|
Virtually every major event at a power reactor is reviewed by other power
reactors to determine whether they are vulnerable to a simlar event, and
corrective actions are taken, as appropriate. I don't see that happening
in the medical hp community. Informal information exchange is important,
but you should also have procedures that assure documented reviews of key
events.
I didn't intend to imply laxity, except for those who claim, "It's not my job.", or "I don't check the calculations, I just sign off on them!" In the power reactor industry, this would be considered an "opportunity for improvement." And, yes, "I'm here to help you." The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
Bill Lipton
julian ginniver wrote: Bill, I find that I can't agree with your suggestion that because event occur in the medical applications of radiation and radioactive material that these events are indicative of laxity on the part of our colleagues in this area. Within the nuclear industry there are ongoing efforts to highlight the lessons we can learn from the events that continue to occur. Does this indicate a lack of diligence on our part? We can only take heart from our obvious desire to improve and use formal and informal routes (such as Radsafe) to do what we can to highlight these events. What I would like to know is if, as you suggested, these events are not widely promulgated through the medical profession. As you so rightly pointed out we should endevour to make everyone aware of the lessons that can be learnt. Best Regards Julian Ginniver |