In article <001c01bf933f$762c4a20$b1eb93c3@brianmoody>, Sue Walker
<[log in to unmask]> writes
> I was asked to see if there was any progress on the sending
> pathological samples saga and eventually tracked down a helpful
> person at Royal Mail, called Way Ling Lai (taken over
> responsibility from Mike Dando). She kindly explained the current
> situation and then faxed a summary (attached). The matter of
> exemptions/definitions is currently with a United Nations Committee
> (probably shouldn't hold your breath!) but the last paragraph of
> the fax, emboldened by me, is interesting. A chance here for a
> suitable group(s) to define our own criteria of risk etc? Neonatal
> screening samples (on filter paper), currently sent by post,
> presents one such opportunity? NEQAS samples etc is another?
>
> Sue Walker, Salisbury, UK
>
>
>
>[ A MIME application / msword part was included here. ]
>
Sue, please re-post this as a text-only document with no
attachments.
[Word documents (.doc) are capable of carrying viruses.]
Robin Marks
Halifax UK
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
/\____/\____/\____/\____/\____/\____/\____
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|