IGR shouldn't have left the source behind in the first place, but yes beyond that mistake they seem to have done everything they could to get the source secured. They were only penalised for a peripheral issue, the dilapidated state of the building. Presumably the theory is they should not have left the source in a building in that condition, which contributed to the thieves being able to take it.
"Meanwhile, the ownership of the clinic's assets was being discussed in court, and the cobalt 60 teletherapy unit was moved to the new facilities and the cesium 137 teletherapy unit was abandoned in its original place due to being seized."
Sounds like the root cause was stupid bureaucrats, but that must of course not be admitted in public.
Right, but that equipment should have been moved to the new facility before the old site was handed over to it’s new owners. If they’d done that the equipment couldn’t have been seized.
In the linked article, IGR and a lawyer both claim that only CNEM could authorise the move.
And the "handover" to the new owners was very acrimonious, with the new and old owners fighting in court. What seems clear is that IGR lost access to the location and filed several complaints about the machine being left there.
If IGR was securing the machine and trying to get it moved before they were thrown out of the location and prevented from visiting it as they claim, I don't think they're to blame at all. Of course details are fuzzy on that.
---
EDIT: According to this court sentence [1], IGR never notified CNEM:
> Then, under pressure to leave the site, the IGR transferred its headquarters to another address, and ended up abandoning the obsolete Cesium-137 pump in the old building, without even notifying the CNEN or the State Health Secretariat of the fact.
> On 05/04/87, the demolition of the building began, by order of the former partner of IGR, AMAURILLO MONTEIRO DE OLIVEIRA, culminating with the almost total destruction of the original building, which left it without a roof, doors or windows, despite the existence of the aforementioned Cesium-137 pump on the site, without any warnings or notices.
---
EDIT2: According again to the court sentence, the demolition was ordered by former partner of IGR, who had to pay 100k for the whole ordeal.
> On 05/04/87, the demolition of the building began, by order of the former partner of IGR, AMAURILLO MONTEIRO DE OLIVEIRA, culminating with the almost total destruction of the original building, which left it without a roof, doors or windows, despite the existence of the aforementioned Cesium-137 bomb on the site, without any warnings or notices.
Not at the behest of The People? What a weird court.
But more importantly, "to seize" means to "take possession", doesn't it? And you need a license to possess a teletherapy machine, for the very good reason that the damn thing is dangerous. IGR had a license. The bureaucrats didn't. Neither did the new site owner, landlord, whatever you want to call them. They still took possession, by force.
Property rights are a set of rules. Nuclear safety regulations are a set of rules. These are not the same kind of rules, though. Not understanding the difference kills people. The court didn't understand the difference.
In this case, the dispute appears to have been a civil one between parties contesting control over the property: the former clinic operator and the landlord/owners of the property, the St. Vincent de Paul Society. The people had no advocate at that proceeding, and the court and authorities were unpersuaded by IGR and Carlos Figueiredo Bezerril.
Courts are normally given all but total immunity in all jurisdictions. I'd argue that the court and SVdP were criminally negligent here.
(I'm just reading these details now through the Wikipedia article. I'm interested in a more complete report, because quite clearly things were fouled up quite badly.)
