MIT, Quaker Oats Settle Radiation Lawsuit -Reply

[MATTHEW WILLIAMSON <williamson.m@nypa.gov>]

"...Standards of Conduct..."

I believe that the root of this issue, as well as the reparations made by
Hazel O'Leary for the DOE, should be the "informed" consent of the
subjects.  But the "radiation" seems to associate itself with the reasons
for the payout.

At our powerplant, we (radpro staff) encounter personnel entering the
plant who have recently engaged in some fashion of nuclear medicine. 
They set off the portal monitors on the way in and are shocked (not
literally shocked, but amazed, confused, or startled - we don't have
those types of portals).  During our interview, we find out they have
seen the Dr., but were unaware they had been given radioactive
material.  They probably signed a consent form with the word Thallium or
Technicium included.

Have these patients, today, been truely informed?  Has anything
changed?

I understand the difference between administration of radioactive
material for diagnostic or for research purposes.  I guess the research
project only allows for a payout; because there is no immediate
benefit/result to the subject as compared to a bone scan or stress test.


Matt Williamson
Indian Point Unit3
williamson.m@nypa.gov