[ RadSafe ] Re: Panel wants tighter radiation security
ALSTONCJ at gunet.georgetown.edu
Mon Oct 22 11:31:31 CDT 2007
"Equally effective" is surely the most appropriate conditional. These irradiators (Cs-137) are hugely low-maintenance. If we went to a nuclide with a shorter t1/2, then maintenance costs would go up. E.g., Co-60 sources would likely need replacement at least every five (5) years, I should think. If we all installed linacs, or some type of orthovoltage machines, then we would be talking about electronic *instruments*, instead of relatively passive electromechanical devices, and the costs of care and feeding would really go up. Long story short, if the Feds are going to ask us to do this, they should come up with a very long-term funding mechanism for it.
>> In my opinion, the risk of Graft v. Host Disease as a result of transfusing
>> unirradiated blood products far outweighs the risk of economic collapse
>> should several blocks of lower Manhattan be contaminated with Cs-137.
>> Unless an equally effective alternative technology is readily available to
>> replace these units, to propose their removal from service is reckless.
>> Clayton J. Bradt
>> Assistant Bureau Director
>> NYS Dept. of Health
CONFIDENTIAL: The information contained in this communication,
including its attachments may contain confidential information and
is intended only for the individual (s) or entity (ies) to whom it
is addressed . The information contained in this communication may
also be protected by legal privilege , federal law or other
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this
communication , you are hereby notified that any distribution,
dissemination or duplication of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please
immediately delete and destroy all copies of this message and
please immediately notify us of the error by separate communication
. Thank you.
More information about the RadSafe