Re: radiation biology

["David Scherer" <scherer@mirlink.wustl.edu>]

After looking over my previous posting on this subject I believe the tone did
not reflect the point I wanted to make.  I did not mean to disparage radiation
biology or its importance to health physics.  All of the radiation sciences
(physical and natural) are important parts of the HP "core" knowledge.  (As
others have pointed out, administrative skills have also become part of the
core.)  My intended point was that there is little room for professional
judgement in operational HP.  This is the flip side of Melissa's comparison
between the regulatory risks of pCi tritium vs. real risks of fluoroscopy and
activation products.  The nastygram has to go to the tritium user, her correct
judgement of minimal risk not withstanding.
Dave Scherer
scherer@mirlink.wustl.edu