Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Cancer Patient Sets Off Port Radiation Alarms
Cancer Patient Sets Off Port Radiation Alarms
I was more than a little surprised at this article:
* w w w .wsbtv . com /health/10853509/detail.html
It is short on details so I am still wondering just what
it was that was detected, assuming the story is not
a hoax.
Do any knowledgable people care to take a guess as
to what may have been detected?
Possibilities that occur to me include a tracer she may
have received for imaging purposes, or an implant placed
directly into a tumor (do they do that any more?)
Could she have receive radioiodine treatment for an
enlarged thyroid, rather than cancer therapy?
--
FF
I was more than a little surprised at this article:
* w w w .wsbtv . com /health/10853509/detail.html
It is short on details so I am still wondering just what
it was that was detected, assuming the story is not
a hoax.
Do any knowledgable people care to take a guess as
to what may have been detected?
Possibilities that occur to me include a tracer she may
have received for imaging purposes, or an implant placed
directly into a tumor (do they do that any more?)
Could she have receive radioiodine treatment for an
enlarged thyroid, rather than cancer therapy?
--
FF
Re: Cancer Patient Sets Off Port Radiation Alarms
With apologies for crossposting but the recipient forums seem
appropriate . . .
fredfighter@spamcop . net wrote:
> Do any knowledgable people care to take a guess as
> to what may have been detected?
Probably not a lot of validity in most guesses, even educated ones or a
Snopes inquiry, as our border radiation detectors are evolving rapidly
as we type. Maaaaaany people are working looong hours at multiple
facilities to design and deploy new detection concepts, technology, and
hardware at everything from remote southern deserts to major urban
ports. Fortunately, the media hasn't stumbled across the details yet, or
they'd have hand-delivered them to the very people we're trying to stop.
I hope to see rampant, broad, numerous, contradictory, even stupid
and/or deliberately misleading guesses . . . or silence. There's way too
much idle but harmful curiosity about what is being done in the interest
of security.
I.P.
With apologies for crossposting but the recipient forums seem
appropriate . . .
fredfighter@spamcop . net wrote:
> Do any knowledgable people care to take a guess as
> to what may have been detected?
Probably not a lot of validity in most guesses, even educated ones or a
Snopes inquiry, as our border radiation detectors are evolving rapidly
as we type. Maaaaaany people are working looong hours at multiple
facilities to design and deploy new detection concepts, technology, and
hardware at everything from remote southern deserts to major urban
ports. Fortunately, the media hasn't stumbled across the details yet, or
they'd have hand-delivered them to the very people we're trying to stop.
I hope to see rampant, broad, numerous, contradictory, even stupid
and/or deliberately misleading guesses . . . or silence. There's way too
much idle but harmful curiosity about what is being done in the interest
of security.
I.P.
Re: Cancer Patient Sets Off Port Radiation Alarms
On Jan 27, 7:24 pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote:
> With apologies for crossposting but the recipient forums seem
> appropriate . . .
>
> fredfigh...@spamcop . net wrote:
> > Do any knowledgable people care to take a guess as
> > to what may have been detected?Probably not a lot of validity in most guesses, even educated ones or a
> Snopes inquiry, as our border radiation detectors are evolving rapidly
> as we type. Maaaaaany people are working looong hours at multiple
> facilities to design and deploy new detection concepts, technology, and
> hardware at everything from remote southern deserts to major urban
> ports. Fortunately, the media hasn't stumbled across the details yet, or
> they'd have hand-delivered them to the very people we're trying to stop.
> I hope to see rampant, broad, numerous, contradictory, even stupid
> and/or deliberately misleading guesses . . . or silence. There's way too
> much idle but harmful curiosity about what is being done in the interest
> of security.
>
I'm not inquiring about the detector, I'm inquiring about the therapy.
I had thought that radiation therapy for cancer typically uses X-rays
or betas. That wasn't the case here.
--
FF
On Jan 27, 7:24 pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote:
> With apologies for crossposting but the recipient forums seem
> appropriate . . .
>
> fredfigh...@spamcop . net wrote:
> > Do any knowledgable people care to take a guess as
> > to what may have been detected?Probably not a lot of validity in most guesses, even educated ones or a
> Snopes inquiry, as our border radiation detectors are evolving rapidly
> as we type. Maaaaaany people are working looong hours at multiple
> facilities to design and deploy new detection concepts, technology, and
> hardware at everything from remote southern deserts to major urban
> ports. Fortunately, the media hasn't stumbled across the details yet, or
> they'd have hand-delivered them to the very people we're trying to stop.
> I hope to see rampant, broad, numerous, contradictory, even stupid
> and/or deliberately misleading guesses . . . or silence. There's way too
> much idle but harmful curiosity about what is being done in the interest
> of security.
>
I'm not inquiring about the detector, I'm inquiring about the therapy.
I had thought that radiation therapy for cancer typically uses X-rays
or betas. That wasn't the case here.
--
FF
Re: Cancer Patient Sets Off Port Radiation Alarms
On Jan 27, 6:28 pm, fredfigh...@spamcop . net wrote:
> I was more than a little surprised at this article:
>
>
> Do any knowledgable people care to take a guess as
> to what may have been detected?
>
Not much of a surprise really. There have been
several similar incidence reported in the past few
years. Most of them have been from patients
who have recently undergone some kind of
nuclear medicine imaging procedure, usually
cardiac imaging. Some departments have gone
so far as to start giving their patients little information
cards describing what type of procedure they've been
through for just such a situation.
In the case of the patient in the story, it would be
difficult to say without knowing what type of
cancer she was being treated for. If she was being
treated for thyroid cancer, I-131 would be the most
likely suspect. If she was being followed for some
other type of cancer, F-18 (PET imaging) or perhaps
In-111 or even Tc-99m are possibilities. There isn't
enough information in the article to narrow the
possibilities down.
On Jan 27, 6:28 pm, fredfigh...@spamcop . net wrote:
> I was more than a little surprised at this article:
>
>
> Do any knowledgable people care to take a guess as
> to what may have been detected?
>
Not much of a surprise really. There have been
several similar incidence reported in the past few
years. Most of them have been from patients
who have recently undergone some kind of
nuclear medicine imaging procedure, usually
cardiac imaging. Some departments have gone
so far as to start giving their patients little information
cards describing what type of procedure they've been
through for just such a situation.
In the case of the patient in the story, it would be
difficult to say without knowing what type of
cancer she was being treated for. If she was being
treated for thyroid cancer, I-131 would be the most
likely suspect. If she was being followed for some
other type of cancer, F-18 (PET imaging) or perhaps
In-111 or even Tc-99m are possibilities. There isn't
enough information in the article to narrow the
possibilities down.
Re: Cancer Patient Sets Off Port Radiation Alarms
<fredfighter@spamcop . net > wrote in message
news:1169940522.025239.87760@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups . com ...
>I was more than a little surprised at this article:
>
> * w w w .wsbtv . com /health/10853509/detail.html
>
> It is short on details so I am still wondering just what
> it was that was detected, assuming the story is not
> a hoax.
>
> Do any knowledgable people care to take a guess as
> to what may have been detected?
>
> Possibilities that occur to me include a tracer she may
> have received for imaging purposes, or an implant placed
> directly into a tumor (do they do that any more?)
>
> Could she have receive radioiodine treatment for an
> enlarged thyroid, rather than cancer therapy?
>
Why do you think it wouldn't have been cancer?
Someone on my thyroid cancer list set off an alarm several weeks after her
treatment with radioactive iodine -- the same substance used to treat hyper
or whatever, it's the dose that varies. Patients are advised to carry a
letter from their doctors about it.
I've heard that prostrate cancer patients have implants that can set off
alarms, but don't know anything more than that, or what substance is used.
Detectors can vary in how sensitive they are.
bj
<fredfighter@spamcop . net > wrote in message
news:1169940522.025239.87760@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups . com ...
>I was more than a little surprised at this article:
>
> * w w w .wsbtv . com /health/10853509/detail.html
>
> It is short on details so I am still wondering just what
> it was that was detected, assuming the story is not
> a hoax.
>
> Do any knowledgable people care to take a guess as
> to what may have been detected?
>
> Possibilities that occur to me include a tracer she may
> have received for imaging purposes, or an implant placed
> directly into a tumor (do they do that any more?)
>
> Could she have receive radioiodine treatment for an
> enlarged thyroid, rather than cancer therapy?
>
Why do you think it wouldn't have been cancer?
Someone on my thyroid cancer list set off an alarm several weeks after her
treatment with radioactive iodine -- the same substance used to treat hyper
or whatever, it's the dose that varies. Patients are advised to carry a
letter from their doctors about it.
I've heard that prostrate cancer patients have implants that can set off
alarms, but don't know anything more than that, or what substance is used.
Detectors can vary in how sensitive they are.
bj
Re: Cancer Patient Sets Off Port Radiation Alarms
On Jan 28, 12:28 pm, "bj" <bjone...@bellatlantic . net > wrote:
> <fredfigh...@spamcop . net > wrote in messagenews:1169940522.025239.87760@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups . com ...
>
>
>
> >I was more than a little surprised at this article:
>
> > * w w w .wsbtv . com /health/10853509/detail.html
>
> > It is short on details so I am still wondering just what
> > it was that was detected, assuming the story is not
> > a hoax.
>
> > Do any knowledgable people care to take a guess as
> > to what may have been detected?
>
> > Possibilities that occur to me include a tracer she may
> > have received for imaging purposes, or an implant placed
> > directly into a tumor (do they do that any more?)
>
> > Could she have receive radioiodine treatment for an
> > enlarged thyroid, rather than cancer therapy?
> Why do you think it wouldn't have been cancer?
Because I didn't know that I-131 was used for thyroid cancer.
Thanks.
--
FF
On Jan 28, 12:28 pm, "bj" <bjone...@bellatlantic . net > wrote:
> <fredfigh...@spamcop . net > wrote in messagenews:1169940522.025239.87760@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups . com ...
>
>
>
> >I was more than a little surprised at this article:
>
> > * w w w .wsbtv . com /health/10853509/detail.html
>
> > It is short on details so I am still wondering just what
> > it was that was detected, assuming the story is not
> > a hoax.
>
> > Do any knowledgable people care to take a guess as
> > to what may have been detected?
>
> > Possibilities that occur to me include a tracer she may
> > have received for imaging purposes, or an implant placed
> > directly into a tumor (do they do that any more?)
>
> > Could she have receive radioiodine treatment for an
> > enlarged thyroid, rather than cancer therapy?
> Why do you think it wouldn't have been cancer?
Because I didn't know that I-131 was used for thyroid cancer.
Thanks.
--
FF
Re: Cancer Patient Sets Off Port Radiation Alarms
<fredfighter@spamcop . net > wrote in message
news:1170012369.277231.142540@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups . com ...
>
> On Jan 28, 12:28 pm, "bj" <bjone...@bellatlantic . net > wrote:
>
>> Why do you think it wouldn't have been cancer?
>
> Because I didn't know that I-131 was used for thyroid cancer.
>
> Thanks.
>
Well, now you do know. In fact, it's been used for several decades, so it's
not nearly as new as lots of other cancer treatments. It does the same thing
for cancer-thyroids that it does for hyper -- kill it off, though the hope
for cancer is to totally kill off (ablate) any remnants left after surgery
rather than just dial-it-down a bit.
We get to drink a solution or take <1 or more> pills of I-131. It's not like
external beam, where the rays are aimed at you (& about which I hope I never
need to learn more), it's ingested (what fun, drinking nuclear waste!) If
it's for a diagnostic scan, it's a small dose (like 2-5mci, I think). Cancer
treatment can be anwhere from about 30mci up to several hundred.
Sometimes a pre-treatment scan is done with I-123. I remembered
once earlyish-on to ask about the scanning camera & learned it's gamma.
When the radiation safety officer came to measure me before I was let out of
hospital isolation, I was *very disappointed* that his detector didn't
clacketyclack like the ones on TV.
bj
<fredfighter@spamcop . net > wrote in message
news:1170012369.277231.142540@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups . com ...
>
> On Jan 28, 12:28 pm, "bj" <bjone...@bellatlantic . net > wrote:
>
>> Why do you think it wouldn't have been cancer?
>
> Because I didn't know that I-131 was used for thyroid cancer.
>
> Thanks.
>
Well, now you do know. In fact, it's been used for several decades, so it's
not nearly as new as lots of other cancer treatments. It does the same thing
for cancer-thyroids that it does for hyper -- kill it off, though the hope
for cancer is to totally kill off (ablate) any remnants left after surgery
rather than just dial-it-down a bit.
We get to drink a solution or take <1 or more> pills of I-131. It's not like
external beam, where the rays are aimed at you (& about which I hope I never
need to learn more), it's ingested (what fun, drinking nuclear waste!) If
it's for a diagnostic scan, it's a small dose (like 2-5mci, I think). Cancer
treatment can be anwhere from about 30mci up to several hundred.
Sometimes a pre-treatment scan is done with I-123. I remembered
once earlyish-on to ask about the scanning camera & learned it's gamma.
When the radiation safety officer came to measure me before I was let out of
hospital isolation, I was *very disappointed* that his detector didn't
clacketyclack like the ones on TV.
bj
Re: Cancer Patient Sets Off Port Radiation Alarms
On Jan 28, 7:55 pm, "bj" <bjone...@bellatlantic . net > wrote:
> <fredfigh...@spamcop . net > wrote in messagenews:1170012369.277231.142540@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups . com ...
> When the radiation safety officer came to measure me before I was let out of
> hospital isolation, I was *very disappointed* that his detector didn't
> clacketyclack like the ones on TV.
> bj
Most of us doing that job tend to leave the sound off on geiger
counters because it usually makes people within earshot nervous when
the sporadic clicking turns into a steady whine. Plus we find it more
distracting and annoying than anything else.
Eugene
On Jan 28, 7:55 pm, "bj" <bjone...@bellatlantic . net > wrote:
> <fredfigh...@spamcop . net > wrote in messagenews:1170012369.277231.142540@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups . com ...
> When the radiation safety officer came to measure me before I was let out of
> hospital isolation, I was *very disappointed* that his detector didn't
> clacketyclack like the ones on TV.
> bj
Most of us doing that job tend to leave the sound off on geiger
counters because it usually makes people within earshot nervous when
the sporadic clicking turns into a steady whine. Plus we find it more
distracting and annoying than anything else.
Eugene
Re: Cancer Patient Sets Off Port Radiation Alarms
"Imabug" <eugenemah@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:1170041002.987645.275250@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups . com ...
> On Jan 28, 7:55 pm, "bj" <bjone...@bellatlantic . net > wrote:
>> <fredfigh...@spamcop . net > wrote in
>> messagenews:1170012369.277231.142540@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups . com ...
>
>> When the radiation safety officer came to measure me before I was let out
>> of
>> hospital isolation, I was *very disappointed* that his detector didn't
>> clacketyclack like the ones on TV.
>> bj
>
> Most of us doing that job tend to leave the sound off on geiger
> counters because it usually makes people within earshot nervous when
> the sporadic clicking turns into a steady whine. Plus we find it more
> distracting and annoying than anything else.
>
Considering I was in a room with "Danger! Radiation" signs plastered all
over the door, nobody should have been surprised at any detecto-noises.
It just would have been fun *for me*, at a time when not much was.
I did notice that nobody wanted to come anywhere near me when I walked
out -- not even to wave bye-bye from a distance -- unlike the usual
nervous-nellie attitude they usually take with discharged patients to be
sure nothing happens until *after* they get out the hospital door. :-)
bj
"Imabug" <eugenemah@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:1170041002.987645.275250@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups . com ...
> On Jan 28, 7:55 pm, "bj" <bjone...@bellatlantic . net > wrote:
>> <fredfigh...@spamcop . net > wrote in
>> messagenews:1170012369.277231.142540@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups . com ...
>
>> When the radiation safety officer came to measure me before I was let out
>> of
>> hospital isolation, I was *very disappointed* that his detector didn't
>> clacketyclack like the ones on TV.
>> bj
>
> Most of us doing that job tend to leave the sound off on geiger
> counters because it usually makes people within earshot nervous when
> the sporadic clicking turns into a steady whine. Plus we find it more
> distracting and annoying than anything else.
>
Considering I was in a room with "Danger! Radiation" signs plastered all
over the door, nobody should have been surprised at any detecto-noises.
It just would have been fun *for me*, at a time when not much was.
I did notice that nobody wanted to come anywhere near me when I walked
out -- not even to wave bye-bye from a distance -- unlike the usual
nervous-nellie attitude they usually take with discharged patients to be
sure nothing happens until *after* they get out the hospital door. :-)
bj
Re: Cancer Patient Sets Off Port Radiation Alarms
fredfighter@spamcop . net wrote:
> I was more than a little surprised at this article:
>
> * w w w .wsbtv . com /health/10853509/detail.html
>
> It is short on details so I am still wondering just what
> it was that was detected, assuming the story is not
> a hoax.
>
> Do any knowledgable people care to take a guess as
> to what may have been detected?
>
> Possibilities that occur to me include a tracer she may
> have received for imaging purposes, or an implant placed
> directly into a tumor (do they do that any more?)
>
> Could she have receive radioiodine treatment for an
> enlarged thyroid, rather than cancer therapy?
>
> --
>
> FF
>
I didn't read the article but yes, this can (and does) happen. If we
find out that a patient is crossing the border within the next few days,
or traveling to an airport, we give them a standard letter explaining
that they were injected with technetium or given oral iodine.
Most of the time it is with truck drivers who regularly cross into the
US. In the fall we also have a lot of "snowbirds" heading South.
I don't know how sensitive the detectors are, but the thought of some 70
year old grandmother having her car torn apart simply because she had a
bone scan the day before doesn't appeal to me.
Andrew
fredfighter@spamcop . net wrote:
> I was more than a little surprised at this article:
>
> * w w w .wsbtv . com /health/10853509/detail.html
>
> It is short on details so I am still wondering just what
> it was that was detected, assuming the story is not
> a hoax.
>
> Do any knowledgable people care to take a guess as
> to what may have been detected?
>
> Possibilities that occur to me include a tracer she may
> have received for imaging purposes, or an implant placed
> directly into a tumor (do they do that any more?)
>
> Could she have receive radioiodine treatment for an
> enlarged thyroid, rather than cancer therapy?
>
> --
>
> FF
>
I didn't read the article but yes, this can (and does) happen. If we
find out that a patient is crossing the border within the next few days,
or traveling to an airport, we give them a standard letter explaining
that they were injected with technetium or given oral iodine.
Most of the time it is with truck drivers who regularly cross into the
US. In the fall we also have a lot of "snowbirds" heading South.
I don't know how sensitive the detectors are, but the thought of some 70
year old grandmother having her car torn apart simply because she had a
bone scan the day before doesn't appeal to me.
Andrew
Next: Last Call for Papers: 2007 International Conference on Scientific Computing...
Previous: Call for Papers: WORLDCOMP'07: conferences in computer science & computer...
