Re: Commisioner Dicus' Speech

[Art Flores <aflores@bcm.tmc.edu>]

Wes, Jim's e-mail address: JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com
Jim, Wes' e-mail address: wdunn@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us

At 07:07 PM 4/16/97 -0500, you wrote:
>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
>> *********************************************************************
>
>