RE: Egypt detains four over radiation deaths

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>]

> I have to agree with Dr. R.E. Toohey of REAC/TS in Oak Ridge, when he stated
> at one of the PEP sessions he presented at the American Radiation Safety
> Conference and Exposition in Denver last week, that "we need to quit
> worrying (as a scientific global community) about whether or not the TEDE
> limit should be 5 or 3 or 2 rem, and start worrying about how we are going
> to prevent deaths due to the misuse of radioactive material." 

Michael,

You, and Dick, hit upon a key element. Much of what we do is 
based on mitigating potential litigation and not on the science or 
technological aspects. Dick focuses on the reality of how we 
minimize the "real" adverse affects of radiation, while others focus 
on how radiation is perceived by the general public. Dave Wiedes 
presented 3 PEP sessions on litigation related activities. I've heard 
Dave speak many times over the years, and facilitated Dave giving 
several lectures/workshops at a couple of Panasonic TLD 
Symposiums over the years. No matter what the potential for 
litigation, the facts demonstrate that litigation will occur regardless 
of the life-time accumulated dose received by the individual. 
According to Jerre Forbes (ANI), there is no correlation at all, 
regarding life-time accumulated dose received and whether or not 
an individual brings about litigation due to illness or death. None at 
all. So, one must ask what is the causal relationship between 
litigation being brought forth. I suggest that the reason an individual 
brings forth a lawsuit claiming injury from exposure to radiation is 
primarily due to the individual's perceived attitude as to how the 
individual "feels" they were treated by their employer and by the 
workplace. Statistics will show that in the nuclear industry as a 
whole, many have died, or become quite ill, and, are or have been 
occupational workers. Why aren't there more litigation cases being 
brought forward. In my opinion, it has to be based on how the 
individual feels they were treated. 

I believe that in this era of downsizing, and treating workers as 
numbers, and not as human beings, not considering these 
individuals as contributors to the success of a company, there will 
be more litigation cases filed. This is how an occupational worker, 
who feels they have been wronged, will fight back.

This is the future I see for our industry. And as Dick said, it doesn't 
matter what we consider a "safe" dose to be. The public, the 
occupational workers don't really care. The only people who seem 
to care of those individuals who make a career out of deciding 
between a few "very" small numbers, which in the end, are really 
meaningless in the larger scope of things that we need to be 
concerned about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/capecanaveral/1205
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