RE: detecting medical isotopes at airport security

[SiegelB@mir.wustl.edu]

Agree completely.  Our technical staff explain our procedures in moderate

detail to all of our patients.  We do not shy away from the use of the

words "radiation" and "radioactive"in discussions with our patients.  We

provide written instructions to all patients receiving I-131, including

those where it is not required by 10 CFR 35.75.  Over the years we have

variably provided pamphlets about nuclear medicine generally or about

specific tests.  The proposed one-pager would be fine.



However, this does not need to be an NRC regulation, and that is what I was

reacting to initially.



BAS

siegelb@mir.wustl.edu











                                                                                                                                   

                      "Ted Rockwell"                                                                                               

                      <tedrock@starpowe        To:       "Flood, John" <FloodJR@NV.DOE.GOV>, <SiegelB@MIR.WUSTL.EDU>, "William V   

                      r.net>                    Lipton" <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>                                                    

                                               cc:       "Carol Marcus" <csmarcus@ucla.edu>, <knwachter@juno.com>,                 

                      11/24/03 10:53 AM         <owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu>, <radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu>                 

                                               Subject:  RE: detecting medical isotopes at airport security                        

                                                                                                                                   









Sounds reasonable to me.  Also, I think it's VERY important that everybody

who gets the benefit of nuclear medicine be made to understand that

radioactivity has been injected into his/her body; that this will be a

benefit, not a harm; that the body already had a great deal of natural

radioactivity in it, that this is a natural part of all life.



Why do we miss this perfect opportunity to help fight radiophobia?  People

have already shown they are ready to accept x-rays.  Here's another step we

can and should take for public education.  A carefully worded one-pager

should do it.



Who is willing to draft such a statement for physicians?



Ted Rockwell



-----Original Message-----

From: owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu]On Behalf Of Flood, John

Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:33 AM

To: 'SiegelB@MIR.WUSTL.EDU'; William V Lipton

Cc: Carol Marcus; knwachter@juno.com; owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu;

radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu

Subject: RE: detecting medical isotopes at airport security





The gate-mounted alarm systems at the Nevada Test Site are set off

frequently by nuclear medicine patients (including me last year).  What is

surprising is that a substantial fraction, perhaps one third, of those

patients are not aware that radioactive material was used in the tests.

That makes life more difficult for everyone involved - the patient, the

security staff at the gate, and everyone trying to enter the site at the

time of the alarm.  All of the fussing could be minimized if the medical

staff would simply tell the patient about the radioactivity and the

possibility of setting off alarms.  I see no reason why the physician

ordering the test can't explain the test to the patient - certainly the

patient has a right to know.  And I don't see where this would increase the

cost of providing medical care.



Bob Flood

Nevada Test Site Dosimetry



-----Original Message-----

From: SiegelB@MIR.WUSTL.EDU [mailto:SiegelB@MIR.WUSTL.EDU]

Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 6:33 AM

To: William V Lipton

Cc: Carol Marcus; knwachter@juno.com; owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu;

radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu

Subject: Re: detecting medical isotopes at airport security



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





************************************************************************

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/