Whenever possible radiation is to be avoided. The effects are not well understood and variable amongst different people. There are other options usually. The Hippocrates Institute in Palm Beach, Fl is one of the premiere centers for curing cancer through fasting, green fluids, and rest.
WASHINGTON — One group receiving treatment for a thyroid disorder is given a radioactive drug that makes the patients a potential hazard to children or pregnant women for several days. Still, doctors usually send them home immediately after treatment.
Yet another group of thyroid patients given the same drug in much smaller doses must be quarantined for two to five days under government rules, until the radiation the patients emit is sharply reduced.
What is the difference? The first group is made up of human patients, and the second is made up of cats and dogs.
In October, Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, complained to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that its policy on human thyroid patients was creating dilemmas for patients, some of whom are sent home immediately after radiation treatment to households with children or pregnant women.
Now, Mr. Markey is pointing out that the rules are much stricter for house pets, even though they usually get radiation doses 90 percent to 98 percent smaller than the ones given to humans. On Thursday, he plans to ask the commission to revisit the regulations.
“The public is more protected from a radioactive Fluffy than from a radioactive father who receives the very same treatment and is then just sent home,” said Mr. Markey, who is the chairman of a House subcommittee with jurisdiction over the nuclear commission.
“The N. R. C. needs to immediately change its nonsensical policy and act to protect public health instead of industry’s bottom line,” he said.
In an interview, a spokesman for the commission, David McIntyre, acknowledged the disparity in the regulations. Under the commission’s rules, radiation exposure to a person from a human patient is supposed to be limited to 500 millirems per treatment, while the exposure to humans from treated pets should be one-fifth that amount. (By comparison, the average American gets about 360 millirem a year from natural sources.)
But, Mr. McIntyre said, “The higher limit for humans is appropriate because of the benefits to the patient in being able to recover at home in the care and presence of loved ones, and because the risk of exposure to others can be managed by taking appropriate precautions.”
“The lower limit for animals is appropriate because it is more difficult to manage the exposure to humans,” he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment