RE: detecting medical isotopes at airport security

[John R Johnson <idias@interchange.ubc.ca>]

Radsafers



The benefit is that the nuclear medicine patient will not be confused with

being a terrorist, or worse, a terrorist get through because he/she claims

to have had a nuclear medicine "procedure". How do we calculate the

cost/benefit?

 _________________

John R Johnson, Ph.D.

*****

President, IDIAS, Inc

4535 West 9-Th Ave

Vancouver B. C.

V6R 2E2

(604) 222-9840

idias@interchange.ubc.ca

*****

or most mornings

Consultant in Radiation Protection

TRIUMF

4004 Wesbrook Mall

Vancouver B. C.

V6R 2E2

(604) 222-1047 Ext. 6610

Fax: (604) 222-7309

johnsjr@triumf.ca



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

From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of

SiegelB@MIR.WUSTL.EDU

Sent: November 24, 2003 9:59 AM

To: William V Lipton

Cc: Carol Marcus; Flood, John; knwachter@juno.com;

owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu; Ted

Rockwell

Subject: Re: detecting medical isotopes at airport security















One could not assure this without regulation.  However, the more important

question is whether regulation, no matter how little the cost, could be

justified given the low risk and thus the relatively low benefit of

contravening that low risk.



BAS

siegelb@mir.wustl.edu













                      William V Lipton

                      <liptonw@dteenerg        To:

SiegelB@mir.wustl.edu

                      y.com>                   cc:       Ted Rockwell

<tedrock@starpower.net>, Carol Marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu>,

                                                "Flood, John"

<FloodJR@NV.DOE.GOV>, knwachter@juno.com,

                      11/24/03 11:45 AM

owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu, radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu

                                               Subject:  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/











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

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/