[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: detecting medical isotopes at airport security
How would you assure that everyone complies without a regulation?
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:
> 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/