Dear All,
Having had the weekend to sleep and reflect on the excitement
of Friday 7th, and the issues it raised; I think I am able to find
(a little) comfort in “CLEA update BN3”, described below.
The SGV Task Force have been working within what was, at the
time of derivation, “best practice”. Implementation of CLEA02 (and
associated CLR series documents) will have facilitated the most significant and
thorough assessment of its application, far greater than could ever been
undertaken within the TF, prior to issue.
It is actually (whilst frustrating) quite impressive that
the Task Force had the strength of character to raise it’s hand and
acknowledge, that whilst it was best-practice then, it may not quite be the
best way to do it now. At the end of the day, (I assume as part of the JISC forum)
we are all scientists and are working towards what is most-likely, based on
experiences and hypotheses to date. When things occur to test our hypotheses we
are to adapt and modify, again to what is most-likely, and don’t ever
proclaim to be unequivocally “right”. We will leave that to
theologists and mathematicians.
We must take re-assurance in that the massive advances in
understanding and application since CLEA02 has caused the Task Force to
question its original hypotheses, identify and acknowledge its inadequacies and
then attempt to change them accordingly.
HHRA will always have uncertainty. Until we can feed a “representative”
range of human specimens soil until they die (as a result) and
monitor/guarantee the behaviour of a “representative” target group (note
intentional conflicting English), there will always be enormous FOS in the assessment.
Is this acceptable? – In the (very well timed) words of Paul Nathanial at
RESCUE-Cardiff last summer: “…you don’t design and build a
bridge to only-just stand up…”
It is simply essential that we (and the TF) continue to
learn, review and change where necessary. BN3 has acknowledged this process,
and whilst it feels frustrating that it is only 4-yrs since we last had to “learn
from scratch”, it is reassuring that progress and improvements are being
implemented so rapidly. ICRCL was known to be inadequate and was kicking about
for well-over a decade!!!
I am sure (hope?) that the suggestion to use foreign/historic
guidance again, will receive a resounding “No” from regulators/guidance
authors. Even within
Given the (relatively) large volume of JISC-chat on this
topic, I doubt if many of you will read this (and I don’t blame you). Better
get back to doing some work…
Take Care all,
(again) Good Luck!!
giles
Giles Sommerwill
Earth Science Partnership (
T: 029 20 813 385
F: 029 20 813 386
CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLAIMER NOTICE
This email and the attachments are
intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may be confidential and/or
privileged. If they come to you in error you must take no action based on them,
nor must you copy or disclose them or any part of their contents to any person
or organisation: please reply
to this email and highlight the error immediately and delete this email and its
attachments from your computer system.
We are aware that internet email is not a secure
confidential communication system and this should be borne in mind when
emailing us and when requesting information from us by email. We operate a
virus protection scheme but this email could still contain a virus and it is
your responsibility to check for and delete viruses. We do not accept legal
responsibility for the content of this message nor responsibility for any
change made to this message after the original sender sent it.
The content or opinions contained within this email are
solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of Earth
Science Partnership Ltd unless otherwise specifically stated.
No technical comment, suggestion or recommendation made
within this message can be relied upon by any party. If this email is in any
part to be relied upon for its technical content, please contact the office
using the details provided so that it can be formally issued using Earth
Science Partnership Ltd headed paper.
No contract can be construed from the content of this email
unless specifically stated.