Re: Asking for opinions - follow-up

["Ron L. Kathren" <rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu>]

Well Sandy, .  .  .


> "How would you interpret a case where an HP
> approximates a mostly glass wall as a concrete wall for shielding
> calculations?".

I'd have to have more information on exactly what was done.  Leaded glass
can be a pretty effective shielding material, particularly for low energy
photons.  Unfilled concrete block as used in construction is a pretty poor
shielding material.   Would be nice to know the Pb equivalency of both
materials, and exactly what was done before passing judgement.


>I didn't respond to your question above. I'd say it's a leap of faith
>to approximate anything, when the simplest technique would be to make
>actual measurements using the TLDs.

Or better still, survey meters, which could pinpoint possible points of
streaming and give a real time value.

> I'd bet a NRRPT tech would have
>done better, and would have been more thorough.

Possibly, but I would be willing to take either side of that bet, providing
you let me pick the NRRPT registrant and the CHP!  Some of those NRRPT folks
are pretty doggone good and some are even CHPs, too.

>This sort of leads me
>back to the long thread on degrees, CHPs compared to good old hands-
>on-experience.

Unless the ABHP has changed its requirements, six years of experience
(operational) beyond the bachelors degree are required to sit for the CHP
exam; two years of experience can be offset by a PhD as I recall, so as a
minimum any CHP will have four years of operational experience.  There is
also the question of the relevancy of the experience; for example, although
I am a CHP (and proud to be one) I am by no means expert or qualified with
respect to nonionizing radiation safety, nor do I pretend to be (which is
accordance with Paragraph B2 of the Standards of Professional Responsibility
for CHPs published on page 244 of the Radiation Protection Professional's
Director and Handbook, 1998-1999) and there are a heck of lot of
non-certified HPs and NRRPT and non-NRRPT folks out there who can run circle
s around me in that area (and probably other areas as well).   But I think
your blanket statement more or less condemning CHPs is unfair and simply
more CHP bashing.  It could even be interpreted to mean that I would be a
better HP were I to not be certified or were I to turn in my degrees!
(Maybe my old alma mummies would like the latter to happen!).

But Sandy, your blanket statement does not fit the facts; according to Mr.
Archer, there were two CHPs invovled, and one of them apparently got it
right.  One out of two ain't bad, is it?  Even Ted Williams only had a
0.400+ season once (big grin here)!

To be serious again, there are insufficient facts available via RadSafe to
adequately evaluate the work of what Mr. Archer has referred to as ".  .  .
a management type CHP .  .  ."  and, as noted below, RadSafe is not the
appropriate venue to determine whether this "management type CHP" acted
appropriately and in accordance with  the Standards of Professional
ResponsibiliIty for CHPs.  Indeed, it is not even certain that what is
alleged was done by a CHP at all, or what a "management type CHP" is.
However,  fully accepting at face value Mr. Archer's allegation that a CHP
assumed 0.25 inches of window glass to be equivalent to 16 inches of
concrete certainly raises serious questions (in my mind at least) about the
competence and/or ethics of the CHP in question.  If Mr. Archer feels  or
can show that the "management type CHP" acted unprofessionally, or
incompetently or otherwise breached the Standards of Professional
Responsibility for CHPs, and can provide documentation to support his
allegation, then there is a remedy available to him.  He (or  anyone else
for that matter) can file a formal complaint with the President of the AAHP,
currently Herman Cember at Purdue University.   A  rigorous confidential
investigation of the allegation will be made, and if it is determined  that
there has in fact been a breach of the Standards of Professional
Responsibility, appropriate disciplinary action will be taken.  Speaking
from my own experience, there were three such complaints during my tenure as
President of the AAHP, one of resulted in disciplinary action.  One was
unfounded, and one complaint was withdrawn by the complainant when new
evidence was received by him that obviated the basis of the complaint.  I
will personally be pleased to assist Mr. Archer in pursuing this matter in
the proper venue, viz. the AAHP, and invite to respond to me by private
e-mail (rkathren@tricity.WSU.edu) or private telephone  call at
509-375-5643.

Finally, let's knock off the CHP bashing; not only is it unprofessional and
unfair, but ironically a bit hypocritical for many of those who bash CHPs
apprear to be the same folks who condemn the activists for their bashing of
the industry in which we work.   I invite any and all RadSafers to read the
Stanmdards of Professional Responsibility for CHPs, if any of you documented
evidence that these have been violated by a CHP, to write a formal letter to
Herman Cember (or, in 2000, Chuck Roessler).  But please, no witch hunts;
honest concerns supported by documentation will be fairly and thoroughly
investigated and evaluated and appropriate disciplinary action taken as
warranted.  I tried to achieve that on my watch, and I am sure that Herman
and Chuck will do no less.

Ron Kathren, CHP


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html