[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

NCRP - How to improve it?



Dear Colleagues, The following letter appeared on page 5 of the Dec. 1996
HPS Newsletter.  The wording was changed slightly from my submitted version
but it retains the main points I wanted to make. It was followed by
comments from Ken Kase. I am putting my letter on the list servers with the
hope of getting more feedback. If you reply, your name will not be
associated with the report I hope to prepare from comments and suggestions
I receive. They will be summarized and sent to officers of the NCRP and
will be published in the HPS Newsletter.
        If you are interested in my 3 page draft article on "Radiation
Protection Quantities are Scientifically Unsatsifactory", let me know. I
can send it via e-mail or by US Post.
Happy Holidays! John

Dear Editor
 During my career and as an individual in the radiation protection community
I have had an opportunity to observe how the NCRP works. I have some
questions about how the NCRP operates and want to dialogue with others on
some topics related to NCRP. My concerns with the NCRP include the following:

1)  I believe the NCRP should evaluate radiation risks independent of the
ICRP.
2) NCRP should admit our ignorance of biology at low radiation doses
>and should denounce the no-threshold model of radiation risk.
3) I think the NCRP should be more open to communications from the general
scientific community and should allow contributed papers at its annual
meeting.
4) The NCRP should change its election process so as not to have a Council
with such uniformity of thought.
5) A significant number (e.g. ten percent) of operational health physicists
should be on the Council.
6) I don't understand why the NCRP is not consistent. Why does it say Q (WR)
can't be determined in 1990 and then say it's o.k. in 1993.
7) I think the NCRP should match its effort to the major source of
unnecessary radiation (i.e. pay more attention to medical exposures,
especially fluoroscopy.)
8) NCRP should initiate a newsletter for better communications and make it
available on the internet.
9) I don't understand why NCRP insists on a 97% approval of its members on a
report. I think 67% approval is sufficient.
10) I think it would be useful if the NCRP were evaluated on a regular basis
by an outside entity.
If you agree or disagree with my concerns let me know. Send your comments to
me at: John R. Cameron, 2678 SW 14th Drive, Gainesville, FL 32608, etc.
The results of this unscientific dialogue will be summarized and submitted to
the Newsletter."
John R. Cameron

END OF LETTER

 Just launched... a NEW WEB PAGE!
-> > Electronic Medical Physics World EMPW
        http://www.biostat.wisc.edu/medphys/empw/empw.html

Also, have a look at  Medical Physics Books and Journals Web Page:
http://www.biostat.wisc.edu/medphys/mpbj.html

John R. Cameron,  2678 SW 14th Drive, Gainesville, FL 32608-2050
 phone: 352/371-9865; fax 352/371-9866
e-mail (all year): jrcamero@facstaff.wisc.edu