Re: palladium

[Chris Alston <alstonc@odrge.odr.georgetown.edu>]

>Date:         Thu, 18 Dec 1997 04:50:39 EST
>Reply-To: Medical Physics Mailing List <MEDPHYS@LISTS.WAYNE.EDU>
>Sender: Medical Physics Listserver <medphys@lists.wayne.edu>
>From: CBS970 <CBS970@AOL.COM>
>Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
>Subject:      Re: palladium
>To: Multiple recipients of list MEDPHYS <MEDPHYS@LISTS.WAYNE.EDU>
>
>
>         ** Mail from Medphys Listserver **
>If you reply to this message, it will be posted on Medphys for all the
>subscribers to review ...
>
>
>Another interesting post from
>http://www.techstocks.com/~wsapi/investor/Subject-5950 follows.  The posts are
>mostly about the stock price of the company, but you can pick up some
>interesting info here.   - Carter Schroy
>
>>  I spoke with the company today and after our conversation I understand
>the problem affected lots shipped between March and September. The
>underdosing generally amounted to about 8% but there were batches
>shipped that were probably close to labeled strength and some that were
>10% low. (Radiation Oncologists-help me out. Is this significant?) The
>problem had to do with deterioration of the Cadmium reference or
>calibration source which was replaced on schedule in September at which
>time the company became aware of the problem and sent out letters. But
>don't take my word for it, call the company yourself. The heart of the
>explanation resides in the nature of radiation physics, not my strong
>suit.<
>