Re: Joint Commission Report - public health risks

["Wesley M. Dunn" <WDUNN@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us>]

I would certainly encourage anyone to read the NAS/IOM report 
"Radiation in Medicine".  However, I would also point out that while 
the rhetoric is impressive, the background material and the 
conclusions bear very little correlation other than "doctors don't 
like being regulated."  You might also evaluate their conclusions 
against the charge of the committee (e.g., what they did vs what 
they were paid to do).  

I would say my largest disappointment was not really a surprise.  The 
regulated community has demonstrated very little understanding of the 
regulated environment they are in.  While complaining and whining 
(such as the IOM report) feels good, it rarely serves much useful 
purpose.  There are many much more productive methods to "fixing" the 
regulatory environment.  It takes some effort, but the results can be 
rewarding.  In particular, I've noted very little action on the part 
of the HPS or the HPS chapters in the radiation rulemaking process.  
Most RSO's are also rarely heard from.  You do have a voice, but only 
if you use it effectively.

Wes 

> Date sent:      Wed, 29 Jan 97 00:54:45 -0600
> Send reply to:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> From:           Ccja@aol.com
> To:             Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject:        Re: Joint Commission Report - public health risks

> A similar report has been issued on the use of "Radiation in Medicine", which
> is its title. It is a product of the Committee for Review and Evaluation of
> the Medical Use Program of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which was of
> the National Research Council.
> You can get it from the Natl Academy Press @ (800)624-6242, the ISBN is
> 0-309-05386-2.
> 
> Please note that this is, in part, a U.S. NRC contract report. They really
> did pay to have some of the best people in the country (we're talking, e.g.,
> Gooden, Hendee, Villforth, Zaret), subject them a truely critical
> examination. Their recommendations are not less than radical; they include
> the suggestion that 10CFR35 should be abolished.
> 
> I highly recommend this book, to you, if you're an RSO, an HP with medical
> physics' responsibilities, or any HP who has an overarching interest in this
> subject.
> 
> Chris Alston
> ccja@aol.com
> 
*********************************************************************
Wesley M. Dunn, CHP                        512-834-6688
Deputy Director, Licensing                 512-834-6690 (fax)
(Texas) Bureau of Radiation Control        wdunn@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us
*********************************************************************