
@Ian Something else on CT scans. The US issued a warning or change in protocol a few years ago about CT scans. They said they were being overused by some causing large radiation doses to patients that had undergone multiple scans for mundane non-life threatening maladies.
There was also an issue around the same time where some CT machines were calibrated wrong giving patients a very large dose. It makes me wonder how many bad outcomes happened in order to make the authorities modify the usage of the scanners.
by lillymunster 10/10/2011 6:59:38 PM

@Ian good post Ian!
by elainekirk 10/10/2011 7:16:49 PM

In 2009, a number of studies that further defined the risk of cancer that may be caused by CT scans appeared.[14] One study indicated that radiation by CT scans is often higher and more variable than cited, and each of the 19,500 CT scans that are daily performed in the US is equivalent to 30 to 442 chest X-rays in radiation. It has been estimated that CT radiation exposure will result in 29,000 new cancer cases just from the CT scans performed in 2007.[14] The most common cancers caused by CT are thought to be lung cancer, colon cancer, and leukemia with younger people, and women more at risk.
en.wikipedia.orgby Edano 10/10/2011 7:22:51 PM

"Eine 2009 veröffentlichte Studie macht 70 Millionen CT-Scans in den USA für 29.000 Krebsfälle verantwortlich und berechnet die jährlichen CT-Todesfälle in den USA mit 14.500."
"A 2009 study published accounts for 70 million CT scans in the U.S. responsible for 29,000 cancer cases and calculated the annual CT-related deaths in the U.S. with 14,500."
de.wikipedia.orgby Edano 10/10/2011 7:25:54 PM

@Edano Yikes 14500 deaths a year?
by lillymunster 10/10/2011 7:27:06 PM

@lillymunster yes. sounds horrible.
by Edano 10/10/2011 7:30:30 PM

@Ian I had an ENT doc want to do a CT scan when I came in for allergy meds. We didn't have an allergist on our insurance plan, they were listed as the "allergist" on our plan. It was May, I get hay fever every May. First they tried telling me I needed it (didn't say why) and that my insurance would pay for it. Then they mentioned how they just got the machine and want to try it out. They wouldn't take no for an answer so I told them to run it against my insurance to see if they would cover it. They finally dropped the issue once they found out my insurance wouldn't pay for it. I would have ended up stuck paying a $1000 out of pocket bill for a dangerous scan I totally didn't need.
by lillymunster 10/10/2011 8:02:34 PM

by Edano 10/10/2011 8:14:06 PM

by Edano 10/10/2011 8:15:48 PM

@Ian It was really surreal. I have just enough medical knowledge to be a pain in the butt. I wonder how many people they talked into scans that week. I had a veterinarian try to sell me $100 antibiotics. I pointed out I could get an antibiotic of the same class of antibiotics for $4 at Target and asked for a explanation why that would not be a suitable substitution. Then they declared they won't write prescriptions to outside pharmacies, change the subject rather than answer the question. She didn't know I was a vet tech in my much much younger days and knew she was just ripping me off.
by lillymunster 10/10/2011 8:16:09 PM

sorry for off topic ... :(
by Edano 10/10/2011 8:17:23 PM

@Edano we have a black panther in these parts
by elainekirk 10/10/2011 8:21:23 PM

@Edano Maybe not. Is he radioactive?
by lillymunster 10/10/2011 8:23:24 PM

Big cat filmed near military base in Scotland
This photograph of what appears to be a big cat has been taken by a military policeman in Scotland near the home of Britain's Trident nuclear submarines.
www.telegraph.co.ukby elainekirk 10/10/2011 8:23:37 PM

@elainekirk LOL i was waiting for the train in that video !!! squeeek
by Edano 10/10/2011 8:25:50 PM

@Edano lol
by elainekirk 10/10/2011 8:30:19 PM

@artnuke Only speaking for myself - I would like to see the current collection of antiquated nuke plants shut down and the waste properly stored in a way that will not cause problems for future generations, However having said that, there are people I would not stand alongside to call for the cessation of nukes . I will add a short note to the ego's parading themselves in the video "your voices are not 'vital' so shut up and let the people be heard.
I feel better for saying that, the bitch in me is coming to the fore today.
by elainekirk 10/10/2011 9:36:22 PM


for a really loud noise, welcome every voice. [Edano]

@Edano AAAAAAAAAAwwweeeessome
by elainekirk 10/10/2011 9:52:25 PM

@Majj yes I will ask around
by elainekirk 10/10/2011 10:48:19 PM

I have found something that might help explain why the NRC is so reluctant to act in any meaningful way for public safety vs. what the electric companies want.
NRC does not believe it should be reimbursed by the Japanese Government for its costs incurred in responding to the reactor event. Once the situation is stable in Japan, it may be appropriate for the NRC to enter into a reimbursable agreement for providing support to the Government of Japan. NRC also believes that it's salaries and benefits expenses associated with support for the Japanese Government should not be categorically excluded from reimbursement considerations. NRC appropriations are supported by industry fees. As such, NRC collects approximately 90 % of its j1 1020' appropriations from licensees through fees, less specific appropriations for Generic Homeland Security, Waste Incidental to Reprocessing and Nuclear Waste Fund activities. NRC appropriations specifically allow for support to foreign governments and international organizations which is accounted for as part of the 10% fee relief activities. Depending on other agency fee relief activities, the increased support for Japan event response may exceed 10% of agency FY 2011 appropriations resulting in increased fees to NRC licensees. NRC does not believe its domestic licensees should bear an unreasonable burden for its international event response costs.
Found in the FOIA documents
by lillymunster 10/10/2011 11:41:55 PM

Does anyone remember when they finally evacuated that north-west corridor of fallout?
by lillymunster 10/11/2011 12:27:29 AM

@lillymunster I can look
by elainekirk 10/11/2011 12:46:22 AM

by elainekirk 10/11/2011 12:47:30 AM

@elainekirk Thanks! They knew there were high levels and plume travel in that area for over a month before they took action.
by lillymunster 10/11/2011 12:49:37 AM

@lillymunster oh yes just couldnt give a damn about the people
by elainekirk 10/11/2011 12:50:31 AM

@elainekirk that make me very sad, they knew levels were high 40km from the plant. There should have been an effort to get kids out of there asap and they could have done the remaining evac at a slower pace if they had to. I predict we will see more of the thyroid cancer issues from that area.
by lillymunster 10/11/2011 12:51:28 AM

@lillymunster and the birth defects those will come first
by elainekirk 10/11/2011 12:57:53 AM