[ RadSafe ] " Short life of an isotope "

Jaro jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca
Sun Jul 5 11:50:38 CDT 2009

Thanks for your comments Ed,

Unfortunately, the problem is not just the 'greens' -- see article pasted
below your message.....



-----Original Message-----
From: Edmond Baratta [mailto:edmond0033 at comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 10:43 AM
To: Jaro; multiple cdn; RADSAFE
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] " Short life of an isotope "

I have visited this business.  They are very professional and handle the
radioactive material with care.  What they do is very important, but the
'greens', etc don't care.  They just have an agenda and regardless of the
cost and suffering others may have to endure they don't care.  It's like
here in the USA, proposed the Cap and Theft (sorry Trade) Act will be a big
boomdoggle (money spent for little gain).  They want us to replace all our
incandesent bulbs with new type that contains Hg (mercury).  Disposal is a
problem and breakage is another one.  The Government wants to shutdown the
coal plants that make ~50% of our power and Nuclear plants that supply ~ 25%
(I may be high on this one).  Where are we supposed to get our electricity?
They could care less unless it's inconvient for 'them'.  I'm getting tired
of the 'promises' that the government easily breaks.  Health care will soon
be problem.  Anyone over 60 should now make arrangmemts for their demise, as
the health care will be only for certain segments (who can't or won't pay)
of the population.  The president promised 'change', well we will get it,
but not what was sold to the people.

Ed Baratta

edmond0033 at comcast.net


Nurses go NIMBY on isotopes
Saskatoon Star Phoenix, 26 June 2009
John Gormley
Special to The StarPhoenix

This week's performance by the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses (SUN) at the
uranium development consultations was almost worthy of sympathy. But pity
might be more fitting.

SUN opposes nuclear power generation in Saskatchewan. Fair enough -- they're
not alone.

But the nurses stretched logic to the breaking point when also nixing a
smaller research reactor to develop medical life-saving isotopes.

The nurses, along with the left-wing think-tank Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives, commissioned a 30-page, non-peer reviewed paper written by a
local social activist researcher.

The paper, entitled Exposure to Radiation and Health Outcomes, is a
predictable anti-nuke piece suggesting all manner of dire health effects
attributable to nuclear generating facilities.

And there are the obligatory mentions in the paper to the atomic bombs
dropped on Japan in the Second World War, the 1970s Three Mile Island core
meltdown and the Soviet disaster at Chernobyl in 1986.

The researcher even helpfully suggests, citing a New York Times story on
cost overruns, that a Saskatchewan nuclear reactor "might actually cost $20
billion," more than double the current projected cost of a two-unit power

Precisely how this specious and unsupported cost claim has anything to do
with "health outcomes" is also conveniently explained -- the province would
have to foot the bill for excess billions which would result in a slashing
of health and education budgets and that wouldn't be good for our health.

So, the nurses rely on this research to conclude nuclear power plants are
not good for health.

But the anti-nuke paper never dedicates a single word to the five nuclear
reactors in the world used exclusively to produce isotopes such as the
cancer-fighting Cobalt 60 or the Moly-99 and Technetium-99 which are used in
80 per cent of nuclear medicine procedures, including diagnostic tests.

The nurses simplistically lump together every single nuclear facility --
regardless of size or use -- as unsafe.

While the nurses union concedes nuclear medicine is valuable, it argues
other countries should look after developing the technology because nurses
want to "keep Saskatchewan safe."

With a NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) attitude like this, maybe the nurses union
could go one step further and actually drive people out-of-province for
cancer radiation treatments, too. But there'd likely be some risk to

The most incredible part of the nurses' performance came when their union
leader suggested on my radio show that if diagnostics were used less often,
for example "not using MRIs for sore backs," we would actually need fewer
isotopes and then an isotope reactor would not be necessary.

It is worth pondering in this increasingly hyped nuclear debate of fear and
misinformation if other professionals are going to allow these comments of
the nurses union to go unchallenged.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaro" <jaro-10kbq at sympatico.ca>
To: "multiple cdn" <cdn-nucl-l at mailman.mcmaster.ca>; "RADSAFE"
<radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 10:16 AM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] " Short life of an isotope "

> Interesting reading....
> Short life of an isotope
> A "For Rent" sign stands in front of a nondescript building in Dorval's
> industrial park, giving no hint of the life-saving work going on inside.
> By Aaron Derfel, The Gazette, July 4, 2009
> The building's windows are tinted and the front door is locked. Yet behind
> the walls, Geiger counters are crackling as technicians prepare doses of
> radioactive medical isotopes to help doctors diagnose cancer and heart
> disease.
> The radiopharmacy runs seven days a week, 24 hours a day, supplying most
> of Montreal's hospitals, but its owners want to keep the location a
> "We don't want any publicity," said Cyrille Villeneuve, vice-president
> (international) of Lantheus Medical Imaging. "You know, there are
> activists and we have radioactive materials."

More information about the RadSafe mailing list