Re: Commisioner Dicus' Speech

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Hi Wes,

Just simple facts. Needs no "analysis". Because, whether you agree with IOM or 
not, at the informal communication level we know that NRC has taken serious
actions against medicine licensees, and in initiating costly regulations,
since the IOM report, with some explicit acknowledgement of "response to IOM". 
Dicus essentially says it in her speech :-) 

I didn't say anything, and it's irrelevant, about whether IOM "exceeded its
charter". Maybe it would be better if I say: "IOM exceeded it's charter, so
NRC is sticking it to medicine"?  :-) 

I could say it "nicer". I'm fascinated at how often the facts are secondary to 
sufficient whitewash (eyewash :-) of what's going on. 

You don't like the characterization because you want to stick it medicine
since they are "not appropriately appreciative of regulation and compliance",
so you'ld rather characterize NRC's actions in a more positive light. It
doesn't change the actions. It's even virtually irrelevant of whether some
modicum of a beneficial action is to be gained. Since the "risks" are
virtually non-existent as measured by patients, no 

While there's more "regulatory compliance work" to be gained, there isn't any
meaningful benefit to the patient or the public. The regulatory mindset of
handling inert plumbing and the luxury of shutting everything down at great
public cost is being applied to actions that respond to real people, often
without the luxury of the pretense of "regulatory certainty" the NRC pretends
to achieve in licensing and trying to regulate radiographers and power plants. 
 

And it will only continue to further drive out nuclear medicine and its public 
health benefits. That's just simple reality of the mission of radiophobia and
"protection" that is generally destroying nuclear technology contributions
(killing the goose). But at least the grave-digging is well paid (if you can
stand it). 

Regards, Jim

> Jim, 
> 
> Other than expected misguided character assasination, what's your 
> point?  An explanation of your understanding of Commissioner Dicus' 
> viewpoint on regulating medicine and how it pertains to the IOM 
> report might be useful.  But please add some facts and analysis.  An 
> explanation of why the IOM totally ignored the charge of their 
> contract from NRC would be very enlightening.
> 
> Wes
> 
> 
> > Date sent:      Wed, 16 Apr 97 10:45:13 -0500
> > Send reply to:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> > From:           JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com
> > To:             Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> > Subject:        Re: Commisioner Dicus' Speech
> 
> > Will her office tell you that "the point" is to stick it to medicine in
> > retaliation for the IOM report? 
> > 
> > Would you expect your representative to tell you that the "point" of a
> > particular vote that stuck it to you was to sell it for some other more
> > important vote (or bigger cash contribution :-) 
> > 
> > The entire Washington "industry" operates on "wondering" about "the point" of
> > many things that you would never expect to get a straight answer for from the
> > principals :-)  Why not among the most knowledgeable on radsafe?  :-) 
> > 
> > Regards, Jim Muckerheide
> > jmuckerheide@delphi.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
> *********************************************************************