Re: 2nd Clarification on opinion request

[William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>]

I'm reluctant to question the ethics of a colleague, espcially with only
partial information.  Nevertheless, the calculation is clearly not
valid if it assumes shielding that isn't there.  Unfortunately, it's
not unusual to see reports which are "spun"  to justify a previous
decision.  Usually, the manipulation is more subtle than the case
you present.  I've seen unrealistic occupancy times or dose standards
that are no longer acceptable.  This is what peer review is all about.

Your question of lawyer jokes becoming hp jokes is interesting.  In a way, jokes about a profession are an indication of its power and importance.  In that sense, I'd like to hear some hp jokes!

The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com

"Archer, Joe" wrote:

My main reason for posting the TLD-shielding calculation scenario last
Friday was to speak to the issue of ethics. It looked like to me that a
person's calculation started with zero to prove zero. There are no health
issues here and the argument to move the TLD rack would only be to avoid a
self induced headache calculating TLD doses. What I was hoping Radsafers
could comment on is the issue of blatantly claiming 16 inches of shielding
that aren't there to defend your claim that there is no problem. I
personally have a problem with someone who sullies the HP profession by
falsifying a calculation. There is a well known joke where a person asks a
lawyer what a particular value is and the lawyer replies "What do you want
it to be?". I don't want HPs to become the brunt of that joke.

Thanx again
Joe