[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Bq soon
I say lets make the change and get on with our work.
The arguments against making the conversion are the same ones used
several years ago when the NRC first proposed making a change. I think
that we (NRC/US) should set a date for the change and get it over with
rather than trying to use both systems. For those performing
shipping/transportation of radioactive material the use of the SI units
is already a requirement for each shipment. I work with a logistics
group that performs shipments of radioactive material overseas and
domestic periodically. The persons performing the shipping are not
Health Physicists but rather certified hazardous packers. These persons
have no problem in making the conversions from uCi to Bq or TBq or from
uRem to uSv. They have learned to make the conversions because they
have to in order to make a shipment. If these people can correctly use
the SI units correctly then those of us who work in the field should be
able to as well.
James Reese
Sr. Health Physicist
ERS Solutions, Inc.
(916) 689-2680 office
(916) 689-6270 fax
(916) 402-3509 mobile
Visit our website: www.erssolutionsinc.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of Faillace, Ernie
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 6:43 AM
To: 'William V Lipton'; Michael G. Stabin
Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: RE: Bq soon
It seems to me that one could review the collective experience of other
nations in having undergone the switch years (decades?) ago from
"standard" to SI units. How many errors were incurred during that
transition period, say in Europe, for example? Of course, if the error
rate was reasonably low in Europe during the transition, one could
possibly still argue that the average European is much better (including
the non-PhDs) at converting units since he or she had been used to
multiple currency conversions for years until the advent of the Euro,
and would generally be better at arithmetic than the average American,
according to most surveys of math and science aptitude among students of
different countries.
As an Italian residing in the US, I have had no major problems with unit
conversions myself, easily going back and forth among both systems. I
tend to agree with Mike Stabin that the long term benefits are likely
greater than the short term "pain". One incident that comes to light is
a certain US space mission that failed (and was very costly) due to the
insistence by some engineers (including PhDs) on still using old
"British" units rather than SI units. Of course, the Brits have
abandoned such impractical units for quite some time now. The key is to
start in the schools at an early age, and begin the curriculum by first
introducing international units, followed by a conversion to the "old"
units so that children can communicate with their parents. Since
children nowadays frequently chat with international "pen" pals over the
internet, and these pals use SI units in their day to day live, such a
transition will be much less traumatic than you may imagine, especially
since children are quite flexible at an early age.
I imagine living in a military and economic superpower also has the
effect of reducing the pressure to change based on outside influences,
but I would imagine that most companies in the US would rather employ
consistent units for their global products, since standardization
results in economic savings and better communication of quantities to a
global audience. Certainly, the 2 liter bottle (and the 1 and 3 liter
bottles) are prime examples that such a switch is possible without
significant protests, especially among the young. Global companies such
as Pepsi and Coca-Cola can certainly see the value in standardization of
their products. Even though they still maintain some local flavor, I
imagine they would be in favor of a more uniform product and packaging
if they could have that choice. I can't see radiological unit
standardization as being significantly different (from a philosophical
perspective, anyway).
On the other hand, insistence on US units may result indirectly in
protectionism in the US for those companies that fear international
competition. If international companies (including those that market
rad instruments and nuclear medicine) have to go through the hassle of
converting to US units (e.g., for gauges or labels) to market their
products, they pay a penalty that makes them less competitive in the US
relative to domestic US companies.
Since, as a consumer, I feel that competition is healthy, this is
another good reason for moving towards consistent units. I have found
that in the US people tend to be more "bottom-line" oriented than people
in many other countries. So if a good cost-benefit analysis is done
that shows both long-term and short-term economic impacts (including the
impact of errors either way), then affected business groups will lobby
the applicable government agencies to either make the necessary changes
or maintain the status quo. The decision will likely hinge on whether
the companies doing such lobbying are almost entirely US-focused or if
they are true multinational or global companies, and how much money they
pour into the lobbying effort.
Once us "old farts" start to fade away, and the younger generations take
over, we'll likely see them questioning us why it took so long to switch
over. Again, you have to start somewhere logical to effect the
turnover, and the best targets are those who have not yet been set in
"our" ways. I would like to hear from our Canadian colleagues regarding
the example of the gasoline stations posted by Bill Lipton. During the
switch from British to SI units (gallons to liters), what kind of
resistance was encountered there? Did the schools have an early role in
making this transition more palatable to the population? Was a more
socialistic orientation of the Canadian (and
European) public, relative to a somewhat more individualistic US public,
to some degree responsible for getting the population in the proper
mindset?
__________________________
Ernesto Faillace, Eng.D, CHP
Nuclear Engineer/Health Physicist
TETRA TECH NUS, Inc.
900 Trail Ridge Drive
Aiken, SC 29803
Telephone: (803) 649-7963
FAX: (803) 642-8454
faillacee@ttnus.com
http://www.ttnus.com/
http://www.tetratech.com/
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY
This e-mail message and its attachments (if any) are intended solely for
the use of the addressees hereof. In addition, this message and the
attachments (if any) may contain information that is confidential,
privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are
not the intended recipient of this message, you are prohibited from
reading, disclosing, reproducing, distributing, disseminating or
otherwise using this transmission. Delivery of this message to any
person other than the intended recipient is not intended to waive any
right or privilege. If you have received this message in error, please
promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately delete this
message from your system.
-----Original Message-----
From: William V Lipton [mailto:liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:41 AM
To: Michael G. Stabin
Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Bq soon
I'd appreciate an answer to the question, "What is the cost involved in
not switching?" I'm not being sarcastic, but I can't think of any
significant
cost. If there were, we'd have switched by now. We seem to be able to
live
with a system where the academics use the metric system and the "real
world" uses English units.
I'm certainly not one to hide my light under a 35.2 liter basket, but
the problem is not the PhD's, it's the numerous other workers, eg.,
electricians, mechanics, construction workers, even health physics
technicians whom we have to help work safely.
I know that Shell gas stations in my area started selling gasoline in
liters, ca. 1982. This was NOT accepted by the public, and they soon
went back to gallons.
If it ain't broke, please don't try to fix it.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
"Michael G. Stabin" wrote:
> ...
>
> I return us to where our conversation started - what is the cost
> involved, human and monetary, in not switching between the unit
> systems and making more mistakes? ...
> OK, I'll throw it open to anyone on the list (Americans) - does anyone
> have trouble understanding how much volume is in a 2 liter bottle? How
> painful and impossible was that?
>
> 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
> Pager (615) 835-5153
> 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/
************************************************************************
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/
- References:
- RE: Bq soon
- From: "Faillace, Ernie" <FaillaceE@ttnus.com>