Re: civil penalty for medical violation

[OFFTOWY@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/20/2000 11:04:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
csmarcus@ucla.edu writes:

<< The new Part 35, which was supposed to be an improvement over the previous 
mess, merely became a mechanism for the NRC staff to ram in all kinds of junk 
that they wanted to put in to INCREASE the nonsense, cost, and senseless 
busywork.  They also concocted a bizarre and vicious structure that de facto 
turns human error into about 3 "willful violations of safety requirements", 
setting up medical entities for a vicious onslaught of NRC propaganda.   >>
 AND MUCH MORE.

Well, that was refreshing.

While I do not share Carol's apparent enmity toward the NRC, I do think we 
have a professional obligation to address this problem.  It seems to me that 
allowing our attention ("our attention" to include that of both 
licensees/operators and regulators) to be diverted from safety to compliance 
with arbitrary rules without an outcry undermines our ethics and credibility. 
 Every dollar that is spent on meaningless forms and repetitive training is 
one not spent on protecting people from real hazards.  As a result, real 
people get hurt while we engage in navel-gazing.  The system will never be 
perfect, but I think we have gone way over the edge.

So, HPS, EFCOG, NRC, DOE, EPA, AMA, NUMARC, etc., any thoughts?

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