[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCYHOSPITALINMICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC
Dear colleagues,
To Be or not To Be!
For about 30 years I have worked implementing regulations on Radiation
Safety in Brazil. We have not in Brazil a enforcement system as in USA. I do
believe few countries may have such system. To give an idea let's take the
following IAEA's statement:
"The IAEA has found that more than 100 countries may have no minimum
infrastructure in place to properly control radiation sources. However, many
IAEA Member States - in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe - are making
progress through an IAEA project to strengthen their capabilities to control
and regulate radioactive sources. The IAEA is also concerned about the over
50 countries that are not IAEA Member States (there are 134), as they do not
benefit from IAEA assistance and are likely to have no regulatory
infrastructure."
Lack of human resources, material, budget make difficult for about 40% of
the IAEA's Member State to implement Basic Standards. If there is no control
how can we assure protection of worker, public and specially patients?
No country in the world opens the information as USA. Please, make a search
in the WebSite and try to find 1% (one per cent) of data similar than we
can find at the NRC site.
Our job is to optimize radiation-safety according with the rules - The
Standards for protection are similar for those 40% that didn't have
infrastructure or for the 60% of the rest, many of them a few better than
the 40% mentioned.
I am sorry, out of USA, my respect to NRC that impose protection to workers,
public and patient.
Jose Julio Rozental
joseroze@netvision.net.il
Israel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Dapra" <sjd@swcp.com>
To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 4:50 AM
> May 14
>
> Jerry Cohen wrote:
>
> "It seems to me that the comfort, warmth, and satisfaction of being near a
> dying loved one without the encumbrance of shielding might be well
worth
> an added 3-15 rem. In any case, why shouldn't the dose recipient [a
> daughter] be allowed to make an informed choice in the matter without NRC
> interference?"
>
> A good, hearty AMEN to that. It's a woman's right to choose, isn't it?
>
> Steven Dapra
> sjd@swcp.com
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
May 14
This whole boondoggle about the fine is insane.
If that daughter were pregnant and decided to hire an abortionist to kill
her child no one -- not even her own husband -- could stop her. If that
patient were at death's door he could be moved out of the hospital and the
daughter could retain one of Jack Kevorkian's kindred spirits to kill said
patient and the district attorney would probably sit on his hands.
But just let the daughter get exposed to a relatively small amount of
radioactivity that even the NRC would admit is harmless, and the regulators
go berserk.
To top it all off, Michael D. Kent suggests that the hospital have its
license revoked for a while, and, "Enough hospital's [sic] lose their
license, that would scare all the other hospitals to permanently get their
act together."
Do you really want to "scare" people?? Have we sunk so far that we are
proposing that bullying and intimidation be used to whip people into line?
This is but a shade of Stalinism. Is health physics supposed to help usher
in a police state?
Yes, someone needs to get his act together.
Steven Dapra
sjd@swcp.com
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/