Re: RAI and radiation monitors

[Guest guest]

I'm sorry, but if he is still setting off anti-terrorist alarms 3 weeks

after RAI, I wouldn't want to be the one that had to sit all squished up

next to him on the subway either. Yes, he should avoid public

transportation if he's setting off alarms.

Also, I see Former President Bush had RAI 11 years ago now... has anyone

hear/read how he is doing these days? Wonder if he is one of the lucky ones

still or if he's having some big time health problems these days....

Pam B. (who must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed maybe?)

[Guest guest]

I'm sorry, but if he is still setting off anti-terrorist alarms 3 weeks

after RAI, I wouldn't want to be the one that had to sit all squished up

next to him on the subway either. Yes, he should avoid public

transportation if he's setting off alarms.

Also, I see Former President Bush had RAI 11 years ago now... has anyone

hear/read how he is doing these days? Wonder if he is one of the lucky ones

still or if he's having some big time health problems these days....

Pam B. (who must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed maybe?)

[Guest guest]

cfyoung2@... wrote:

>

> AFAIK, aren't radiation treatments and RAI not exactly the same? I don't

> remember my mother having to flush twice, etc. after she had radiation

> for cancer.

Radioactive Iodine ablation is one of the few, possibly the only

remaining, treatment where a significant amount of radioactive

material is actually consumed. Hence the precautions are

different.

Small amounts of radioactive material are used as tracers in

some diagnostic procedures, RAIU is an example, but RAI ablation

involves far more radioactive material.

Some cancer treatments use an external radiation source that is

" beamed " or focused onto the cancerous tissue. Such treatments

were once also used for overactive thyroids. They don't leave

significant radioactivity.

Where ionising radiation of certain types are " beamed " or

focused onto a target, the target may become radioactive (I'm

racking my brain for the correct terminology - Devin?), but it

is a very low grade of radioactivity, and isn't usually an issue

except in things like material used to contain nuclear reactors,

and then only on certain material, and certain types of ionising

radiation.

> Three weeks after treatment, he complained to his doctors that he'd

> been strip-searched twice at Manhattan subway stations.

Which is of course totally inappropriate, they ought to have a

handheld geiger counter, and should quickly be able to tell if

it is mostly coming from his throat.

Letters from doctors are ridiculous, even if the idea is to

detect people who have been working illicitly with nuclear

material, rather than the nuclear material itself. In which case

just call the hospital and check their records.

I guess they may still strip search people if they are trying to

prevent the terrorists topping themselves before the have

confirmed who people are.

Still it'll be interesting to see if the radiation detectors

turn up anything else leaking into the environment.

Simon, now about 50 miles upwind of our Trident submarine

servicing base of Devonport, where the security is so tight the

antinuclear protestors are busy walking around on top of the

submarines.

[Guest guest]

cfyoung2@... wrote:

>

> AFAIK, aren't radiation treatments and RAI not exactly the same? I don't

> remember my mother having to flush twice, etc. after she had radiation

> for cancer.

Radioactive Iodine ablation is one of the few, possibly the only

remaining, treatment where a significant amount of radioactive

material is actually consumed. Hence the precautions are

different.

Small amounts of radioactive material are used as tracers in

some diagnostic procedures, RAIU is an example, but RAI ablation

involves far more radioactive material.

Some cancer treatments use an external radiation source that is

" beamed " or focused onto the cancerous tissue. Such treatments

were once also used for overactive thyroids. They don't leave

significant radioactivity.

Where ionising radiation of certain types are " beamed " or

focused onto a target, the target may become radioactive (I'm

racking my brain for the correct terminology - Devin?), but it

is a very low grade of radioactivity, and isn't usually an issue

except in things like material used to contain nuclear reactors,

and then only on certain material, and certain types of ionising

radiation.

> Three weeks after treatment, he complained to his doctors that he'd

> been strip-searched twice at Manhattan subway stations.

Which is of course totally inappropriate, they ought to have a

handheld geiger counter, and should quickly be able to tell if

it is mostly coming from his throat.

Letters from doctors are ridiculous, even if the idea is to

detect people who have been working illicitly with nuclear

material, rather than the nuclear material itself. In which case

just call the hospital and check their records.

I guess they may still strip search people if they are trying to

prevent the terrorists topping themselves before the have

confirmed who people are.

Still it'll be interesting to see if the radiation detectors

turn up anything else leaking into the environment.

Simon, now about 50 miles upwind of our Trident submarine

servicing base of Devonport, where the security is so tight the

antinuclear protestors are busy walking around on top of the

submarines.

[Guest guest]

cfyoung2@... wrote:

>

> AFAIK, aren't radiation treatments and RAI not exactly the same? I don't

> remember my mother having to flush twice, etc. after she had radiation

> for cancer.

Radioactive Iodine ablation is one of the few, possibly the only

remaining, treatment where a significant amount of radioactive

material is actually consumed. Hence the precautions are

different.

Small amounts of radioactive material are used as tracers in

some diagnostic procedures, RAIU is an example, but RAI ablation

involves far more radioactive material.

Some cancer treatments use an external radiation source that is

" beamed " or focused onto the cancerous tissue. Such treatments

were once also used for overactive thyroids. They don't leave

significant radioactivity.

Where ionising radiation of certain types are " beamed " or

focused onto a target, the target may become radioactive (I'm

racking my brain for the correct terminology - Devin?), but it

is a very low grade of radioactivity, and isn't usually an issue

except in things like material used to contain nuclear reactors,

and then only on certain material, and certain types of ionising

radiation.

> Three weeks after treatment, he complained to his doctors that he'd

> been strip-searched twice at Manhattan subway stations.

Which is of course totally inappropriate, they ought to have a

handheld geiger counter, and should quickly be able to tell if

it is mostly coming from his throat.

Letters from doctors are ridiculous, even if the idea is to

detect people who have been working illicitly with nuclear

material, rather than the nuclear material itself. In which case

just call the hospital and check their records.

I guess they may still strip search people if they are trying to

prevent the terrorists topping themselves before the have

confirmed who people are.

Still it'll be interesting to see if the radiation detectors

turn up anything else leaking into the environment.

Simon, now about 50 miles upwind of our Trident submarine

servicing base of Devonport, where the security is so tight the

antinuclear protestors are busy walking around on top of the

submarines.

[Guest guest]

Pam B wrote:

>

> I'm sorry, but if he is still setting off anti-terrorist alarms 3 weeks

> after RAI, I wouldn't want to be the one that had to sit all squished up

> next to him on the subway either. Yes, he should avoid public

> transportation if he's setting off alarms.

Manhattan isn't that big.

> Also, I see Former President Bush had RAI 11 years ago now... has anyone

> hear/read how he is doing these days? Wonder if he is one of the lucky ones

> still or if he's having some big time health problems these days....

I had a quick browse.

Last reference to his health was with atrial fibrillation in

February 2000, CNN and others ran a story about him going to

hospital, didn't sound too serious as heart problems go, but

could well be related.

An unauthorised biography notes he became hoarse in May after

the RAI, so they are too slow with the hormones even when the

worlds press is watching.

It also notes he suffered a dry mouth after RAI, that'll be the

salivary glands being zapped at a guess.

We could write and ask how he and Barbara are, there is hardly

the great public interest and diving stock exchanges resulting

from the health issues of former presidents.

I particularly enjoyed the site claiming that it was Graves'

impairing his judgement that led to the Gulf war, perhaps the

world need more presidents with Graves rage to stamp on squalid

little dictators.

I assume Millie is long gone?