I don't see how (necessarily) regulations and safety are mutually
exclusive. True, some regulations are not created in the direct interest
of safety, and some have only the most tenuous link to safety, but a
blanket statement that they're diametrically opposed misses the forest for
the trees.
In the article forwarded by Sandy, the fine was levied for failure to
follow administrative requirements, a REQUIREMENT for licensing, right? In
most States, insurance is required to drive an automobile, an
administrative requirement that does nothing to promote safety, but is
considered to be in the best interest of the "public good".
Poor radiation protection practices have caused our field enormous grief,
both public and private. The "fallout" (no pun intended) of incidents and
accidents is increased regulation and scrutiny. While the resulting
regulation is (usually) overly zealous, the INTENT of the regulation is to
correct a perceived shortcoming in the practices or situation(s) observed.
I cannot and will not support regulators that are more interested in the
letter of the law than in the intent, though frequently the intent is in
the letter. It's in understanding the intent that some people fail when
interpreting the regulations.
While there are many of us that would operate in a fully safe and
professional (not to mention happy!) manner without any regulation, how
many can say (privately and honestly) that their employers (past and
present) would be so enthusiastic about operating an excellent program?
The reality must be faced that without regulation, there would be increased
probability for egregious violations of basic radiation protection
precepts.
The above is my personal opinion, and in no way reflects the views of, or
has any bearing on my employer.
Brian Rees
brees@lanl.gov