New, safe production of medical isotopes – no need for nuclear reactor
“…..At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishesScienceNOW) in Vancouver, Canada, Paul Schaffer, head of nuclear medicine at TRIUMF, a nuclear and particle physics laboratory in Vancouver, reported that his team may be nearing a solution. The group previously used a high-energy medical cyclotron to produce Tc-99 from a stable isotope of molybdenum, known as Mo-100. And at the meeting, Schaffer reported that the group has now had success with a GE cyclotron that is the most popular one on the market. Hospitals use medical cyclotrons to generate radioisotopes for medical scans, including fluorine-18 and carbon-11. In the new test, Schaffer’s team used a GE cyclotron to fire protons at a Mo-100 target, ejecting a pair of neutrons and generating Tc-99. The demonstration holds out the hope that existing medical cyclotrons could generate enough Tc-99 to fulfill Canada’s entire demand, Schaffer says. The group is now working to maximize the amount of Tc-99 produced with this method.
“This is wonderful for Canada,” says Robert Atcher, director of the National Isotope Development Center at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. …
upgrading cyclotrons is less expensive than building a new nuclear facility, and outlying hospitals already receive regular supplies of fluorine-18 and other short-lived compounds.
Atcher adds that several other groups are exploring alternative non-reactor-based methods for producing Tc-99. It’s still too early to say which option will come out ahead, he says. No matter which one does, it should lead to a more stable—and safer—supply of a compound that has become essential to modern medicine. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/02/nuclear-reactors-not-needed-to-m.html?ref=hp
No comments yet.
Leave a Reply
This month
For international news, go to nuclear-news
SEARCH for particular names or topics at the SEARCH BOX at very bottom of this sidebar
http://www.cleanenergymap.gov.au/ Clean Energy Future – Australian Government
VIDEO Printing Australia’s Largest Solar Cells http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/19/printing-australias-largest-solar-cells/#I2hPrL1dDL6WTXwD.99
- UNDERSTOREY – THE BEGINNING OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA’s URANIUM NIGHTMARE http://rtrfm.com.au/story/understorey-the-beginning-of-the-nightmare-part-2/
- AUDIO Greens respond to Greg Hunt: Christine Milne http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/greens-respond-to-greg-hunt-christine-milne/4699682
Anti nuclear action below: - more info at Action Australia « Antinuclear and at Event details « Antinuclear
EVENTS -
- Now - until June 2 – Melbourne PROTEST! ARCHIVES FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE www.lib.unimelb.edu.au/collections/archives/exhibitions/protest/index.html
- June 22- 23- Brisbane Declarations of Indigenous Independence Conference – open to all people considering these actions including non-Aboriginal supporters. www.sovereignunion.mobi
- July 24-26 - Brisbane - Clean Energy Week
Nuclear Power and Women – theme for May 2013
Mary Olson, from Nuclear Information and Resource Service, spoke at the New York symposium on Fukushima’s effects, March 2013.
Here are some highlights:
Mary Olson discussed the findings of the latest National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation ( BEIR VII) , illustrated by this graph:
This lifespan graph shows increased cancer risk by exposure to a given amount of radiation, The pink line shows the risk for girls, the blue line for boys. Look at left hand part of the graph. It covers from zero to 5 years, and includes pre birth. We see a striking difference between the blue line and the pink line. The nuclear regulators assume that the risk shown here at age 40 – in the blue line- is the same for every individual regardless of age or gender. Yet, even at ages 40 – 60 the cancer risk from radiation is significantly more for women, than for men.
The cancer danger from ionising radiation depends on the type of radiation, the amount, and the duration of the exposure. But it also depends on who is exposed. Radiation exposure endangers some individuals more than others. In order, the most vulnerable are:
Primary germ cells/ Embryo
Foetus
Children
Elders
Some genotypes
Females – both juvenile and adult
All of the world’s scientific authorities agree that there is no safe dose of radiation. That includes the WHO, EPA, NRC, and national Academy of Science.
The standards for permissable levels of ionising radiation were originally written to cover doctors using radiation, then were intended for the purpose of sending military into radiological areas. Yet these standads, based on a 30 year old man, are applied to everyone.
Over 100 years, man’s activities have increased the background radiation by 25%
The ratio of cancer risks from radiation for males and females is 3 to 2. That is for every 2 males who get cancer from ionising radiation, there are 3 females. In reports from BEIR and the Lifespan study of Hiroshima survivors only external radiation is considered, not internal radiation. The risk for females is being underestimated in reports and in regulations about radiation
The World Health Organisation is the first big agency to acknowledge this difference in radiation risk between males and females, in its latest report. WHO is also saying that there is 70% higher risk of thyroid cancer for little girls exposed to radiation.
Studies are continuing, and animal studies, too, are showing this gender difference. We must move towards prevention and precaution as the basis of policy. Sadly, it is too late for a lot of prevention. We need to cahnge the priorities – to protect first, study second
And we need to get a whole lot more women motivated to get involved.
