Re: the health physics profession

[Dave Derenzo <dave@UIC.EDU>]

Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary offers this definition of 

profession:



"A vocation or occupation requiring advanced training in some liberal art 

or science, and usually involving mental rather than manual work, as 

teaching, engineering, writing, etc.; especially, medicine, law, or 

theology (formerly called the learned professions)."



I think that Webster's is one of the more highly accepted standard when it 

comes to definitions.



Dave Derenzo, RSO

University of Illinois at Chicago



At 08:01 AM 5/14/03, you wrote:

>Yes, there is some question, in my mind, whether health physics is a

>profession.  Radsafe is probably a good place to discuss this.

>

>To me, to be called a "profession," a line of work must meet 3 criteria:

>

>(1) It must be for the public good, i.e., organized crime is not a profession.

>I think we're ok, here; although, as you mentioned, I have some doubt 

>about the

>public good of spending megabucks saving people from femtodoses.

>

>(2) It must have an established body of knowledge and skills that must be

>mastered to be recognized as a member of the profession.  I'm not so sure,

>here.  You said that, "...how can you say that the health physics 

>profession has

>not established nor practices enforcement of any professional standards? 

>This is

>clearly an untenable position."  OK, you got me.  Where are these standards

>published?  How are they enforced?  Meaning nothing personal against the 

>person

>who started all of this, if his licensing document is accepted by the NRC, 

>they

>are essentially saying that anyone who calls himself a hp is recognized as 

>one.

>I hate to get the government even more involved in this, but maybe we need

>either formal licensing or at least, official recognition of some other

>standard.  For example, under RCRA, the design and construction of a 

>"Treatment

>Storage and Disposal Facility" must be approved by a Licensed Professional

>Engineer.

>

>3.  When a member of the profession makes a professional determination, it can

>only be credibly disputed by another recognized member of the profession.  For

>example, if you want to sue a physician for malpractice, you have to get the

>support of another physician.  Here, we fail miserably.  It seems that anyone

>who's ever been within a mile of a geiger counter is accepted as a hp.

>

>Is this "untenable?"

>

>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:

>

> > > On a more serious note, this issue illustrates a fundamental flaw in the

> > health

> > > physics "profession;" our failure to establish and enforce professional

> > > standards.

> >

> > Aside from the other negative comments directed towards other 

> listmembers in

> > this email, which I will not address again, this sentence baffles me. 

> First,

> > by the use of quotation marks, are you questioning the professionalism of

> > anyone who calls themselves a health physicist? And how can you say 

> that the

> > health physics profession has not established nor practices enforcement of

> > any professional standards? This is clearly an untenable position.

> >

> > I would argue that a more important fundamental personality flaw we 

> struggle

> > with is the tendency to scare those outside the profession about

> > femtosievert doses to justify making money by studying and controlling

> > trivial or nonexistent risks.

> >

> > 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/



************************************************************************

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/