USA now producing medical radioisotopes without nuclear reactor (no need to import them from Lucas Heights)
U.S. FDA Approves NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes’ RadioGenixTMSystem (Technetium Tc 99m Generator) for Non-uranium Sourced Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) Production of Imaging Isotope Technetium-99m (Tc-99m)
– Enables domestic Mo-99 supply produced without uranium for U.S. healthcare –
– First U.S. source of medical radioisotope Mo-99 in more than 25 years –
BELOIT, Wis.–(BUSINESS WIRE)--NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes, LLC, (NorthStar) a company involved in the production and distribution of radioisotopes used for medical imaging, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the RadioGenixTM System, an innovative, high tech radioisotope separation platform indicated for use in producing the widely used medical radioisotope technetium-99 (Tc-99m) from NorthStar’s non-uranium based molybdenum-99 (Mo-99). The RadioGenixTM System is indicated as “a technetium Tc 99m generator used to produce sterile, non-pyrogenic Sodium Pertechnate Tc 99m Injection.”There has been no U.S. production of Mo-99, the parent isotope of Tc-99m, for more than 25 years. The supply of Mo-99 has been subject to frequent and sometimes prolonged interruptions, disrupting and often delaying the diagnosis and treatment of patients in need of medically important diagnostic tests that require the use of this radioisotope. Furthermore, current bulk production of Mo-99 is based on enriched uranium which poses significant environmental concerns.
“With the FDA’s approval of the RadioGenix System, NorthStar can begin providing its customers with a reliable and environmentally friendly supply of the Mo-99 radioisotope for the United States,” said George P. Messina, Chairman and CEO of NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes. “As the first, and thus far only company to achieve the objective of being the first U.S. producer of Mo-99 in more than 25 years, we are extremely proud to pioneer domestic production of Mo-99 that is independent of uranium-based product. The approval by the FDA will reduce the U.S. healthcare system’s reliance on fragile foreign supply of Mo-99 and the use of enriched uranium target material. The RadioGenix System allows for automated, on-site separation and preparation of U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) Sodium Pertechnetate Tc 99m Injection from Mo-99. The RadioGenix is also a platform technology that has the potential ability to apply its separation capabilities at the point-of-care to other radioisotopes in the future, including therapeutic isotopes such as actinium-225/bismuth-213 (which will require FDA approval). ……….
The RadioGenix System is an innovative, high tech system that is approved for processing non-uranium/non highly enriched uranium molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) for the production of the important medical radioisotope, technetium-99m (Tc-99m). Prior to availability of RadioGenix technology, the U.S. supply chain for Mo-99 has been subject to frequent and sometimes severe interruptions which negatively impact patient healthcare. Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in February 2018, the RadioGenix System is the first and only on-site, automated isotope separation system of its kind for use with non-uranium/non-highly enriched uranium based Mo-99. ……….. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180208005961/en/U.S.-FDA-Approves-NorthStar-Medical-Radioisotopes%E2%80%99-RadioGenixTM#.Wnzqgpg9SWY.facebook
Technetium 99m becomes technetium 99 which is long-lived and extremely dangerous. Any benefits are outweighed by the dangers to other people and the environment. There are things like digital xrays, CT scans, and ultrasound-doppler ultrasound which don’t use radioisotopes.
Thank you, miningawareness. I confess that I have not studied/followed that rather worrying chain of technetium 99, and I need to do so. For the time being, it is clear that medicine is going to keep on using those radioisotopes – in nuclear medicine procedures that are beyond the scope of Xrays, CT scans, ultrasound etc. My first focus is to get rid of nuclear reactors. In Australia, the nuclear lobby is very successfully touting its one nuclear reactor as “essential for medicine” – i.e – “it’s only purpose is medical”. That myth must be busted.
It does matter. We all work together – trying to shine a light of truth on the web of pro nuclear lies. I doubt that Australia has better standards on radioactive wastes. The authorities are in denial about this – make contradictory statements to the public.
On the 70 mSv radium faced watch I meant per year. Over 10 years this would have given the person around a 7% chance of additional life-shortening cancer according to BEIR (which is a very low and conservative estimate). I think a CT scan is around 25 mSv.
U.S. FDA Approves NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes’ RadioGenixTMSystem (Technetium Tc 99m Generator) for Non-uranium Sourced Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) Production of Imaging Isotope Technetium-99m (Tc-99m)
Use our “SEARCH” function. – scroll way, way, down to the bottom of the right side panel to find the “Search” slot.
Technetium 99m becomes technetium 99 which is long-lived and extremely dangerous. Any benefits are outweighed by the dangers to other people and the environment. There are things like digital xrays, CT scans, and ultrasound-doppler ultrasound which don’t use radioisotopes.
Thank you, miningawareness. I confess that I have not studied/followed that rather worrying chain of technetium 99, and I need to do so. For the time being, it is clear that medicine is going to keep on using those radioisotopes – in nuclear medicine procedures that are beyond the scope of Xrays, CT scans, ultrasound etc. My first focus is to get rid of nuclear reactors. In Australia, the nuclear lobby is very successfully touting its one nuclear reactor as “essential for medicine” – i.e – “it’s only purpose is medical”. That myth must be busted.
Thank you and thank you for your kind reply. I understand. And, I agree (not that it matters). Australia certainly needs to protect itself because right now it still has a much lower background radiation than the US or Europe, despite the mining and despite some weapons exposure. Hopefully Australia has better standards than the US on for medical discharges. But, technetium is very bad and needs to be fought, whether reactors or medicine.
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/12/30/important-to-oppose-production-of-technetium-99m-precursor-mo-99-even-late-technetium-99-stays-radioactive-for-millions-of-years/
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/12/21/tc-99m-becomes-tc-99-which-stays-in-environment-for-millions-of-years-medical-and-non-medical-production-should-be-banned-comment-deadline-30-december-2016/
It does matter. We all work together – trying to shine a light of truth on the web of pro nuclear lies. I doubt that Australia has better standards on radioactive wastes. The authorities are in denial about this – make contradictory statements to the public.
The US made a “patient release rule” which allows the hospitals to release patients even if it exposes the passers-by to an estimated 5 mSv of radiation (compared to 0.25 to 1 mSv per year for reactors). It saves insurance money and hospital cleanup. It is also dangerous for hotel guests and workers (especially maids) since many patients stay there. The EU has maintained the original “standards”, I think. Australia, I’m not sure: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/us-radiation-release-rule-for-i-131-patients-allowing-high-public-exposure-comes-back-on-hospital-er-causing-panic https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/is-petition-for-increasing-public-exposure-to-radiation-a-usnrc-inside-job-retired-nrc-counsel-carol-marcus-wrote-another-petition-at-the-request-of-nrc-staff Someone tested an old watch which if worn 24 hours would expose the person wearing it to 70 mSv. I think these watches (and medical exposures and weapons and radium craze) made cancer seem “normal” and then the nuclear industry can statistically hide their cancers under these earlier cancers.
On the 70 mSv radium faced watch I meant per year. Over 10 years this would have given the person around a 7% chance of additional life-shortening cancer according to BEIR (which is a very low and conservative estimate). I think a CT scan is around 25 mSv.