[ RadSafe ] Re: [ RRadSafe ] Re: Radiation Hormesis Why regulator is always on the receiving end! The action of Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission I request your views

[Maury Siskel]

Most of us understand the multifaceted problem, but none of us 
(certainly including myself) seem able to identify a workable solution. 
The so-called system has been designed or has gradually formed to 
produce automated decisions in no uncertain terms. Legislative 
oversight, ombudsmen, and inspectors general were designed to avoid 
decisions not in the best interest of society.

The growth of litigation and other punishments have promoted regulatory 
avoidance of responsibility and increased dependence upon "the book". 
Judgment is becoming obsolete and is in fact a dangerous liability. The 
universal solution is to accomplish tasks by the book.  Whenever a 
solution is not in the book, then a solution is devised and added to the 
book. Some of this is epitomized by the zero defects concept -- an 
identity with zero judgment.

I'd appreciate reading any ideas for resolving these kinds of problems.
Best,
Maury&Dog  (Maury Siskel  maurysis at peoplepc.com)
========================

Kai Kaletsch wrote:

> K.S.Parthasarathy wrote: "I believe that CNSC's responsibility is to 
> enforce safety regulations....I feel that CNSC need not worry over 
> isotope shortage etc."
>
> This interpretation of the CNSC's mandate may be correct and I think 
> it is the root of the problem. You have agencies who's decisions have 
> a broad effect on the well being of humanity and the environment, but 
> they have to base their decisions on a very narrow mandate (and are 
> not required, or allowed, to consider the broader implications of 
> their rulings). Without any oversight, this can only lead to bad 
> decisions.
>
> In this case, Parliament provided the appropriate oversight. They also 
> did a pretty good job in achieving consensus and in not overly 
> politicizing the issue. (Maybe some unfortunate comments were made, 
> but nothing big...)
>
> We all know of instances where regulatory red tape has caused 
> significant damage, not just to the licensee, but to innocent third 
> parties or to the environment. But, since the consequences were less 
> severe than a worldwide medical isotope shortage, parliament did not, 
> does not, and should not, intervene. Every time elected officials get 
> involved with these types of issues you run the risk of things getting 
> politicized. Also, parliament has other things to do than to 
> micromanage agencies.
>
> So, in summary, we have a system that is designed to produce decisions 
> that are often not in the best interest of society. If the consequence 
> of these decisions is less severe than a worldwide medical isotope 
> shortage, these decisions never get corrected.
>
> To me, this is a less than ideal situation. I think a lot of the 
> regulator bashing that is going on is more of a frustration with this 
> system than an attack on the people. Most of the regulators I know are 
> pretty reasonable people.
>
> Maybe we need an 'Agency of Common Sense and Public Good', whose 
> mandate it is to make sure that the decisions agencies make are 
> consistent with the greater public good and that agency turf wars are 
> not fought on the backs of the public or the environment? Parliament 
> could then oversee that single agency and hold it accountable, rather 
> than all the current agencies.
>
> Regards,
> Kai
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "parthasarathy k s" 
> <ksparth at yahoo.co.uk>
> To: "Steven Dapra" <sjd at swcp.com>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 1:51 AM
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: [ RRadSafe ] Re: Radiation Hormesis Why 
> regulator is always on the receiving end! The action of Canadian 
> Nuclear Safety Commission I request your views
>
>
> Friends,
>
> I must confess at the very outset, I have some conflict of interest in 
> any discussion on the role and behavior of regulators.I was a 
> regulator for over 17 years in my earlier avatar and had defended the 
> role of my organization then and since then!.There is a general 
> tendency of regulator-bashing in the list (in all lists!!) and I do 
> not see the views of any one from the regulator's side in the list, I 
> thought that I must react:
>
> A few years ago when Dr Merril Eisenbud visited India, in a private 
> discussion, he told us about  the mushrooming of US Federal Acts 
> related to safety and environment. He traced the inspiration for 
> generating such legislation to books such the "Silent Spring".. He had 
> a nice graph showing the steep rise in laws with time.
>
> Yes I agree there should be some balance in framing laws, there is no 
> point in having a plethora of laws which cannot be enforced.
>
> Laws are made by legislators or by bodies empowered to do it.  They 
> collect inputs and feed back from all stakeholders. It may look very 
> tempting to say that the lawmakers do not do a good job! 

-------------------snipped----------------