86Rb bigger - and apparently inappropriate - issue

[Vincent.King@DOEGJPO.COM (Vincent King)]

     I guess I wasn't the only one who immediately wondered about the 
     "bigger issue" associated with the original shielding question.  I'm 
     glad my e-mail wasn't working at the time: now all the flaming 
     responses are directed at someone else.
     
     First, there was nothing wrong with raising the original question, 
     nothing inappropriate about it, and no need to apologize for it.  I 
     fully agree that exchanging such information should be the purpose of 
     RADSAFE.
     
     But I'm surprised by the apparent lack of concern for the questioner, 
     and for others in her position, regarding regulatory and legal 
     liability, which was the whole point of the "bigger issue." 
     
     Is it just me?  Has no one else seen a trend by companies or 
     facilities (both small and large) to stretch profits during this time 
     of decreasing budgets by not spending the bucks for adequate 
     expertise?  How about putting someone in the RSO position without 
     adequate training or qualifications just because they have a degree in 
     "something close" to health physics? (And I'm NOT implying that the 
     questioner is unqualified for her position: she obviously knows enough 
     to use a contract HP when it's necessary.)  
     
     I think it is a disservice to the RSOs and HPs out there, who will be 
     held responsible when a litigation case is lost or when a regulator 
     shuts down their operations, not to raise the liability issue.  The 
     same company that will hold them responsible (i.e., that will fire 
     them) when things go wrong should also be providing them the tools to 
     properly perform their jobs. 
     
     There is no reason for a member of our profession, or any interested 
     individual, not to submit an appropriate question to RADSAFE.  
     However, I feel it would be irresponsible and unprofessional, not to 
     mention somewhat nerdy, to simply provide the technical responses to 
     any questions submitted without considering the nontechnical 
     ramifications, i.e., the "bigger issues."
     
     Should companies begin thinking of disclaimed responses from RADSAFE 
     as a cheap alternative to addressing their own regulatory compliance?  
     
     Put simply, while making every effort to be helpful and informative, 
     let's also be responsible.
     
     
     --------------------------------------------------------------
     As might be expected, these are my opinions and not those of my 
     employer.
     
     Vincent King
     vincent.king@doegjpo.com