Meter Reading Training

[SloGlo]

If I wrote down there would be no reading # 4 because it is out of calibration would I get it wrong? Hey Slogo check your phone calculator because it is hard to get a 96.1 when each question would be worth 5 points if there are 20 questions, unless you got a partial credit from Marty V.

roflmao!!! oh, yeah, like i ever got dat kinda credit!  i usta git credit fer alla aw sheeters.  butt, stownsend, tanks fer pointing dat out to me, i didn't count da kweshuns, probably cause everbuddy was yakking about how hard it was wit thyme allowed.  i saw da "1 0f 51, 2 if 51" etc when eye started it, so figured der wuz 51, not twenty.  so iffen yer 20 is valid den i gots me a 90%.  btw, wan eye listed alla stuff i ain't enountered in a long time, did aye mention tests?  my bad, yer da man, karma onta ya.

[raymcginnis]

Since the photos are taken at an angle from the instrument, not dead on, it is not clear,

and having the pics taken at an angle reinforces the concept that the tech needs to take meter parallax into consideration......-JPM!

What parallax considerations teach you is that you should read the meter dead on, just like the calibration person did, else you may write down an inaccurate number.  When you are talking about the difference between 1.9 and 1.8, that may make a difference.  I have to go with metermaid on that point.  They should make the test photos dead on, just like the calibration techs are taught to read.  They probably needed the angle to get all of the knobs into the photograph, though.  The only answer for that is to use computer graphics for the test.  That way everything is crystal clear.

All that said, if everyone who takes the test misses the same example the same way, including the old techs, hopefully that would be noticed by the test givers.  I have been to places where there were bad questions and when I pointed it out to the proctor, everyone was given credit for it.  Hopefully that has not changed.

....propheshunawl....

SloGlo,

I had my head in the computer books when I should have been watching the Simpsons.  I still have not figured that word out.  I've been praying for Google to add SloGlo to their translator page 

[SloGlo]

SloGlo,

I had my head in the computer books when I should have been watching the Simpsons.  I still have not figured that word out.  I've been praying for Google to add SloGlo to their translator page 

propheshunawl;

pro.... pro;  phesh.... fess;  un....ion;  awl...al

butt now it looks like something descrbing a persun who knoes about altered atoms, duzzant it?  knot dat der's ennyting rong wit dat.

[Tech A]

Well I already said it once HP Techs are stupid! You will not make more money while you are willing to work for that wage 22 hour there at columbia. You and eveyone else here complaining about techs that can not pass the meter test but you are there working next to them. Demand more money than the losers that cant pass the test and dont work for 22 hour! just say no or shut up! you guys are no better than they are when you work for peanuts!

Sounds like your at Columbia if you know the wages there.  Just get in the drywell and quit stirring the pot.

[LaFeet]

Can't we all just get along   (thats a quote aint it)

My Goodness...... lookie at what we are doing... we seem to all be saying the same thing.......  (SloGlo ness)   iffen youz canna reed da meter....then donna applyfor da job

[metermaid]

Can't we all just get along   (thats a quote aint it)?

Many of these forum posts have turned into emotional debates that eventually lead off to a different subject?  This one has not.  Everyone has put their opinion in on this one with good composure.  I think that this is a great subject because of that fact.  That is why I joined in.  There is not as much dissention as you perceive.  There is actually an intelligent discussion going on about a sensitive subject and people's opinions vary on it.  I like the fact that the nuclear community can come to a website like this and express their opinion about a subject as sensitive as this and say what they think.

[illegalsmile]

propheshunawl;

pro.... pro;  phesh.... fess;  un....ion;  awl...al

I think he's talkin' about somebody who gets paid to do something.
He's a lot easier to understand if you're drinking.

[UncaBuffalo]

  When you are talking about the difference between 1.9 and 1.8, that may make a difference. 

Actually, I do not see any difference between 1.9 & 1.8...these things are only calibrated within 20%, so I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over 5%...sorry...

The times I would probably worry about it is if I am close to a limit for a posting change...5 mR/hr, 100mr/hr, 1R/hr...  (...then I'll always round off high to be conservative...)

...I might also think about it if I was taking this test!     

[gammaman30]

  Sounds like your at Columbia if you know the wages there.  Just get in the drywell and quit stirring the pot.

You are right im here with all the losers! But next time I will be working for The Rock! for 45 and 100 +benefits .
also whats up with the - karma???
And HydroDave we do need more Gammas!!!
And anybody knows who has Bartlett Euchre Record??

[RAD-GHOST]

DILLIGAF, I told you things were extremely ugly out here!

I must admit, I am astonished that a utility would develop and administer such a test.  After all, once the Technician fails, the utility has to create a way to circumvent the results!  Normally they keep testing the Technicians until they pass, or offer some form of administrative over ride!  In any case I wouldn't sweat it, this test is probably already in trash can.

RG

[gammaman30]

Your command of the English language is just astounding.

Let me guess. You are 1 of these HP Tech's? 

[grantime]

I must admit, I am astonished that a utility would develop and administer such a test. 

I would bet that HP group  didn't do it because they wanted to.   All those Condition reports that get written up  during outages have to be answered.  And if they are repeated events then the more attention they get.  At some point upper management steps in and declares that we will not have any more of that sort of event.  Needless to say the actions items that come out don't always seem reasonable to the one affected by them. 

[hamsamich]

ha ha, radghost, you da man.  most of the people on here talk about what "OUGHT to be" like it is actually happening (approaching smugness).  you just try to get the post back to reality instead of tooting your own horn about other "horrible technicians who don't know how to read a meter, oh my god."  nice. yeah, I can't believe all the other technicians can't read a meter and I am so great at it, blah blah blah without knowing exactly what was tested and under what circumstances.  karma to you if I could give it.

[Tech A]

Taken the test twice once as susquehanna and  once at Whoops.  So I know the circumstances.  I also know the type of techs who failed it.  They didnt ask to convert anything.  At Whoops it was a Ludlum, R02, and a teletector.  Thats it  cpm, mr/hr, and R/hr.  A lot better lighting than in a cavity, no plastic covering the meter and no sweat going down your faceshield just simple see it and read it.  A  22 dollar tech should be able to pass the test.

[hamsamich]

well, i won't be passing any judgements until I take it myself and learn that everyone else who took it, took it at the same difficulty level.

[OldHP]

My Goodness...... lookie at what we are doing... we seem to all be saying the same thing.......  (SloGlo ness)   iffen youz canna reed da meter....then donna applyfor da job
[/quote]

I've been reading this thread since it began, with wonder.  How can anyone say they can do the job if they can't use the "tools of the trade".  When I was on the plant side of the business I used a "test" that didn't focus on theory, but on practical ability.  From a practical standpoint I really don't care if "tech A" can calculate the proper amount of shielding to reduce the dose rate by a factor of X.  That is not the function of the field tech, that is the function of the Staff HP or RE.  I do care if "tech A" can  can produce the needed data "AQARA" (and maybe 15 sec looking at a video image is not "AQARA"), and I do prefer rounding up.
Kudos to Bartlett for trying to meet an imediate need when it appears "the test in question" was faulted in that it required (for the correct answer) interpolation on a linear and/or log scale.
For those of you that have the opportunity to work with LaFeet, take him up on his offer.  If you want to learn the basics, he'll teach you - If you want to learn the theory behind the basics, he'll educate you - sorry no college credits!

[RAD-GHOST]

I agree with OldHP, I normally round up. 

After all, the degree of accuracy usually brings an equivalent degree of scrutiny!

Have A Great One, RG!

[Tech A]

Im not saying the same thing as everyone else.  Im not giving kudos to Bartlett for keeping the same veteran techs who cant read a meter. Im not faulting the techs who fail the test, Im faulting the company that keeps hiring these techs.  I think its an injustice to the rest of the techs that Bartlett keeps on hiring the "breathable" techs who cant pass a simple test.   If someone said before the test at whoops there are going to be 10 senior techs with over 10 years experience that are going to fail it most everyone would of guessed 8 of the techs that would of failed it before the test was taken.   Im sure the test is part of the "great" Bartlett evaluation.  But we know how important those evals are to the recruiters trying to fill spots.   Do ya think the recruiters really care?

[Industry_event]

Here is some simple meter reading training.

If everything is reading 4.5-5 mrem/hr you are probably on the BATT scale.

If background seems to be zero wherever you go you are probably on the OFF scale.

Just pay attention to the scales and you will be alright

[RADBASTARD]

Oh my God, All these people who failed this and are 10+yr seniors and  defend their actions,Is like saying they arn't the smartest person in a room full of people with down syndrome. Sorry im not PC on this.

They should be knocked down to the lowest pay scale of a janitor.No offense to janitor's.

How do these people still get job's and then complain that their on the 1st layoff,because their such good techs.

Also all the people who thank bartlett for this test can stop sucking up now!
They might be the one's who failed the test.If you know how to use a meter there is no reason to thank anyone.

These are the tools of your trade come on,Hello MCFLY ANYBODY HOME!

Im sure this will get deleted,but I hope not.

[OldHP]

Here is some simple meter reading training.

If everything is reading 4.5-5 mrem/hr you are probably on the BATT scale.

If background seems to be zero wherever you go you are probably on the OFF scale.

Just pay attention to the scales and you will be alright

Just maybe some have a problem with multiplying by 1, 2, 5, or 10?

[Marlin]

I'm a little disheartened by the title of this thread. I thought that fundamentally a Rad Tech evaluated radiological hazard and the meter was a tool like a hammer or saw to do this. As the goal of a carpenter is to build a house a Rad Tech evaluates and communicates radiological hazard, knowing your tools is what you learn as an apprentice. I know I'm stepping on toes but I have heard jrs told by their supposed seniors that they should just take a smear where ever they took a dose rate reading and that was all there was to it. I have found that a good technician is one who is conscientious. As a contractor with no formal training available, for the most part, I have seen many very good deconners become very good seniors because they put an effort into learning their trade and I have seen those deconners who have just done their time ( a control point makes a lousy base of experience).

"That's just my opinion I could be wrong" DM

Marlin

[gammaman30]

Oh my God, All these people who failed this and are 10+yr seniors and  defend their actions,Is like saying their the smartest person in a room full of people with down syndrome. Sorry im not PC on this.

They should be knocked down to the lowest pay scale of a janitor.No offense to janitor's.

How do these people still get job's and then complain that their on the 1st layoff,because their such good techs.

Also all the people who thank bartlett for this test can stop sucking up now!
They might be the one's who failed the test.If you know how to use a meter there is no reason to thank anyone.

These are the tools of your trade come on,Hello MCFLY ANYBODY HOME!

Im sure this will get deleted,but I hope not.

So you want to give them a raise? The janitor make more than the HP Techs here at columbia!

[LaFeet]

Oh my God, All these people who failed this and are 10+yr seniors and  defend their actions,Is like saying their the smartest person in a room full of people with down syndrome. Sorry im not PC on this.

They should be knocked down to the lowest pay scale of a janitor.No offense to janitor's.

How do these people still get job's and then complain that their on the 1st layoff,because their such good techs.

Also all the people who thank bartlett for this test can stop sucking up now!
They might be the one's who failed the test.If you know how to use a meter there is no reason to thank anyone.

These are the tools of your trade come on,Hello MCFLY ANYBODY HOME!

Im sure this will get deleted,but I hope not.

I have to agree with you ROMO.... I hope I can count myself as one of the ones you can trust to read (and act correctly to) a meter.

[hamsamich]

I think testing is good, but all I am saying is I don't know what this particular test is and if it is fair or not, therefore i won't be throwing any stones until I see it for myself.  It seems quite a few people are getting on here and doing that without seeing the test for themselves. And for marlin's post, there are going to be bad technicians in ANY field, that's just a given, although I wish this weren't the case.  The training/testing is supposed to weed these people out. For an interesting perspective on this (licensing/gatekeeping in general), see February issue of scientific american - page 28 "license to work".  Among interesting points:

-The Supreme Court gave the states the power to license in 1889.
-Today there are 800 occupations that require a license in one or more states, but only 50 occupations are licensed in ALL states.
-A study done from 1960 to 1987 found that increased licensing restrictions by state dentistry boards did NOT lead to improved dental care, but it did boost income for dentists.
-California has the highest percentage of lic. prof. at 30% while mississippi lic. only 6% of workers.
-historical statistics in general point to licensing being effective as a tool and not usually a gatekeeper (inhibiting job entry unfairly), this is good!

see the article for other interesting points and graphs.