Re: Urgent Request for Medical Isotope Production Support

[rkathren@tricity.wsu.edu (Ron L. Kathren)]

I fully concur with the eloquent and insightful Les Slayback.  For some
time, the Nuclear Medicine Research Council (see WEB page by doing a search
on NMRC), a grass roots locally centered organization in which I have been
active, has been pushing, among other things, for a US medical isotope
production capability.  It is lamentable that the US is virtually wholly
dependent of foreign sources for medically useful radionuclides.  As
friendly as the Canadian are and have been (and I myself have strong
Canadian roots, including a Canadian mother), it nonetheless behooves and
befits this country to maintain such capability.  Without it, we do not have
the capability to make certain short-lived nuclides that cannot be feasibly
imported, thereby dooming some Americans to needless suffering and perhaps
even early deaths.  

Our policy withg regard to medical isotopes would seem to be at variance
with the stated goals of the President with respect to health care for
Americans.  Yet the newest and quite likely the best source of medical
radioisotopes -- the Fast Flux Test Facilty -- remains closed, with a
promise from DOE Secretary O'Leary to make a final decision regarding its
status next month.

I am certain that nuclear paranoia plays the most significant role in this
deplorable situation leading to a bittler irony and perhaps even hypocrisy.
And so, I write these words in hope that some of you who have fought through
this message will also take the time to advise the White House and/or DOE
Secretary O'Leary of the importance of American capability for producing
medically useful radionuclides for diagnosis, therapy, and research.

Ron Kathren

  >Regarding U.S. support of medical isotope production
>I find the situation very curious.  Here is a technology
>that most would describe as essential to the practice
>of modern medicine.  At the time that the world was
>dependent on a 40 year old (whatever that means) Canadian 
>reactor the most the the U.S. would do is to partially 
>redirect the mission of one of its facilities.
>
>Canada has now committed to building TWO reactors (one
>simply as a back up) to meet these needs.  I ask you,
>who is demonstrating farsightedness here?
>
>Ignoring parochial national pride issues, faced with the
>opportunity of a virtual monopoly it is clear that the
>U.S. would count the teeth in the gift horse and then
>form a committee to debate their quality.
>
>A little risk adds spice to life.
>Lester.Slaback@NIST.gov
>
>