Re: HPS Objective

["David W. Lee" <lee_david_w@lanl.gov>]

	Speaking strictly for myself, I must say that I fully agree with Bernie's
comment.  The word "unnecessary" to me semantically implies that we, as
health physicists, should continue to chase after or otherwise mitigate
radiation exposures even after such exposures are found to be well below
the level of imparting any harmful biological effects.  Semantically, I
think the Society's objective, as presently worded, makes an illogical
value judgment/conclusion; namely, that if something is "unnecessary," it
must a priori be "bad" or "harmful."  I think that a more accurate wording
of the HPS's objective would be as follows:

		"The objective of the Society is the protection of people and the
environment from exposure to potentially harmful levels of radiation."


Example to induce further discussion.  One of the most egregious historical
examples, from a total radiation exposure standpoint, is the past use of
shoe store fluoroscopes.  While I think most HPs would agree that the use
of these devices provided no real "value-added" in terms of fitting shoes
better, most of us might also have acknowledge that use of these devices
did not really result in any biological harm to the feet of those who used
the devices.  The radiation exposure was admittedly "unnecessary," but who
amongst us wishes to argue that it was "harmful," and if so, if what way?

Best regards,  David




At 09:19 AM 07-08-97 -0500, you wrote:
>> 
>>         The objective of the Society is the protection of people and 
>> 	the environment from unnecessary exposure to radiation.
>
>	--Souldn't "unnecessary" be changed to "harmful", or "unnecessary
>and potentially harmful"?
>
>
>
David W. Lee
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Radiation Protection Services Group (ESH-12)
PO Box 1663, MS K483
Los Alamos, NM  87545
PH:   (505) 667-8085
FAX:  (505) 667-9726
lee_david_w@lanl.gov