Re: Intentional Use of Radionuclides for Harm

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Amen, Richard!  WE are the (only) source of the public's distrust - because we
require "perfection" for trivia that can't be achieved - we're human. But we act
to respond to trivial concerns that only "prove" that the risks are not trivial.
WE expend massive resources for trivial effects (like your doctor putting you in
ICU for a cold).  We'd question that - at least if it came out of our own
pockets!

The anti's couldn't successfully feed the public fear about trivial doses - if
they couldn't quote ICRP/NCRP/EPA/NRC/DOE etc. etc.  IF EPA/DOE/NRC were not
producing extreme standards for D&D and waste disposal, for their own 'profit,'
etc.

I'd only add to your statement that the unfounded fear expressed by radiation
workers is the direct result of being less than adequately trained/informed
about radiation and its hazards by the responsible parties - We the rad
protectionists, the 'trainers'. They are victims of OUR failures.

Thanks Richard.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
muckerheide@mediaone.net
===================

"Richard, Mack L" wrote:

> Sandy, Bill, & Radsafers:
>
> I'm not disputing the fact that the NRC made a big deal of the MIT incident
> (NUREG-1535 proves that they did).  I'm not disputing that the NRC holds
> licensees responsible for the actions of their employees - that is a given
> as well.  I'm simply saying that I feel  the NRC's actions were
> inappropriate for the level of harm associated with the MIT incident.
>
> Let's put that incident in another context.  Let's say the toxic agent was
> sulfuric acid rather than radioactivity.  Let's also assume that the amount
> used was such that no harm was expected.  Would a regulatory agency (OSHA?)
> publish a report similar to NUREG-1535?  Would the news media have seen this
> as a "breaking" story?  Would all facilities where sulfuric acid is used or
> stored have been subjected to increased scrutiny about the security
> requirements for sulfuric acid?  Would the FBI become involved in a criminal
> investigation?  Would the victims have suffered psychological trauma to the
> same degree?  Would the victim's attorneys considered litigation?
>
> Of course, we don't know the answers to these questions.  But I'd be willing
> to bet that the response of the regulators, media, victims, and the general
> public would have been less dramatic.  My point is that radiation and
> radioactive materials have a "mystique" associated with them, a mystique
> that both regulators and licensees promote when we overreact to incidents
> such as this.  It all goes back to the fact that we (licensees and
> regulators) need to educate the public.  As long as we continue to speak out
> of both sides of our mouth (i.e., radiation in small quantites isn't very
> hazardous, but we're are going to regulate the heck out of it anyway), we
> will continue to see these types of incidents.  The public can't agree on
> gun control, but it appears that the consensus is that we'd better lock up
> every microcurie of radioactivity - go figure.
>
> Regardless of responses to this post, I'll refrain from getting on my
> soapbox anymore - I've got to go see if all 375 of our radionuclide
> laboratories are locked up.
>
> Mack L. Richard, M.S., C.H.P.
> Radiation Safety Officer - IUPUI/Indiana Univ. Med. Cntr.
> Phone #: (317) 274-0330   Fax #: (317) 274-2332
> E-Mail Address:  mrichar@iupui.edu
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html