Re: 86Rb bigger - and apparently inappropriate - issue

[Schoenhofer <schoenho@via.at>]

At 11:39 18.11.1996 -0600, you wrote:
>     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  
>
>===============================================================

Vincent,

You really dare a lot! I think that the original question was at least of
some scientific concern. I thought - and think - that there must be
something wrong with the education of persons, who are responsible for
radiation protection (shielding etc.). We have experienced recently on
radsafe students, who wanted to have their homework checked by radsafers.
The Rb-86 question was therefore a real challenge. 

I have raised some time ago the question of qualification of health physics
personnel, who ask fundamental questions on radsafe. I have been flamed in a
way which was really incredible. 

I am happy to read, that you raise similar questions. I am only astonished,
that there was no reply on radsafe. 

Thanks for your comment!

Franz
Schoenhofer
Habichergasse 31/7
A-1160 WIEN
AUSTRIA/EUROPE
Tel./Fax:	+43-1-4955308
Tel.:		+43-664-3380333
e-mail:		schoenho@via.at