Medical Isotopes

[jedimaster91]

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/09/11...ainst-ban.html

It seems the government has finally taken notice of the isotope crisis and they're trying to secure a US supply. However a senator from Missouri is single-handedly stonewalling the effort because he thinks it will hurt US exports of highly enriched uranium. There are only 5 nuclear reactors world wide that produce medical isotopes. All of them are old. You've probably heard me whine about it on CS a few times. Canada's NRU reactor in Chalk River supplies half of the US isotope supply. It was down for over a year for repairs, so we were relying on the Dutch reactor. Then there was that pesky volcano explosion that grounded all flights coming out of Europe. The other reactors really can't meet global supply demands when both Canada and the Netherlands are offline.

Limited supply has lead to a certain amount of rationing. I can recall several stretches where all non-emergency scans were off limits because there was not enough isotope. There was an interesting article in the JNMT about rationing criteria and how it is affecting patient care. We were also forced to use alternative isotopes that frankly produce lower quality images and/or expose us and the patient to more radiation.

Without a domestic supply of isotopes, traditional Nuclear Medicine in the US is in a very real danger of dying out. Unlike vaccines and antibiotics, the isotopes cannot be stockpiled because of their short half-lives. Honestly, I don't see the problem with keeping weapons-grade uranium here and out of countries, like say, Iran. Senator Bond needs to back off and let this happen. The medical community NEEDS a stable, domestic supply of medical isotopes.

[Greenday]

So basically we need to stop buying imports and invest in domestic. Seems to be an issue with a lot of markets these days.

Makes sense to me though. This stuff isn't cheap and I don't really see why we need to be giving countries enriched uranium. Especially any countries that don't seem stable in politics with neighbors.

[jedimaster91]

If the imports were stable, it wouldn't be a problem.

[Greenday]

But we are still taking our own money and putting it into other countries' enconomies.

[jedimaster91]

Very true.

[Boozy]

But we are still taking our own money and putting it into other countries' enconomies.

Money which they use to buy US exports.

The solution to every economic supply problem isn't "Buy domestic". Trade is excellent in cases such as these, where the industry in question (medical isotope production) is highly specialized and requires very particular personnel and equipment. It's inefficient for the US to start doing this themselves.

However, countries do quite a number of inefficient things in the name of stability or national security. This could be one of those things. I'm not familiar enough with nuclear medicine to say either way.

[Greenday]

While maintaining trade is good, we shouldn't rely soley on other countries for a specific resource.

[jedimaster91]

I'm not familiar enough with nuclear medicine to say either way.

I think this is the crux of the problem. It's not just nuclear medicine, but all of medical imaging needs access to certain isotopes. But people are terrified of the Big Bad Radiation because they don't understand it (you should see some of the looks I get from my patients). They have accidents like Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl on their minds. Granted, those were bad. Very bad. And it's bred a certain "not in my backyard" mentality. Think about it. If tomorrow your local mayor/senator/other representative announced a nuclear reactor was going to be built in your town, what would the public's reaction be?

I wish I still had this PowerPoint, but when I was in school, my instructor did a presentation on nuclear accidents. Here's the Wikipedia article (yeah, I know ). How many chemical spills, oil spills, coal mine explosions, and electrical accidents have there been comparatively? Don't get me wrong, radiation can be very dangerous. But with modern technology and regulations, it's much safer than it used to be. Glancing at the Wiki article, several of the "accidents" involved stumbling on and dismantling old reactors and medical devices without knowing there was radioative material. Very few were from actual reactor failures. And when there was an equipment failure, many of the reactors were taken offline before they could do a great deal of damage and are only listed as "accidents" because of the cost involved to fix them.

The reason for the recent equipment failures is because these are old reactors way past the time they should have been decomissioned. Band-aides and duct tape aren't going to keep them running forever. Unless we get a new reactor soon, medicine is going to be in a very bad spot.

[Boozy]

While maintaining trade is good, we shouldn't rely soley on other countries for a specific resource.

Why not? Most countries do not have every resource at their disposal, nor would it make sense to produce everything.

The US is in the enviable position in that they don't need to import much, but it still makes sense to do so. We have economic specialization to thank for much of the growth and increase in standards of living of the past century. Why should the US, with its educated workforce and technologically-advanced infrastructure, make its own t-shirts?

Americans could start making its own t-shirts, but who wants to spend $20 instead of $5? I think you'd prefer to spend that $15 you saved on American-made medicines and computer software. And wouldn't you rather Americans be employed as software engineers instead of sewing machine operators?

Trade makes everyone better off.

When it comes to medical isotopes, I think the bigger concern is that you're importing them from a very small number of countries, which can lead to instability in supply. But its considered an international crisis, so I think something can be worked out without the US creating a medical isotope industry of its own. The US has very good relationships with the Netherlands and Canada. This doesn't need to be as problematic as the oil crisis, for example.

[Greenday]

I think the bigger concern is that you're importing them from a very small number of countries, which can lead to instability in supply.

That's pretty much the point I was trying to get at. While I'm glad we are getting trade from friendly countries that we have good bonds with, I just don't think we should be completely reliant on these resources. I think we need to be able to create them ourselves God forbid something happens and our only couple of sources are unable to supply us.

I'm a big fan of self-sufficiency. If we don't have a resource fine, but if we do have it, we need to make it so we can fend for ourselves in case of an emergency.

[smileyeagle1021]

I'm a big fan of self-sufficiency. If we don't have a resource fine, but if we do have it, we need to make it so we can fend for ourselves in case of an emergency.

I can support that view. For something as important as medical science, even if we can't do it as well, we should still have it set up as a fallback. Next time all shipments from Europe stops, if I'm in the hospital and need a treatment that requires those isotopes, I'd rather have second best than nothing at all.

As far as the broader nuclear debate and the safety of nuclear reactors compaired to traditional fuel sources... the most recent major reactor failure happened before I was born... the most recent gas line explosion was last week and investigators are now saying that it's not a question of if another San Bruno is going to happen, but where. Last year Utah had a refinery explosion, this year we had an oil pipeline break (which of course almost no one outside of Utah heard about becaues it happened two weeks after the BP spill... oh yeah, there was that too). And all these don't even take into account the damage being done through the proper use of these fuels... don't believe me, take a look at this or this
The smog is unbearable in parts of the country... each and every one of those days, I think to myself, maybe a nuclear reactor wouldn't be that bad of an idea.

[protege]

The smog is unbearable in parts of the country... each and every one of those days, I think to myself, maybe a nuclear reactor wouldn't be that bad of an idea.

If people *really* want bad pollution, they should have been in Pittsburgh when the entire area depended on the steel mills. So much smoke, that the skies were literally black...even at noon No pollution controls meant that quite a few people had health problems, and many older buildings (even now) turned black from the soot. All of that changed after WWII--pollution controls were put in place, and eventually, the air quality improved. Sure, we still have smog...but it's nowhere as bad as it once was. Plus, the rivers have been cleaned up as well.

I don't blame people who don't want a nuke in their back yards. Think about it--Chernobyl proved that yes, the energy is powerful, but if an accident happens, that power can also destroy everything in sight. The lives of all the people who lived there were changed forever. Not just their health, but they had to leave everything behind--their homes, their jobs, toys--and in some cases, their sanity. They went from relative stability...to an uncertain future.

However, we must remember the *reason* for that accident in the first place. From what I understand, the facility wanted to see how long the turbines would remain spinning if the reactors were shut down. To do so, the safety controls had to be switched off. During the test, there was an explosion, and the reactor blew up, spewing ash and other nasties all over the place

That event, plus 3 Mile Island, helped kill any new construction of nukes in the US. Never mind that the remaining plants (including one not far from me), have been operating with no incidents. In fact, the radiation released at TMI...didn't really amount to much. People are exposed to more during their lives than ever came out of that plant

[Greenday]

However, we must remember the *reason* for that accident in the first place. From what I understand, the facility wanted to see how long the turbines would remain spinning if the reactors were shut down. To do so, the safety controls had to be switched off. During the test, there was an explosion, and the reactor blew up, spewing ash and other nasties all over the place

There was an inspection that day to make sure everything was to be running efficiently. The guy running the plant had no experience and no background suitable for his job. Completely the result of "it's not what you know but who you know" as he knew nothing. To impress the inspectors, he turned off the safety controls and pushed everything passed their limits.

I feel like people are worried it's going to explode at any second and blow up half the country which is completely unrealistic.

[protege]

I feel like people are worried it's going to explode at any second and blow up half the country which is completely unrealistic.

Yep, that's *exactly* the problem. Too many "experts" think that way. Never mind that there's a nuke plant just north of me. In fact, it is about 35 miles northwest of Pittsburgh...and has been operating since '76 without incident. Is there the possibility of an accident? Of course. Does everyone who live here go batshit crazy about it? Of course not.

What gets me about all this, is that people bitch and moan when their A/C unit fails during the summer (because of blackouts), and then they bitch and moan about why we don't have more power plants. Anyone want to guess why? Yep, because any attempt to build nukes, or even enlarge the existing coal plants...is met with protests.