[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: detecting medical isotopes at airport security
Maybe I'm missing something, here, but how expensive could it be to provide each patient with a sheet of
instructions? I fail to understand how you consider providing patients with information on what you've done to
them, "over the top."
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
SiegelB@mir.wustl.edu wrote:
> How much are you willing to pay per nuclear medicine procedure for the
> added cost of providing this information to all patients? Since this
> appears to be a very small problem indeed, the proposed solution seems a
> bit over the top.
>
> Note that revised 10 CFR 35.75 actually was a rule that resulted in
> substantial medical care cost savings, since formerly many of the patients
> affected by this rule were hospitalized for 2-3 days to protect members of
> the general public from a radiation hazard. The cost of providing these
> patients with oral and written instructions is offset by the costs saved,
> but this would not apply to the millions of other patients who have nuclear
> medicine procedures each year.
>
> Barry A. Siegel, MD
> siegelb@mir.wustl.edu
>
>
> William V Lipton
> <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM To: Carol Marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu>
> > cc: knwachter@juno.com, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Sent by: Subject: Re: detecting medical isotopes at airport security
> owner-radsafe@list.van
> derbilt.edu
>
>
> 11/24/03 06:29 AM
> Please respond to
> William V Lipton
>
>
>
> 10 CFR 35.75 requires, "...instructions, including written instructions, on
> actions recommended to maintain doses to other individuals as low as is
> reasonably achievable if the total effective dose equivalent to any other
> individual is likely to exceed 1 mSv (0.1 rem)...."
>
> I propose that this be revised to: (1) delete the threshold so that it
> applies
> to all nuc med patients, and (2) add a requirement to include information
> on
> whether the patient is likely to alarm personnel radiation monitors.
>
> The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> Curies forever.
>
> Bill Lipton
> liptonw@dteenergy.com
>
> Carol Marcus wrote:
>
> > At 12:46 PM 11/21/2003, knwachter@juno.com wrote:
> >
> > >Does anyone know of incidents where residual medical isotopes in a
> > >traveller's body set off radiation monitors at an airport? A
> cardiologist
> > >mentioned to me that he had heard of Tl-201 a day or two after a cardiac
> > >scan tripping alarms at some airports. Just curious.
> > >
> > >knwachter@juno.com
> >
> > Dear Radsafers:
> >
> > ...
>
> > I really think that
> > patients who receive radiopharmaceuticals should be given a card the size
> > of a credit card to carry in their wallet for a few weeks, and that the
> > card contains all the relevant information and a number to call to
> > check. However, I guess that would now be a HIPAA violation!
> >
> > Ciao, Carol
> >
> > Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D.
> > <csmarcus@ucla.edu>
> >
>
> ************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To
> unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the
> text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
> with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at
> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/