Re: respiratory tract dose - let's end the debate (simple as 1, 2, 3)

["NIXON, Grant (Kanata)" <GNIXON@MDS.Nordion.com>]

Dear all,



I can honestly tell that the people involved in the fray are capable of

great things when they put their minds to it. But I worry that we are doing

everybody a huge disservice by browbeating one another on this listserve.

The sooner we drop this particular line and tone in dialogue, the fewer

people will unsubscribe out of disgust.



In the meantime:



(1) Let's agree that Bill has raised some valid concerns regarding

competence and ethics issues that come into play when people are tasked with

domains beyond their particular sphere of expertise or experience. 



(2) Let's also agree that one cannot make a determination of an individual's

competence (nor should one be made) based on the academic credentials

affixed to their names (e.g., CHP, Ph.D., etc.), by their current function,

nor by their line of questioning on this listserve. 



(3) Finally, let's agree to be helpful if we decide to respond and to be

quiet if we choose not to be helpful - even for reasons that we may perceive

to be 'ethical'.





Grant



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

From: William V Lipton [mailto:liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM]

Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 11:47 AM

To: Todd Brautigam

Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: respiratory tract dose





You are taking my words out of context.  I was responding to the statement

that a facility with low level operations does not need a CHP.  I agree.

Nevertheless, an individual who is qualified for his normal job

responsibilities may occasionally be faced with tasks that are beyond his

competence.  That's what the code of ethics covers, and that is what

consultants are for.  That is NOT what Radsafe is for.



As I previously stated, it's important for a professional to recognize when

a task exceeds his area of competence and to obtain qualified help.  I do

NOT consider trolling Radsafe to be a good faith effort to obtain qualified

help.



I merely quoted the code of ethics.   I'll let the individuals involved be

the judge of whether they are following the code.



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Curies forever.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com



Todd Brautigam wrote:



> Bill,

>

> While your specific written words do not SAY he is unqualified, the

insinuation is definitely there.

>

> Specifically -

>

> "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."

>

> **AND**

>

> " 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."

>

> I took your response as questioning his qualifications and thinking he was

asking someone to do the calculations. In fact, he did not ask for that...

only for the materials (equations and constants) addressing his situation.

He even says that he wants to work out the problem himself. That statement

does NOT mean he is unqualified. If YOU can sit down and do everything that

YOUR job MAY require without referring to relevant documents or asking for

assistance, more power to you. Personally, I like to self-check no matter

how well I may know my duties... and that is something we should all do

religiously.

>

> Todd Brautigam

> (207) 882-4506

>

> "I was told to expect the

> unexpected, but the

> unexpected has exceeded

> my expectations."

>

> >>> William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM> 05/15/03 08:21AM >>>

> Your posting shows that you did not read my message.  In the future,

please do

> so before trying to respond.

>

> The contents of this email and any attachments are strictly

> confidential.  They may not be disclosed to someone who is not a named

> or authorized recipient.  They may also be subject to legal

> professional privilege and unauthorized disclosure, copying or use is

> prohibited.

>

> If you receive this e-mail in error please notify the sender by

> replying using the words Misdirected E-mail in the subject, and  then

> delete the message and any attachments from your system.

>

> Although this e-mail and any attachments have been scanned for

> viruses, the success of scanning products is not guaranteed. The

> recipient(s) should therefore carry out any checks that they believe

> to be appropriate in this respect.





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

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/