|
The argument can (and has) been made that highly restrictive policies on
handling of radioactive materials are needed to reflect the inordinately high
levels of public concern (fears) toward radioactivity. On the other hand, I
wonder if the restrictive regulations might not cause these
concerns. Isn't it logical to assume that such extreme caution
would not be required if the stuff were not so dangerous?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:16
PM
Subject: Re: hospital contamination
incident
In a message dated 01/08/2003 10:55:51 AM Pacific Standard
Time, liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM
writes:
I must repectfully disagree. The purpose of regulation is
NOT to punish consequences but to prevent them. "Forgetting
procedures" is definitely an accident precursor and cannot be tolerated.
Your argument is the same as saying that the police should not issue a
ticket to a motorist who runs a Stop sign or a red light, as long as there's
no accident.
Now, I must respectfully
disagree. The potential consequence of running a red light is death to
the cross-traffic driver - that's pretty serious. The potential
consequence/risk of harm from moderate levels of contamination on a package of
radioactive material emanating from a facility licensed for the use of common
nuclear medicine isotopes is so small it cannot even be validly computed, if
it exists at all. The two situations are apples and oranges. I
believe performance-based/risk-informed enforcement is a step in the right
direction, and, believe me, I'm not paid to say that. It's a regulatory
philosophy that has been sorely needed, and long in
coming.
Barbara
|