Re: radiopharmaceutical patient release

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Amen, Al,
And there's the lack of (long-term, carcinogenic, and other :-) effects on the 
PATIENTS themselves: e.g., Rosalyn Yalow's report of Saenger' studies of
36,000 hyperthyroid patients, 22,000 treated with I-131 with an estimated mean 
10 cSv WB/bone, have no excess leukemia; an equivalent study by Holm et al in
Sweden of 10,000 cases, 15-year followup, also shows no effects. Nuclear
medicine literature reports no effects - yet we then strain at concern about
exposing others to trivial doses, and promulgating misinformation to patients
and the public in so doing, to the detriment of nuclear medicine and all
nuclear technology. (Not to mention indicting our technology and programs for
"rad protection" at power plants and elsewhere that would react to such
trivial exposures as other than of incidental interest.) 

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com

> J. J. Rozental wrote:
>  GUIDANCE LEVEL FOR MAXIMUM ACTIVITY FOR PATIENTS IN THERAPY
> > ON DISCHARGE FROM HOSPITAL, CONSIDERING I-131
> > 
> > 1100 MBq  (FOOT NOTE: IN SOME COUNTRIES A LEVEL OF 400 MBq IS USED AS AN
> > EXAMPLE OF GOOD PRACTICE)
> > 
> >  "In Australia the legal limit for OP treatment is
> > set at 555MBq.",
> 
> So, here we have a real example of de minimis.  How can regulatory
> agencies justify setting limits of 1 to 15 mrem per year from effluents
> from nuclear facilities when there are thousands (millions) of patients
> walking around irradiating their associates to doses higher than that? 
> I don't think there are any rules about being careful not to be around
> more than one such patient at a time.  Something's wrong with the
> system.  Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov