Re: A dose of reality, continued

[PAMS718@aol.com]

Once again, I find myself troubled by Mr. Crane's willingness to skew and 
mis-represent statements that I have made in my Radsafe postings.  He 
suggests a familiarity with me by addressing me by a name that I do not go by 
and never have (Pat).  But when I remember that he is an attorney and that 
profession ,is well known for its ability to manipulate truth, out shout  
opponents and otherwise  'throw spaghetti at wall and hope that something 
sticks',  his responses to my and other's postings make much more sense.  

for the benefit of the list serve, some clarifications....

"Is the issue one of a "pound of prevention rather than an ounce of 
cure", as Pat suggests it may be?  (That was also the basis of the NRC 
staff's cost-benefit approach that led to the 1985 policy statement.)  
If that is the case, why does the NRC require sirens and emergency 
exercises, which cost vastly more than stockpiling?  "

Emergency preparedness exercises are performed to ensure that plant personnel 
can deal efficiently with unusual, abnormal or emergency situations, 
including such things as loss of offsite power, plane crash ANYWHERE on the 
owner controlled property, chlorine gas leaks, a potentially contaminated 
injured worker, loss of coolant accident, fire onsite.  In effect, emergency 
preparedness exercises are highly sophisticated, very involved "fire"  
drills.  And we all know that fire drills are a good idea,  they are 
practiced in schools and in office buildings....and in nuclear power plants.  
 The siren system is to alert the public that there is an emergency requiring 
public notification.   

""Is the issue one of a "pound of prevention rather than an ounce of 
cure", as Pat suggests it may be? "  I did not state that as the issue Mr 
Crane, and  I will repeat my posting here,

" If fate had determined that I would get cancer, (and it did)
then I would choose thyroid cancer as an adult, rather than the reproductive
cancer I had as a young woman. I think that is the point that some
contributors have tried to make..that in this case, perhaps, it is not an
"ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure", but rather, due to the
low mortality rates implementing such a KI policy may be "a pound of
prevention vs an ounce of cure".  (and I understand to the affected person,
it doesn't feel like an ounce of cure..)"   

I will repeat myself again to ensure that  Mr. Crane understands  that I said 
"I think that is the point that SOME CONTRIBUTORS have tried to make...that 
in this case, perhaps, it is not an ounce of prevention is better than a 
pound of cure", but rather, due to the low mortality rates implementing such 
a KI policy may be "a pound of   prevention vs an ounce of cure".  I did not 
state that these were my thoughts.  I made this statement because Mr. Crane 
appeared unable/unwilling to understand the comments made by Mr. Muckerheide 
(and for the benefit of the listserve I will quote the exchange here)

    " Also on March 16, RADSAFE James Muckerheide of the Massachusetts
> Emergency Management Agency, faxed to the Massachusetts Advisory Council
> on Radiation Protection, of which he is a member, his reasons for
> believing that the stockpiling of potassium iodide for thyroid
> protection is unnecessary and undesirable.  His statement including the
> following:
> 
> "5. Thyroid cancer is readily and commonly treatable, without long term
> consequences other than taking thyroxin to provide the necessary thyroid
> hormone.  This is a common condition.  The few deaths from thyroid
> cancer were caused by failing to provide adequate medical care.

> "6. Even with these high doses, primarily to children exposed from about
> 5 months before birth to 5 years old, with most of the remaining cases
> in children that were below about 10 years old, the increase in thyroid
> cancer is small.  The reported factor of 3 to 4 increase is from 1 case
> in about 300,000 children, results in 3 or 4 cases in 300,000, or
> about 1 additional case in 100,000+ children."
> 
> As an old thyroid cancer patient, I beg to differ.  I recall years ago,
> when I was being treated at the National Institutes of Health for a
> recurrence that required 700 millicuries of I-131 to eradicate, I met an
> NIH doctor who was himself a thyroid cancer patient.  I mentioned to him
> that at my agency (the NRC, from which I have since retired), there were
> those who thought that it was not worth having KI to protect against
> thyroid cancer, because the disease was not that big a deal.  He turned
> red with anger in an instant and snapped, "They ought to have it!

I've known many thyroid cancer patients, and I can't think of a single
> one who would agree with Jim Muckerheide's characterization of the
> disease. "

I  had thought  I could clarify Mr. Crane's misunderstanding of Mr. 
Muckerheide's statements,  rather  Mr Crane has tried to weave a web to 
suggest that the statement regarding "a pound of prevention vs an ounce of 
cure" somehow represented my thoughts about KI.   And because I am working on 
NUREG-1633, Mr. Crane could therefore tie that string together and suggest 
that (should the NUREG contain opinions different than his own) the document 
was tainted.  

"Maybe Pat could tell us when to expect a reissuance of NUREG-1633, and 
whether (and if so when) the Core Group plans to hold another meeting"

I have stated in a previous posting, that I work for the NRC, but I post 
these postings as a private citizen.  As Mr. Crane knows (since he was with 
the NRC prior to his retirement) information pertaining to public meetings, 
draft NUREGs, etc can be found on the NRC website as they become available, 
www.nrc.gov.  

And lastly, as stated by Mr. Crane,   "I would like to offer a suggestion:  
that because there was so much misinformation in Draft NUREG-1633 
(principally about the safety of KI use, for children and pregnant women in 
particular), and because some of that misinformation has got into 
circulation, the revised NUREG-1633 should clearly identify those errors, to 
correct the erroneous impressions that readers of the earlier document might 
have picked up."

It is well documented in the literature (as recognized by WHO) that an 
infant's thyroid gland is very sensitive to the effects of  stable iodine 
saturation as well as to the effects of radioactive iodine.  Saturation of 
the thyroid gland by stable iodine (KI) in an infant/neonate can lead to 
hypothyroidism, which can lead to growth and developmental abnormalities.  
For this important reason, single dose use only is recommended by WHO.  This 
hardly describes a "safe" drug. 
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                       
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html