[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/