[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: respiratory tract dose
Many thanx for your support. With a license application, it's time for
"Masterpiece Theater," not "The Amateur Hour."
On a more serious note, this issue illustrates a fundamental flaw in the health
physics "profession;" our failure to establish and enforce professional
standards.
At the risk of over-repetition, let me try my illustration one more time.
Let's say I'm seriously injured in an accident and taken to a hospital. As
they're taking me to the OR, I ask the surgeon, "BTW, What medical school did
you attend?" He says, "I never went to medical school, but I've hung out at the
OR for 10 years, I try hard, and I'm a born leader." In that scenario, I think
I'd try to crawl out of there! Yet, somehow, it's ok for an amateur hp to
prepare a licensing document which impacts the safety of the facility and the
public.
Further, I don't buy the argument that they don't have funds for a consultant.
I'm sure they have money for the research that requires the license. The
license is as important for the research as anything else. It's just that they
won't spend the money on safety if they can get away with it.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
High Plains Drifter wrote:
> Bill, having worked on the regulatory side and a professional HP, I agree
> with your position and tact. I have said as much to several licensee's,
> when I found their RSO/RPM less than adequately qualified. As others can
> validate, I have several times required that a licensee get a qualified
> consultant to over see the RSO/RPM/radiation protection program, until the
> RSO/RPM was up to speed. There are many times that I have heard licensing
> personnel complain about the quality of license applications, and the
> problem was normally RSO qualifications.
>
> Dean Chaney, CHP
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William V Lipton" <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>
> To: "Thomas J Vandermey" <vandermeyt@DTEENERGY.COM>
> Cc: "Kevin Creed" <creed@humboldt.edu>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>; "Luke
> George" <tlg2@humboldt.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 12:24 PM
> Subject: Re: respiratory tract dose
>
> > "...pompous, sanctimonious, arrogant, and condescending..." Is that the
> best you can do!
> >
> > BTW, I assume that you've provided this person with the needed
> information, and have taken
> > responsibility for his facility's licensing basis. Please share your work
> with all of us.
> >
> > The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
> > It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> > Curies forever.
> >
> > Bill Lipton
> > liptonw@dteenergy.com
> >
> > Thomas J Vandermey wrote:
> >
> > > Radsafers, is this a pompous, sanctimonious, arrogant, and condescending
> response? Or is
> > > it just one radsafer trying to help another by pointing out his
> inadequacies? You be the
> > > judge. Thanks, Bill, for your usual tact and goodwill. Gosh, I hope I
> didn't spell
> > > anything wrong!
> > >
> > > William V Lipton wrote:
> > >
> > > > At the risk of seeming more a "heel" than a "kind sole" [sic], it
> seems that you
> > > > should be hiring a qualified consultant for this, and in support of
> all those RSO
> > > > responsibilities that are beyond your qualifications.
> > > >
> > > > If you are a member of the Health Physics Society, I point out that
> the HPS code of
> > > > ethics includes the statement, "Each member shall be a judge of
> his/her competence and
> > > > will not undertake any assignment beyond his/her abilities." I assume
> that the AIHA
> > > > has a similar code of ethics.
> > > >
> > > > If I were faced with an IH issue, I would consult the CIH whom we have
> on staff. I
> > > > would caution any "kind sole" who is considering responding to this,
> that it's one
> > > > thing having a general discussion or steering a qualified person to an
> overlooked
> > > > reference. It's quite another to be performing calculations for a
> licensing document
> > > > that the NRC will be using to determine whether this facility and its
> personnel can
> > > > safely handle the requested radioactive materials.
> > > >
> > > > The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
> > > > It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> > > > Curies forever.
> > > >
> > > > Bill Lipton
> > > > liptonw@dteenergy.com
> > > >
> > > > Kevin Creed wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Help, I'm new to Radsafe and an IH. I am also the RSO and must
> work out a
> > > > > dose estimation for a license amendment. The hypothetical scenario
> is
> > > > > inhalation of 3.75 microcuries of Scandium 46 (1120.5 KeV) adsorbed
> onto
> > > > > airborne smoke particles. I have checked out Cember's Intro to
> Health
> > > > > Physics (1st ed.) and read Chapter 11, Internal Rad' Protection.
> The book
> > > > > refers to ICRP's two compartment lung model for a similar problem
> but does
> > > > > not supply the equation(s). I have put in interlibrary loan
> requests for
> > > > > the specific Health Physics issues which address this but I don't
> know if I
> > > > > will receive them in time.
> > > > > Would one of you kind soles please provide me with the
> necessary equations
> > > > > and any constants which I may need? I would like to work out the
> problem
> > > > > myself to further my rad' knowledge. My e-mail
> > > > > is: creed@humboldt.edu, fax (707) 826-5703, phone (707)
> 826-3356.
> > > > > Thank you in advance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kevin Creed
> > > > > R. Kevin Creed
> > > > > Director/RSO
> > > > > Environmental Health & Safety
> > > > > Humboldt State University
> > > > >
> > > > >
************************************************************************
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/