Re: units

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>]

Mike Stabin stated:

> However, I hear this was done very quickly at a major national laboratory
> for a much more trivial problem - when Hazel O'Leary thought the use of pink
> and blue ID badges for different levels of security was sexist.  Procedures
> were reformulated, manuals were rewritten, new badges were issued, very
> quickly, job done.

In my opinion, based on 22 years at FPL, the revisions required if 
and when the units are changed, would be quite extensive. While Mike 
provides an example above, changing the units is a more significant 
change, and the number of procedures that would require modification 
would have a more severe impact on all nuclear utilities. As was 
pointed out previously, not only will procedures require revision, so 
will Tech Specs, FSAR etc. All one needs to do is talk to those 
responsible for changing a few plant procedures involving a simple 
change, such as relocation of the Radiation Controlled Access point, 
where dosimetry is picked up, or dropped off, or, if the individual 
is allowed to bring their dosimetry off-site. The amount of effort 
and cost is staggering. Multiply that by all of the reactor sites, 
and you're talking astronomical $$.
 
> I would argue that working with the current dual system of units is worse
> and more confusing.  This was seen many times during the Chernobyl incident,
> we had various people reporting results in SI and antediluvian units, and
> everyone was more confused.  In the medical arena, we have the inherent
> risks which have always been there with problems such as the confusion of
> prefixes (e.g. micro and milli), now we have factors of 3.7, 37 and others
> that can be misapplied when working quickly, often to the patient's
> detriment.

We in the USA, the majority of us, don't need to work the dual 
systems. Therefore, there really is no impact on 95% of us. Having 
attended many meetings around the world, including the most recent 
IRPA Central European Congress held in Budapest, there was no 
difficulty in converting between the two systems. Being able to 
comprehend the data is one thing .. changing all of the 
infrastructure to use the new systems is a totally different animal.

The bottom line that still must be answered, which I stated yesterday 
... What is the overall benefit gained? How much are we willing to 
spend to make this happen? What are the consequences if we don't 
change anything? I'd say the benefit is small, the cost is too great 
with no added dose reduction or dose prevention for the masses, and 
finally, there are no consequences if we change nothing. The fact 
that many countries have changed, some over 20 years ago makes my 
point. There are many who do use the SI units, and there are some who 
use the traditional units. We all read scientific texts, we all 
attend meetings, we all attending conferences overseas, and yet, we 
continue to operate one of the finest nuclear programs in the world. 
Yes, more training is needed to perfect our own programs here in the 
USA, but let's not make that task any more difficult by confusing the 
majority of workers who really don't care about units, but have 
formulated in their own minds what is acceptable, and what is not.

Sandy Perle
E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net 
Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205

"The object of opening the mind, as of opening 
the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
              - G. K. Chesterton -
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html