[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: intentional misuse - proposed "cures"
Having read this thru to the end, as you requested, all I can say is that I am,
indeed, fortunate to work for an organization I don't have to apologize for.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
"Karam, Andrew" wrote:
> With all due respect to the opinions voiced regarding this latest incident,
> I think that some pertinent factors are being overlooked by some who
> probably lack direct experience in a university setting. I should also
> preface this by pointing out that I am NOT advocating relaxation of controls
> and I am NOT condoning what happened. I AM pointing out that there are some
> fundamental differences between research institutions and nuclear power
> plants and solutions that might work well at one do not necessarily
> translate to the other. I would also ask anyone considering responding to
> this to read it through to the end before doing so.
>
> 1. Universities conduct research, education, and development using grant
> dollars and some governmental support. To do so, universities are dependent
> on attracting high-quality researchers, professors, and students who, in
> turn, will attract grant money and contracts to do their research. These
> grants and contracts provide a very large fraction of the money universities
> use for their operations. Also, most researchers are "free agents" in that
> they are not obligated to remain anywhere - they choose a place to work
> based on its reputation, proximity to fellow researchers, physical
> facilities, ease of conducting their research, and other factors. Requiring
> psychological testing of researchers, grad students, and laboratory staff in
> order for them to do their research is a very good way to encourage them to
> go elsewhere. It is also an insult to the 99+% who are responsible users
> and it is not going to be free. Driving researchers and quality grad
> students away is one way to reduce radiological incidents, but not the
> recommended way. Would YOU want psychological testing (or drug or alcohol
> testing) required every time you renew your driver's license just because a
> small percentage of drivers are irresponsible?
>
> 2. Universities typically work with relatively small amounts of relatively
> innocuous nuclides. We are not talking about losing control of kilogram
> quantities of weapons-grade plutonium or even Ci quantities of mixed fission
> products. With a few exceptions, no lab on campus contains enough
> radioactive material to cause harm to anyone. The most dangerous piece of
> radiation-producing equipment we have on campus (with the exception of our
> Laboratory for Laser Energetics) is either an x-ray diffraction machine, an
> irradiator, or one of our radiation oncology accelerators. These are all
> more strictly controlled and, in any event, it's hard to surreptitiously
> sneak one out of the room to irradiate someone. Should we lock up all
> cleaning supplies on the off chance that your spouse might decide someday to
> pour Drano in your coffee?
>
> 3. Universities are not here to make a profit. Many researchers conduct
> long-term basic research into areas that may or may not prove commercially
> viable. If we choose to ratchet up our efforts to keep everyone under
> surveillance on a continual basis, we're going to have to pay for it
> somehow, and we can't just ratchet up the costs to our customers. Not to
> mention driving away the people we depend on to call ourselves a university.
>
> The root cause of the furor is not sloppy or ill-intentioned researchers,
> it's the public's fear of radiation and their fear of cancer. THAT is what
> is driving the regulations that dictate locking up every atom of
> radioactivity, but allowing drano to remain unrestricted. Basically, we
> have a problem with education and perception, not with security.
>
> As I have mentioned in previous postings to Radsafe, I do not consider these
> factors to be excuses to simply permit the sloppy or illegal use of nuclides
> on campus. Our priorities are simple: health and safety, regulatory
> compliance, and providing services to our medical and research staff. With
> the exceptions noted above, health and safety is not a serious issue, even
> under LNT. Regulatory compliance IS a serious issue, and it is one that we
> take very seriously, even in the absence of legitimate health and safety
> issues. Providing services is also a serious issue because the university
> exists for research, not for placating and coddling radiation safety and
> industrial hygiene staff. If we provide substandard service then the
> researchers simply go somewhere else.
>
> As has been mentioned numerous times on Radsafe, the vast majority of
> intentional misuse incidents are the result of authorized persons doing
> unauthorized things with radioactive substances. There is NO way to
> completely secure radioactive materials from such misuse without requiring
> that ALL radioactive materials be supervised by radiation safety monitors at
> all times just as there is no way to protect against a truly determined
> criminal in any other area. I would suggest that, given the low level of
> risk posed by misuse and the high cost (both dollars and lost researchers)
> of such draconian policies, this is not a feasible option.
>
> It is very easy to look at a university health physics program from the
> standpoint of commercial or naval nuclear power (and I have a fair amount of
> experience with the latter) and to say that some activities simply should
> not be allowed or should be controlled better. However, this knee-jerk
> response is, I believe, a great oversimplification that tends to reflect
> poorly on those who make it and on the targets of these ill-informed
> statements. Our job is radiation SAFETY, and I would be willing to bet that
> all authorized users at virtually every university are SAFE. I, and, I
> suspect, most other university RSOs and health physicists would appreciate a
> small degree of consideration for the very different conditions under which
> we do our jobs and the actual risks involved before we are called on the
> carpet by those of you who are unfamiliar with our place of work.
>
> Andrew Karam, CHP (716) 275-1473 (voice)
> Radiation Safety Officer (716) 275-3781 (office)
> University of Rochester (716) 256-0365 (fax)
> 601 Elmwood Ave. Box HPH Rochester, NY 14642
>
> Andrew_Karam@URMC.Rochester.edu
> http://Intranet.urmc.rochester.edu/RadiationSafety
> ************************************************************************
> 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