[ RadSafe ] Re: I131 patient during intercontinental flight

McClung, Danny danny.k.mcclung at va.gov
Wed Feb 11 09:30:48 CST 2009

I tend to agree with you. But in this case, the ethics have been
somewhat pre-determined by NRC when they allowed for immediate release
of patients containing upwards of 220 mCi of I-131: not a significant
hazard in most educated minds, but still offensive to some. 

By the way, what happens if you internalize "skunk juice"? Is there a
target organ? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Clayton J Bradt [mailto:cjb01 at health.state.ny.us] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:12 AM
To: McClung, Danny
Cc: Clayton J Bradt; mlevita at tasmc.health.gov.il; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: I131 patient during intercontinental flight

I agree.  The salient difference between skunk scent and I-131 in this
example is that the former is immediately detected by the public, who
by an aversion respone.  If they could smell I-131 they would respond
same way.  Both skunk scent and I-131 are noxious though not toxic.

I believe an ethical person would not impose skunk scent upon others -
certainly not on a plane!  I don't see how an ethical person could
knowingly impose I-131 excreta upon others either.

Clayton J. Bradt
Principal Radiophysicist


Releasing a skunk on Metro during rush hour would cause considerable
pandemonium. I just hope it's not on my train. P-U !!

Dan McClung
US Dept. of Veterans Affairs
Washington, DC

IMPORTANT NOTICE:  This e-mail and any attachments may contain
confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally
privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure.  It is
intended only for the addressee.  If you received this in error or from
someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not
distribute, copy or use it or any attachments.  Please notify the sender
immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you
for your cooperation.

More information about the RadSafe mailing list