Re: Re[2]: Wipe Transportation Responses

[Jeff Eichorst <u112237@lanl.gov>]

Steve, 
What does this say for those that are trying to come up with intelligent
answers without having the necessary information to base them on?

At 02:51 PM 3/27/97 -0600, you wrote:
>     OK, I can't resist any longer! The original post on this subject said 
>     that someone was going to take smears in a lab where various 
>     radioactive material had been used in the past, and could the smears 
>     be transported in a private vehicle with no controls.
>     
>     As one who has done a fair amount of consulting for various clients, I 
>     would not answer a question asked this way (which is why I have not 
>     replied to the original post.) There was not nearly enough information 
>     given in the original post for ANYONE to give a real good answer. Any 
>     answer, based on this very limited information, could conceivably 
>     result in a violation of DOT regulations.
>     
>     Lets not flame people for trying to provide information (especially 
>     when it has all been technically accurate). As the saying goes "be 
>     careful what you ask, you might not like the answer you get." If you 
>     want real good intelligent answers to a question via RADSAFE, make 
>     sure that you provide enough information in your question!!!
>     
>     
>     Steven D. Rima, CHP
>     Manager, Health Physics & Industrial Hygiene
>     MACTEC-ERS
>     steven.rima@doegjpo.com
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
>Subject: Re: Wipe Transportation Responses
>Author:  CMMI012 RSO <rso.gscancer@worldnet.att.net> at Internet
>Date:    3/27/97 2:23 PM
>
>
>Julia Sober wrote:
>> 
>> Fellow Radsafers,
>> 
>> As a first-time RSO, I subscribed to this list in order to gather 
>> information that could affect my organization.  I also liked the 
>> idea that at any time I could ask a question and receive good,
>> usable information quickly.  That was the idea, anyway. 
>> 
>> What I have found for the most part is exactly what has been
>> commented on here today.  A sort of intellectual elitism that ends 
>> up bogging down the questioner in so many details that the
>> answers become useless.
>> 
>> I asked a question here several months ago about efficiency
>> determination.  I received one usable response and sparked an
>> esoteric theoretical debate which I ended up giving up on.  Since 
>> then I have hesitated to ask anything for fear of similar results. 
>> Please keep in mind that your audience is diverse in levels of
>> background and experience.  For some of us, this is the *only*
>> place to turn when we have a question.  If there *are* any other 
>> lists - perhaps one for the average "layperson", I would
>> appreciate a referral.
>> 
>> Please excuse the somewhat off-topic post, I guess I couldn't
>> keep quiet any longer.  For those of you who have been helpful, 
>> thank you.
>> 
>> Julia Sober, RSO
>> Northern Illinois University
>> DeKalb, IL 60115
>> (815) 753-1093
>> jsober@niu.eduDear Julia,
>I have just one simple comment - Good For You!! I am in complete 
>agreement that all too often people try to "show-off" what they have 
>learned (or think they have learned). Come back to reality folks, and 
>let's remember that we live in the real world, not some cyber-world 
>where people have nothing better to do. Take care all.
>Bob Dunn
>     
>     
>
>
Jeff Eichorst
LANL
jeichorst@lanl.gov