Re: another intentional misuse

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@prodigy.net>]

Sandy,
    What should we say when the actual risk is trivial or non-existent?
This is a particular problem in cases regarding radioactive materials where
the level of perceived risk is high.  If it is a legitimate function of
regulators to require  highly restrictive controls in response to perceived
risks, than we would need regulations to control bogeymen, evil spirits,
witches (remember Salem), and any other entities toward which people have
genuine fears.                               jjcohen@prodigy.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Sandy Perle <sandyfl@earthlink.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: another intentional misuse


>Now that I've flown across the entire country, made it to my
>destination, even considering one of the legs was on a MD-80, I'll
>add a few more comments.
>
>(1) Many have jumped to conclusions regarding the topic raised by
>Bill. His points (made often, granted) are simple. If there is a
>recurring problem, then there should be an evaluation to identify the
>real root causes, and then determine appropriate countermeasures to
>mitigate them, within reason.
>
>(2) It's not the dose, it's the trust generated. This is the
>perception problem we have to deal with. If we're not trusted, then
>the public will react, and my point yesterday was, if there is enough
>public agitation, regulators and politicians will react. One only
>need look at WIPP, Yucca Mountain and other examples of this. In
>those areas, where is the risk, where is the dose, where are the
>problems. None, yet we still have no viable program in place.
>Granted, WIPP is operating, but how long did that take .. and how
>long will it remain a viable facility? We don't really know.
>
>(3) If the facilities don't take a proactive stance, someone else
>will. Doesn't matter if it's state, federal or local. Local and state
>can be more restrictive. We already see that in transportation of rad
>material.
>
>Am I over-reacting? Perhaps. Anyone out there remember the NRC over-
>reaction to multibadging when there was a higher head dose back in
>the late 70s, early 80s and the dosimeter wasn't relocated?
>
>we can sit back and say there is no risk, and do nothing. The outcome
>won't be pretty.
>
>Maybe I'll bring this up at my NCRP Committee Meeting tomorrow. A
>possible new subject matter :>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Sandy Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100
>Director, Technical Extension 2306
>ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division Fax:(714) 668-3149
>ICN Biomedicals, Inc. E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
>ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue  E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
>Costa Mesa, CA 92626
>
>Personal Website:  http://www.geocities.com/scperle
>ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.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