Re: HPS Membership

[rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu (Ron L. Kathren)]

Certainly her health physics backgroud and affiliations are germane to her
position.  Also, and perhaps even more germane, might be her political
party, and whether or not she is a lawyer, which might make more sense for a
'top regulatory officer'.   Bill, methinks you protesteth too much, and have
read far too much into simple statements.  And, I cannot understand why you
apparently are at odds with the profession, but you clearly have an ax to
grind.  Thus one might question how 'impartial' your own observations are,
just as you have chosen to do with mine, for that is exactly what I did when
noting the lack of affiliation of the gentlemen at the VA.  I did not,
however, raise any questions, pointed or otherwise,about him, his
motivations, competence, or the merits of his allegations. 

Finally, re membership in scientific and professional organizations:  In our
free society, people can choose to affiliate or not as they choose, but when
most in a particular field affiliate, those who do not are the exceptions
rather than the rule.  

Ron Kathren (and at the risk of being tagged as elitist), CHP!

At 08:02 AM 8/1/97 -0500, Bill Pitchford wrote:
>I note with some interest that the 'top nuclear regulatory officer' Shirley
>Jackson, PhD notwithstanding, is neither a CHP nor a member of the HPS.
>
>What is the particular interest ?
>
>An interest in "Why" or an interest in "Who" ?
>
>I know several "professional HPs" with varying reasons for not belonging 
>to the HPS.
>
>I know a few "world class HPs" that have chosen not to pursue CHP.
>
>Are we attacking a "whistleblower" or is there some good logic behind the 
>previous "Notes of Interest" ?
>
>Just a set of impartial observations and a pointed question.
>
>Bill Pitchford
>Radiation Control Supervisor
>Arizona State University
>
>