[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Radioisotope Efficiencies
Bill -
While I agree completely with your basic sentiment, using the terms
"dumb", "lazy", and "clueless" amounts to a personal attack, especially
when a specific poster is singled out as the target. I think that we as
professionals need to be firm with people who may have misconceptions
about how lists like this should be properly used, but there is no need
to be derogatory. I would hope that people whose understanding is weaker
can come here and get guidance to the correct practice of the field, and
not walk away with the impression that any off-target comment will be
met with derision. This kills a lot of the effectiveness of the list.
The list can be just for a few elite HPs who "know everything" and want
to occasionally compare notes, or it can be a place to get good opinions
from many HPs (which I agree need to be taken as that - opinions),
guidance as to where good information and training can be obtained (for
the more AND less experienced), debate of issues (from ALL
perspectives), and for other uses. The latter is clearly the way to go.
Mike
(speaking both as member and moderator)
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
-----Original Message-----
From: William V Lipton [mailto:liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 6:27 AM
To: Joel Baumbaugh
Cc: radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
Subject: Re: Radioisotope Efficiencies
I read your disclaimers with some amusement. The fact that you feel
they're necessary illustrates two fundamental problems with RADSAFE:
(1) It is sometimes considered a lazy person's research tool. (2) It's
sometimes used by the clueless to do things that are way outside their
qualifications. (I remember one posting which went something like:
"I've never shipped radioactive material before. What label should I
put on the package?")
While RADSAFE is good for discussions and is good for leads to reference
materials, it should NEVER be used in place of legitimate research, and
should NEVER substitute for needed qualifications. Any references
received on RADSAFE should be independently confirmed through a
legitimate source. If someone's too dumb or too lazy to do this, the
person who supplies the information should not be held accountable, even
if its wrong. To cite an analogy, it's often a great idea to visit "Web
MD" or a similar site if you have questions about a medical condition.
However, it should not take the place of seeing a physician if you have
reason to believe you have something that may need treatment. (Except,
perhaps, for those RADSAFER's who are physicians. Even then, it may be
a good idea to see someone else.)
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Joel Baumbaugh wrote:
Jim is correct in his question.
As I thought I briefly mentioned in my original email/post, these were
MY efficiencies under somewhat ideal conditions.
The type (size and composition) of vial, the manufacture/type and amount
of scintillation fluid (in the vial(s)), counting times, color/chemical
quenching, background and how you deal with background
(refrigeration/background subtract), how long its been since your PM
service (you don't want any dust on the PMT tube faces), what your
counting windows are set at/for, what formula you use for MDA/LLD, etc.,
etc., etc. ALL these parameters (and some I haven't thought of while
writing this) make a difference on what efficiency YOU and YOU're
machine will get/arrive at with the various/sundry radioisotopes I
listed.
Just like they say in the advertisements... "your results may vary"....
I was just giving you an example of what YOU should expect on YOUR
machine if everything (your prep and the machine) are in top working
order.
Please don't nail me to a cross here - I was just trying to be helpful.
There are people on RADSAFE who are MUCH more knowledgeable about LSC's
than I am.
I don't think that you'll be able to find this information in the
literature (either in a library or on-line) anywhere else.. Take it
(and use it as a benchmark/reference) or leave it...
...Joel Baumbaugh (baumbaug@nosc.mil)
SSC-SD...
At 09:53 AM 2/18/2004 -0500, JDNUKE52@aol.com wrote:
I have one question what was the LCS window settings and what liquid
scint cocktail use this is very important when establishing LCS
efficiencies.
Thankyou
Jim Dykes COH
************************************************************************
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/