Re: Man Sentenced in radioactive Poisoning Case

[Robb Merkel <merkel@bnl.gov>]

You know, I have to thank you. That was exactly my point last week concerning
that issue and for some strange reason, alot of the folks did not view it that
way. I tip my hat to you.

Robb Merkel
Health Physics Dept.
Brookhaven National Laboratory
merkel@bnl.gov

"Jean-Francois, Stephane" wrote:

> I am browsing quickly throught RADSAFE and this  particular trend and really
> I don't understand what the institution could have done and why someone
> suggested to blame the licensee for that event.
>
> A man, let's say he is a registered user, steal I-125 (poor choice of
> biotechnology radioisotope, obvious lack of training in rad safety)and do
> whatever OUTSIDE the licensee premises. What can the licensee do ?  Install
> portal detector, strip search one person out of 3, randomly ?
>
> If the licensee provides proper locking policy to restrict access to
> UNAUTHORIZED user, you did your job. Due diligence yes,paranoia, no.
>
> Sorry If I bring this topic one week too late but if someone could privately
> send me what is the buzz about this topic, I would like to understand. When
> I see that, I always tell myself: I should have been a lawyer in the US...
>
> Stephane Jean-Francois, Eng., CHP
>
> Specialiste en radioprotection/Radiation Safety Specialist
> Gestion des risques/Risk Management
> Merck Frosst Canada & Co
> TEL: 514.428.8695
> FAX; 514.428.8541
> email: stephane_jeanfrancois@merck.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simmons, Charlie [mailto:CSimmons@kilstock.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 4:54 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: RE: Man Sentenced in radioactive Poisoning Case
>
> Regarding the level of culpability of a licensee for criminal misuse of
> licensed material: notwithstanding the discussion of whether regulatory
> sanctions could or should be imposed on the licensee under such
> circumstances, licensees should not lose sight of their potential exposure
> to civil tort liability, even where an intervening criminal act results in
> personal injury.
> The existence of a federally (or Agreement State) licensed activity and
> adherence to the terms of that license do not necessarily insulate the
> licensee from civil tort liability, even where an intervening unlawful act
> results in harm.  Forget about intervening criminal misuse of legal
> products, the manufacturer is on the hook if a jury can be convinced that
> the product is "ultra hazardous," or "inherently dangerous," the licensee
> "knew or should have known" that such misuse might occur, and the licensee
> did not take appropriate action to prevent such misuse.
>
> Not a pretty comparison to some, but this principle is operative in current
> municipalities suits versus firearms manufacturers.
>
> Charles Simmons
> csimmons@kilstock.com
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html