DCHAS-L Archives, Apr 1, 2010 - Re: Abbreviations

DCHAS-L Discussion List Archive

Previous by Date

Subject: Chemical Safety headlines from Google

Date: Apr 1, 2010 11:33 UTC

Author: List Moderator <ecgrants**At_Symbol_Here**UVM.EDU>

Next by Date

Subject: Re: Abbreviations

Date: Apr 1, 2010 14:23 UTC

Author: Ralph Stuart <rstuart**At_Symbol_Here**UVM.EDU>

Subject context

Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 14:23:36 +0000
Reply-To: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: david.iacovone**At_Symbol_Here**ATT.NET
Subject: Re: Abbreviations
Comments: cc: Ben Ruekberg
In-Reply-To: <D2C0173A401647C3A8295DD111AC7303**At_Symbol_Here**bruekbergterm1>

I agree with Ben. As an emergency response/hazardous waste site& nbsp;oriented field chemist and as one who routinely functions as a trainer /instructor in the areas of hazardous waste site cleanup, hazardous materia ls response, and homeland security/domestic preparedness, we are bomba rded with a ton of abbreviations which have multiple meanings that could ha ve disastrous consequences. One of the abbrevations that is mistaken quite frequently is fp, which, depending upon the reference, could mean eit her flash point or freezing point. Some responders do not bother to look in the index or abbreviation section and generally assume fp to be flash point.

In fact, FEMA, when it comes to the Incident Command System (ICS), req uires the use of full terms when necessary and discourages abbreviations if possible understanding that abbreviations can have different meanings to t he many different agencies responding to incidents. For example, NRC could mean the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, National Response Center, or National Research Council. One of the major sticking points has been 10-codes. The problem with 10-codes is that they are not standardized and that can cause problems. An abbreviation section/addendum to any plan (incident action plan, safety plan, etc.) usually alleviates a lot of these problems, but misunderstandings still occur.

-------------- Original message from Ben Ruekberg <bruekb erg**At_Symbol_Here**CHM.URI.EDU>: --------------

I must agree about am biguity of abbreviations. Consider the nuclear industry (Health Physi cs) acronym "ALARA,=" which I have seen interpreted as =E2 =80=9CAs Low As Reasonably Achievable=" and "As Low As Readi ly Achievable.=" To me, there is a difference: "achiev ement=" may be difficult but extremely worthwhile. In this cas e, the difference could have serious consequences.

Ben

From: DCHAS-L Discussion List [mailto:DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of wdwatt**At_Symbol_Here**COMCAST.NET
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:3 4 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UV M.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHA S-L] Abbreviations

I think it is risky. There are to many definitions of the same abbreviation or acronym out there. When I teach my class on regulations, I tell them that LEPC means Local Emergency Planning& nbsp;Committee, but when I was in industry, it meant that or Local Employee Participation Committee, depending on to whom I was talking.

Dr. Bill
----- Original Message ---- -
From: "Mary Ellen A Scott" <mas35**At_Symbol_Here**CASE.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST. UVM.EDU
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 2:30:01 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mou ntain
Subject: [DCHAS-L] Abbreviations

To Everyone,

What is your opinion of allowing laboratories to use abbreviations and short hand as long as a key to those abbreviations is kept in a conspicuous location and is clearly identified?

Thoughts? and Thanks
Mary Ellen

Interactive Learning Paradigms, Incorporated

DCHAS-L Discussion List Archive

Previous by Date

Next by Date