Re: Cobalt-60 incident raises concerns over Thai nuclear project

[Kerembaev@cs.com]

In a message dated 2/23/00 10:02:03 Pacific Standard Time, 
sandyfl@earthlink.net writes:

> This is another attempt to treat a "willful act" in the same manner 
>  of regulatory control. However in this case, it's the regulators 
>  being attacked. The truth is, no regulatory agency can be held liable 
>  for an entity who willfully violates a regulation, or, what is 
>  considered unethical or immoral by society standards. This case, 
>  disposing of highly radioactive material in a public parking lot and 
>  in a scrap shop will be evaluated. There will be additional 
>  monitoring provided at main entry points into the country. 

Yep, it would be the same to accuse a police department/department of motor 
vehicles of somebody stealing a car and injuring or killing with it. 
But there is no car fear but the rad fear. So somebody should be blamed for 
the cause, 
it is not an "effective" news to blame the "irresponsible" thief's.
But there are could be a case when the agency must be responsible.

>Can we in 
>  the USA be assured that the same type of incident doesn't occur here? 
>  I don't think anyone can guarantee that this couldn't happen. In 
>  fact, these incidents have happened, haven't they?
>  -------

For a some reason, I thought, somebody should asked that question :-)
1. You are right, nobody can assure that in the right state of mind, unless 
for the political reasons to cool down the public fears. More of that you 
probably have heard during your long career of a few "classified" cases, that 
US sources (more industrial radiography than medical) were/are/will be 
getting lost and stolen. Why?
Beside other reasons, there are the certain regulatory loop holes. For 
example, the actual case of the company going to "wild" bankruptcy and there 
is nobody responsible to provide the (Co-60 decayed to 20-50 curies) sources 
proper storage security and terminate the license. In these cases the 
regulatory agencies is responsible to keep track of the sources but do not 
have a "regular and well set up" mechanism nor money to know about the 
bankruptcy with the timely manner, to provide security, to dispose or to find 
a new home for the sources. Normally, the disposal of Co-60 sources is very 
costly for the agency's budget. But if it would be something like AmBe 
sources.....
You know what has happened with LANL's AmBe recovery program.
In that particular case, there were no rad. burns but only bunch of scary 
cops, scrap shop/yard owners, local residents and very excited local TV 
crews. Even the sources DU housings have been tried (!!!) to be opened. For a 
some reason again, I haven't heard anything about "irresponsible" thiefs.
For the certain reasons the agencies keep low profiles, beside assuring the 
frightened people of no public health risks (LNT-???). And actually, using 
understandable to public and more appropriate for the situation language of 
the Threshold Theory. I haven't seen yet, cases when using LNT language will 
do the "cool down" job but make already very scary people, more emotionally 
distressed.

The Thai's case could be the sort of "wild" bankruptcy Co-60 hospital case.
If it is the case, than the agency should be accounted for the lack of proper 
source tracking mechanism beside the regular "routine" for papers 
looking/papers making inspections.

2. The difference between US and the third world, the US people are not so 
financially desperate and because of that people are not stealing everything 
what is "shiny."


3. The thiefs and scrap metal shops/yards personnel in the US, generally, 
more "educated" of the fear of radiation/nuclear equipment.

4. Many (shouldn't be all-?) of the US scrap yards have  installed 
scintillation detectors.

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