[ RadSafe ] Trustworthiness and Reliability requirements, was: Open HP Position at Harvard

[Clayton J Bradt]

No, this is a requirement for any materials licensees who are licensed to
possess "quantities of concern".  But you are correct in recognizing the
origin of these requirements which were essentially taken over from power
plant regulations.  It was the commission's response to congressional panic
over the prospect of terrorists making dirty bombs.  The regulations must
be effective because we haven't had any dirty bomb attacks, have we?  Of
course there has never been a dirty bomb attack anywhere, ever - before or
since.  (Reminds me of the joke about elephant repellent.)

Clayton J. Bradt
Principal Radiophysicist
Laboratory for Inorganic & Nuclear Chemistry
NYS Dept. of Health
518-474-1993

"Brent Rogers" <brent.rogers at optusnet.com.au> wrote on 07/14/2010 04:13:26
AM:

> "Brent Rogers" <brent.rogers at optusnet.com.au>
> 07/14/2010 04:14 AM
>
> To
>
> "'Clayton J Bradt'" <CJB01 at health.state.ny.us>,
> <joseph_ring at harvard.edu>, <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
>
> cc
>
> Subject
>
> RE: [ RadSafe ] Trustworthiness and Reliability requirements, was:
> Open HP Position at Harvard
>
> Could it be the case that some employers are applying 10 CRF 26 (Fitness
for
> duty) standards, even though they were only meant for nuclear reactors,
> critical mass users, etc?
>
> Brent Rogers
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.