Re: Industry Event

["Robert A. Jones" <raj6582@acs.tamu.edu>]

Ron L. Kathren wrote:
> 
> Al --
> 
> I wish I had your faith and the ability to make the abosolute statement
> that there was NO health effect.  But I do not.  And, just because there
> is no apparent adverse effect does not condone the situation or support
> unnecessary exposure.  All well and good that there was no apparent ill
> effect (thus far) in this instance.
> 
> My long time good friend and colleague, forgive my preaching, but I
> implore you not to lose sight of our obligations as health physicists and
> to recall that health physics is about protection -- prospectively where
> and when ever possible.  Whatever happened to ALARA?????????????????


That is, As Low As Reasonably Achievable, not As Low As Achievable.  
Besides, who can be the judge of an "unnecessary exposure," the HP, the 
employer, the mayor of the city?  Since Health Physics is about 
protection, that should mean protection from "dangerous" things.  If 
something has no ill effects, is it dangerous?  Can lifeguards stand 
constant vigil over a puddle (somebody COULD drown)?  Should HP's be 
worried over trivial exposures (other than finding concensus of what is 
trivial)?  Remember the forest through the trees, also that I am only 
posing questions, so no "NASTY-GRAMS" please.
-- 
*************************************************************************
Robert A. Jones
RAJ6582@ACS.TAMU.edu

"The Walls have ears and mouths" - Me

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