Re: Potassium Iodide

[Emil <kerremba@pilot.msu.edu>]

Pilt, Aadu wrote:

> 

> This is in response to J.J. Rozental and Scott Sorensen's recent

> contributions.

> 

> I think the fallacy (if any) in the assumptions and calculations is in

> the adverse risk estimates. I for one find it incredible, on the basis

> of discussions with Charlie Wills and others, that "the risk of death

> following iodine prophylaxis is 3(E-9)" or 3 in a billion.  The other

> adverse risk numbers quoted by Mr Rozental are, with all due respect, to

> me equally improbable.




I have a question.

3(E-9) or 3 in billion.

How does it compare to the com...ing drugs like tylenol, aspirin?

What is the risk of these drugs. I sow in Charlie Wills's draft KI is

proposed as FDA regulated. If 3(E-9) is close to common drugs risk. I
would leave KI for

FDA to treat it as it reagulates other grugs, it is FDA area. At fisrt,

it seem to me that it would be more appropriate to try correlate

radiation risk with risk of KI side effects 

and optimized it. Now it looks much more complicated then it looked

before.

1) if we try to correlate radiation to KI side effects. What we gonna do

with K-40? exlude? include? seems to me if it is not a byproduct we do
not need to

include K-40. But if for FDA it is does not matter byproduct or NORM.
FDA's phylosophy different. I would just let FDA put its restrictions on
KI as it does on tylenol. I would suspect that tylenol has no lower
3(E-9) risk if to use normal(standard) cohort and from our side it would
appropriate to indicate to FDA the lower radiation risk for elderly.


Nice weekend to everyone.
Emil.
kerremba@pilot.msu.edu

It is still so nice to represent your own opinion and not youremployer's
when you do not have one.