|
1. Perception is reality; just deal with it. This isn't going
to change. The health physics profession has gone to great lengths
to establish radiation as a uniquely dangerous hazard, which, by the way,
requires lots of health physicists to protect the public. We wrote
the regulations, through groups such as the NCRP and ICRP. It's too
late to say, "just kidding." I'm sure the "no serious consequences"
philosophy is what Brookhaven management invoked to delay installing monitoring
wells for the HFBR. Now, it's the former HFBR.
2. My experience is that organizations which tolerate sloppy practices in "small" things end up creating a culture which tolerates taking unacceptable risks. I'm not saying that failing to survey a package is on the same level as murder-1. However, if you don't investigate "small" mistakes, find the root cause, and take effective corrective actions, then, sooner or later, your organization will be making more serious ones. 3. Whomever said, "Accidents happen, go on," had it 1/2 right. It should be,"Accidents happen, find out why, make sure the same accident doesn't happen again, go on." The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
Bill Lipton
Jerry Cohen wrote: 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? |