RE: respiratory tract dose (HP vs. IH approach)[Scanned]

["Dr Christoph Hofmeyr" <chofmeyr@nnr.co.za>]

Jerry,

I think you are raising a sensitive but valid point: why can radiation safety not be an IH field of competence?  Is the field not too extensive and daunting for the average IH operative to master additionally?  I suspect it has something to do with vested interests, i.e. us kindred 'soles' including the 'heels' are defending our turf (supported by a LNT crutch).  I know I am risking putting my whole 'foot' into it, but I hope an interesting debate ensues.  I can understand how the historic development caused the division, but it is a valid question whether it is still justified.  There obviously is a vested interest in having radiation classed as uniquely dangerous.  Are we inflating RP artificially?  By contrast, in an international convention (under UN auspices) on the transport of hazardous goods, it would seem that the relevant requirements regarding radioactive materials have already been adequately integrated for very good practical reasons. Own thoughts.

Chris Hofmeyr

chofmeyr@nnr.co.za





-----Original Message-----

From: Jerry Cohen [mailto:jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET]

Sent: 14 May 2003 08:38

To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: respiratory tract dose (HP vs. IH approach)[Scanned]





    The recent discussions on this topic (both civil and nasty) point up to

what is, or at least was a basic fundamental difference in philosophies

between the Industrial Hygiene (IH) and Health Physics (HP) approach to

problem solving.. As a CIH, who has dabbled in health physics for several

years, I have observed that basically, the IH objective is to protect

workers health by applying professional judgment based on knowledge and

experience (avoiding  major expenditures to correct minor problems, and

above all recognizing that the dose makes the poison). On the other hand,

the basic HP objective is to assure that all operations are in compliance

with regulatory requirements (doses must never exceed specified limits,

whatever it takes). ALARA requirements are also thrown in for good measure.

    Of course, in recent years, with the advent of OSHA and similar laws,

the IH field seems to be degenerating to the same status HP is in. There are

even pressures to implement ALARA requirements to limit chemical exposures.

What's happening is almost enough to make you sick!

     BTW, in a recent radsafe posting, the question was asked, "What is so

special about radiation that that justifies the  need for an ICRP, NCRP,

UNSCEAR, NRC, and the plethora of regulations, and restrictive requirements?

The question is serious, but so far there has been  no serious reply.

Anyone care to take a stab at it? If there is a cogent reason, it would

really

be nice to know it. If not, we sure are wasting a lot of time, effort, and

money for nothing.



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

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/