[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fwd: Pd-103 calibration standard
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: oncology@HGO.Net (Wayne Butler)
Sender: medphys@LISTS.WAYNE.EDU (Medical Physics Listserver)
Reply-to: oncology@HGO.Net
To: MEDPHYS@LISTS.WAYNE.EDU (Multiple recipients of list MEDPHYS)
Date: 97-11-03 16:48:42 EST
RAYMOND WILENZICK wrote:
> In view of the increasing interest in Pd-103
seed implants, and of
> all this uncertainty with respect to Pd-103 seed
activity, why
> doesn't NIST just develop a standard? This should be a
high
> priority project. After all, we are paying their salaries.
The
following is from NIST's Standard Reference Materials catalog:
Requests to the Standard Reference Materials Program for the development
of a
new SRM should provide the following information:
1. Short
title of the proposed SRM.
2. Purpose for which the SRM would be
used.
3. Reasons why the SRM is needed.
4. Technical
characteristics and requirements for the material. Include
additional
requirements and reasons if more than one SRM is necessary for
standardization in this area.
5. Estimates of the probable present
and future (5-10 years) demand for such an
SRM, nationally and
internationally.
6. Justification for SRM preparation by NIST,
particularly if a similar one
could be produced or
obtained from
another source.
7. Pertinent information to aid justification for the
SRM, such as: (a) an
estimate of the potential range of application,
monetary significance of the
measurement affected, scientific and
technological significance including, when
feasible, estimates of the
impact upon industrial productivity, growth, quality
assurance or
control, and (b) supporting letters from industry leaders, trade
organizations, interested standards committees, and others.
Because
of the short half life of Pd-103, maintaining a standard would be
expensive.
NIST, like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, tries to operate in
revenue
balance through user fees. In this case the group(s) requesting
the
standard would be expected to defray the cost. However, the very low
energy of
Pd-103 will make the standard crucially dependent on the
manufacturer's
encapsulation. Theragenics currently has a monopoly on the
market and the
manufacturer specific dependence of any Pd-103 standard
mandates that they be the
sponsors of such a request for a new SRM. When
they were a small, struggling
start-up company, they couldn't afford
sponsorship. They now charge $46/seed, can
barely keep up with the
exponential increase in demand, and are supported by the
resources of
Johnson&Johnson. Has Theragenics requested a palladium standard?
The
brachytherapy physics community would certainly support the urgency and
priority of
such a
request.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~
Wayne Butler, Ph.D.
Schiffler Oncology Center
Wheeling Hospital
Phone: 304-243-3983
Medical Park
Fax: 304-243-5047
Wheeling, WV
26003 E-mail:
oncology@hgo.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
--------------------
<HTML>
RAYMOND WILENZICK wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>In view of the
increasing interest in Pd-103 seed
implants, and of
<BR>all this
uncertainty with respect to Pd-103 seed activity, why
<BR>doesn't NIST just
develop a standard? This should be a high
<BR>priority project.
After all, we are paying their salaries.</BLOCKQUOTE>
The following is from
NIST's Standard Reference Materials catalog:
<UL>Requests to the Standard
Reference Materials Program for the development
of a new SRM should provide
the following information:
<BR>1. Short title of the proposed SRM.
<BR>2.
Purpose for which the SRM would be used.
<BR>3. Reasons why the SRM is
needed.
<BR>4. Technical characteristics and requirements for the material.
Include
additional requirements and reasons if more than one SRM is
necessary for
standardization in this area.
<BR>5. Estimates of the
probable present and future (5-10 years) demand
for such an SRM, nationally
and internationally.
<BR>6. Justification for SRM preparation by NIST,
particularly if a similar
one could be produced or
<BR>obtained from
another source.
<BR>7. Pertinent information to aid justification for the
SRM, such as:
(a) an estimate of the potential range of application,
monetary significance
of the measurement affected, scientific and
technological significance
including, when feasible, estimates of the impact
upon industrial productivity,
growth, quality assurance or control, and (b)
supporting letters from industry
leaders, trade organizations, interested
standards committees, and others.
<BR> </UL>
Because of the short half
life of Pd-103, maintaining a standard would
be expensive. NIST, like
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, tries
to operate in revenue balance
through user fees. In this case the
group(s) requesting the standard
would be expected to defray the cost.
However, the very low energy of
Pd-103 will make the standard crucially
dependent on the manufacturer's
encapsulation. Theragenics currently
has a monopoly on the market and
the manufacturer specific dependence of
any Pd-103 standard mandates that
they be the sponsors of such a request
for a new SRM. When they were a
small, struggling start-up company,
they couldn't afford sponsorship.
They now charge $46/seed, can barely
keep up with the exponential increase
in demand, and are supported by the
resources of Johnson&Johnson.
Has Theragenics requested a palladium
standard? The brachytherapy
physics community would certainly support
the urgency and priority of such a
request.
<P>
<BR>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<BR>Wayne Butler, Ph.D.
<BR>Schiffler Oncology
Center
<BR>Wheeling
Hospital &nbs
p; &nbs
p;
Phone: 304-243-3983
<BR>Medical
Park &n
bsp; &n
bsp;
Fax: &n
bsp; 304-243-5047
<BR>Wheeling, WV
26003 &
nbsp;
E-mail:
oncology@hgo.net
<P>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<BR> </HTML>