, but which I decided to let go for the

moment.



> quite amused to watch us "radiation professionals" bicker like little

> children in a sandbox---splitting hairs over really stupid arguments that

in

> and of themselves often have no significant relevance to radiation

> protection whatsoever---



The threads about epidemiology and validity of LNT are the ones most often

criticized, but they are of course quite relevant to the current and

possible future practice of health physics, and their minutae are certainly

fair game for discussion. If this bores you, just *don't read it*. I'm not

going to tolerate people "smearing" each other or anyone else on the list.

Personal attacks will get my attention, and continuation after a private

warning WILL be cause for discipline. Hair splitting will be tolerated and

is even encouraged - who am I to say which particular piece of data may or

may not be crucial to advances in our understanding?



Mike





Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP

Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences

Vanderbilt University

1161 21st Avenue South

Nashville, TN 37232-2675

Phone (615) 343-0068

Fax   (615) 322-3764

e-mail     michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu

internet   www.doseinfo-radar.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 can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/