Re: Allegor - or - Expert

[Mike Grissom <mikeg@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>]

Bill,

Maybe we had too much cafeine today!?

Anyway, there is a considerable possibility
that inappropriate exposure of patients could
have occurred (I will not check out the DOL
pages since these types of investigations are
usually lengthy--and may not be going well
for the 'whistleblower' if press releases
are being used quoting people like Helen
C.!).  Nonetheless, the individual's background
is suspicious for several reasons.  Note
my comment to Andrew (at OSU) below:

>Andrew,
>
>Participation in at least one related society is an
>expectation for a Radiation Safety Officer at a
>major hospital facility, which most VAs are.
>
>It is possible that he is a member of one of the
>specialty pharmaceutical organizations, and he
>must have met the US NRC's requirements for training
>to be appointed an RSO on a medical license (10CFR35),
>but a lack of participation in key societies related
>to that function, to me, is a major red flag!
>Particularly when evaluating diagnostic radiography
>procedures (not generally taught in radiopharmacy
>curricula or internships!).
>
>Just a thought...

Radiopharmacists are generally excellent RSOs for the
materials license at a hospital fortunate enough to
have one.  Most VAs do not, and cannot afford to pay
for very strong professional HPs (good place for a
young HP to learn medical HP though, lots tends to go
on--and for somewhat older HPs for whom a VA is the
only radprotection option in a particular geographic
locale).  Most radiopharmacists don't have a clue (and I
have had a number of them as personal friends, and have
done some veterinary radiopharmacy myself!) about radio-
graphic diagnostic procedures and what is good or
not good.

That said, this guy could be perfectly competent.  However,
it isn't a guarantee even if he is the designated RSO on
the license!

Hopefully, this opinion doesn't "reek" too much! :^>

S.,

MikeG.


At 09:56 AM 8/1/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Data is lacking to judge whether or not the referenced exposures were 
>justifiable and necessary.
>
>However, it seems very likely that the license conditions or referenced 
>policy and procedure would create a regulatory requirement that human 
>research would have concurrence from radiation safety at least at the 
>committee level.
>
>The "expert" may have "overstated" the risks, but probably did not 
>wrongly "blow the whistle." And from a brief review of DOL whistleblower 
>documents on the web crossreferenced to "Raiszadeh" it appears that 
>circumstances tended to favor the "expert."
>
>Just another stinking opinion. (mine;))


Michael P. Grissom
Asst Dir (ES&H)
SLAC MS-84
Phone: (415) 926-2346
Fax:   (415) 926-3030
E-mail: mikeg@slac.stanford.edu