NCRP

["Les Slaback, Health Physics" <SLABACK@micf.nist.gov>]

While the NCRP is not a medical organization analgous to one made up of
only MDs (who only accept recommendations from other MDs - please excuse
a slight bias on my part), the manner in which the NCRP gives birth to a
recommending document is so conservative that one might accuse them (the
process) of being timid but you certainly cannot label their recommendations
as erroreous or ignorant.

First they form an expert working group, many if not most of whom have no
relationship with the NCRP.  The report of this group is then vetted thru
a NCRP committee as well as many 'corresponding' organizations.  Then after
formal responses to all comments the report must pass muster by all the
NCRP members. I may be in error but I think any one member can force changes.
So the process is one of insuring that all the appropriate expertise is
applied which in effect screens out anything that is the least outside of
accepted practice.

The above might not be totally accurate, only my perceptions of the process
over a few years.  Perhaps someone from the NCRP might correct any errors.
But the NCRP has served the radiation protection community well over many
decades, with little direct thanks, and I must admit that labeling their
recommendations as deficient simply because theNCRP is not composed
wholly of MDs ruffled my feathers a bit.

I hope this does not constitute an egregious #%$!^%$# response for this list.
Enjoy the holiday (at least for use fedworkers).

SLABACK@MICF.NIST.GOV  [NBSR Health Physics Group]
    ...a little risk, like a bit of spice, adds flavor to life