[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 367, Issue 1

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

Hi, Gary.  

 

I am glad you don't see rampant corruption, and I hope you never do.  I
am even willing to stipulate that in a small "market" like x-ray
inspection there may be enough oversight that it may not happen.  

 

Please note that be as blatant as bribes for the system to be
undermined.  Let's use your example of private contractors doing auto
exhaust inspections.  If the word gets out that cars that don't pass at
Clean Air Inspections do pass at Keep 'er Rolling Inspections, who do
you think will do the most inspections, and make the most money?  And if
the number of inspection shops keeps going up, and the resources of the
oversight agency keeps going down, how long before someone does their
own informal risk/benefit analysis and decides to fudge the rules in
order to make a little more money (especially if they don't think the
rules are that important to begin with)?  

 

As for "corporate corruption", I would submit that one form of this is a
lack of a safety culture within a corporation.  When decision makers
consistently give short term profit more weight than safety, the results
are often sub-optimal, even if they don't dominate the news for 100+
days.  

 

From: garyi at trinityphysics.com [mailto:garyi at trinityphysics.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:52 AM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu; Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 367, Issue 1

 

Mike, 

 

The private contractor thing has been a reality for quite a few years
now, and I see nothing to indicate rampant corruption. 

 

Your car is inspected annually by a private contractor, yes?  I wonder
how many times such a contractor could suffer being reported for
soliciting bribes, and still remain in business.  

 

I see it as a choice, a trade off, between the risk of arbitrary
regulatory abuse, and the risk of corporate corruption.  The corruption
risk seems pretty minor IMHO. 

 

-Gary Isenhower