Ted Kennedy’s Cancer in Remission
May 23rd, 2009
|
| Share |
Score one for modern, mainstream, proven, science-based medicine and especially nuclear medicine and targeted radiation therapy. Senator Ted Kennedy had been diagnosed with a large cancerous brain tumor last year and at the time, his prognosis looked dim. Surgery was able to remove a large portion of the tumor, but given the size and stage of the cancer, it seemed that the cards were stacked against ‘ole Teddy. Since then, Kennedy has been receiving further treatment, including radiation therapy in the hopes of killing off the cancerous cells.
Well, apparently it worked, because according to numerous media reports, Senator Kennedy is said to be in full remission. Due to the nature of the cancer, Kennedy will continue to receive some additional chemotherapy and possibly a few more limited radiation sessions to be certain that any remaining cells have been destroyed, but as things stand now, all indications are that the treatment has been extremely successful.
The term “remission” is generally used in cases of cancer, as opposed to saying that the disease has been “cured.” This is because it is difficult, if not impossible to guarantee that the cancer will not flare up again in the future due to the survival of a few cells. In cases where the cancer is localized and in the early stages it may be possible to remove it fully. In such cases the cancer is, for all intents and purposes “cured” but due to the lingering possibility, however small, that some of the cells have found their way into the lymphatic system, medical professionals are often weary of using the term “cure.” But whatever terminology is used, the outcome is the best that could have been expected.
Modern cancer therapy has evolved and improved a great deal, even over just the past few years. The treatment of cancers of the brain and other areas now relies on advanced radiation therapies, which can target the tumor while minimizing irradiation to surrounding tissues. There treatments rely on highly accurate imaging, such as CT scans and MRI’s to determine the exact location of the cancer and precision radiation beams which may be delivered by a robotic system or by the use of specialized multi-beam systems.
Irony?
Ted Kennedy’s life has been saved by nuclear energy. In this case, the “nuclear energy” is in the form of radioactive decay and emission of high energy gamma radiation by isotopes used in nuclear medicine. This is still nuclear energy, even if not in the form of a power reactor, and nuclear medicine does share a great deal of technology and scientific advancements with nuclear energy.
The majority of radioisotopes for nuclear medicine are produced in dedicated isotope production and research reactors. The largest single source of medical isotopes is the NRU reactor at the Chalk River Laboratory in Canada. The NRU reactor produces a range of important isotopes including iodine-131, used in thyroid uptake tests and radioidoine therapy, of which it is the largest source in the world. Other producers of medical isotopes include the High Flux Isotope Reactor at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which produces a variety of specialized isotopes, primarily for industry, but also several critical medical isotopes. The OPAL reactor in Australia and the Petten Nuclear Reactor in the Netherlands are also used in the production of medical isotopes, as are several reactors in Russia and other countries.
Production of medical and industrial isotopes in power reactors, including light water reactors, has been experimented with with varying levels of success. The relatively low amount of surplus neutrons of these reactors, combined with their extended refueling cycles and high temperature and pressure operation makes them far from ideal for the production of specialty isotopes, although they have successfully demonstrated the ability to produce large amounts of cobalt-60 and a few other isotopes of medical importance. Medical isotopes are occasionally derived from fuel reprocessing, the most noteworthy being cesium-137. Cesium-137 has been in common use for the treatment cancer, as it is available in abundance at low costs and produces suitable gamma emissions. However, in recent years, Cs-137 has fallen from favor, due both to the solubility of the cesium salts used in irradiation units and the superior energy range produced by other radioisotopes. Despite this, many units remain in operation around the world and likely will remain so for some time.
Anti-nuclear groups have not limited their attacks to dedicated power reactors. In Australia, fear mongering has surrounded the OPAL reactor and the Canadian NRU reactor was briefly closed due to trumped up safety concerns. It is also due to perceived safety issues (of fairly dubious credibility) that Canada has been forced to mothball the MAPLE reactor project, which would have supplemented and eventually replaced the aging NRU reactor as the primary source of several therapeutic radioisotopes. Reprocessing has also been a major target of various anti-nuclear groups, who have claimed it creates a threat of weapons proliferation. Nuclear facilities with the potential to produce weapons grade materials, such as the Savannah River and Hanford facilities have seen numerous reactors and processing facilities closed due to political pressures. While some of these facilities have historically been used for nuclear weapons development, they are also some of the only sites in the world with the capabilities to produce and extract specialty isotopes and nuclear materials.
Ted Kennedy himself has long been on the opposition side of nuclear energy. His stance after the Three Mile Island incident lead to many pointing out, ironically, that more people have died in Ted Kennedy’s car than due to the incident. Kennedy has been one of the strongest voices opposing the Yucca Mountain repository and has generally voted against pro-nuclear legislation. His stance on “containment” and “proliferation” has lead to his direct opposition on the use of reprocessing and nuclear materials facilities, which could provide valuable medical isotopes. Kennedy has long been opposed to nuclear weapons proliferation, but has also managed to associate this issue with nuclear energy in general. He was part of efforts which lead to the closure of Integral Fast Reactor, which, among other things, would have experimented with specialty isotope production.
There is no doubt that the “nuclear issue” goes beyond power reactors. Reprocessing and materials irradiation are part and parcel of nuclear energy and nuclear research and also yield valuable medical isotopes. Although some cancers are treated with radiation generated by accelerators (another nuclear technology), reactor-generated isotopes have remained the primary source of therapeutic radiation.
This entry was posted on Saturday, May 23rd, 2009 at 3:05 pm and is filed under Good Science, Misc, Nuclear, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
While the current focus is on problems with the NRU, last summer safety problems obliged the Dutch authorities to temporarily shut down the reactor in Petten (the Netherlands) that normally accounts for about 60% of all radioisotopes used as part of radiopharmaceutical medicines products in Europe, and about one third of the world supply. At the time reactors in Belgium and in France were undergoing planned maintenance; the South African facility closed for routine maintenance in September.
Worse, because radiopharmaceuticals represent a rather small market, they have always depended on government support, and production facilities are now very vulnerable in the current economic climate.
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Maybe this just shows how naive I am about how difficult things are to do from a regulatory side, but most isotopes of importance to medicine are not that complex to make by exposing target material to the neutrons, and therefore it seems like any reasonable research or accademic or isotope reactor could do it. As it is stated, power reactors are a poor choice, even if sometimes they could be used.
Anyway, there are reactors that are not used for this but could be used for it. Wouldn’t it make sense to consider having some of them outfitted with the target assemblies to create medical isotopes so that they could be used for that in a contingency?
For that matter, why not just build a few more medical isotope reactors? I guess the MAPLE reactors were a big deal because they were designed to be large and high capacity, but a few smaller ones could also be useful in a pinch.
What about building some more TRIGA reactors? They’re supposed to be the cheapest reactors in the world and only cost a few million dollars plus the cost of the building for them. The General Atomics site on them says they can be configured for producing any reactor generated medical isotope and so they could install a few of these at universities or something, and they could be used for general training and research most of the time and medical isotopes on the side, as a minor thing, but if there were a supply problem then they would be able to start making more medical isotopes.
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
GPB: It is for a number of reasons, but more reglatory than technical. Yes, the TRIGA and many other academic reactors could generate medical isotopes. I don’t know what the volumes of material they could do would be, but the pool reactors used at universities and other institutions can irradiate target material and most already have a system for exposing target racks for varying periods of time. How long they would take and how much they could produce per reactor depends on the neutron flux. There are a few test and research reactors that have a high enough flux to produce large quantities.
The biggest issue you would face here has to do with a license for the reactor versus a license to produce any kind of isotope product. Producing isotopes is beyond the scope of a research reactor license and I do not believe there are even any private entities that have such a license except for extremely tiny quantities as tracers. Research reactors can be used in neutron activation research but producing quantities of isotope products is not permitted without a completely seperate approval process.
Right now, there is only one fully operational reactor in the US which produces significant quantities of synthetic radioisotopes. That is the High Flux Isotope Reactor at Oak Ridge. It can and does produce medical isotopes, but it is also the only domestic source of critical isotopes like Californium-252 and it is used primarily for producing industrial and research isotopes. The capability is stretched thin.
This was not always the case. At one time the US had the capacity to produce large quantities of radioisotopes on demand. Many of these capabilities were directly related to facilities initially used for weapons production. The Savannah River Site was built to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, but the reactors there that irradiated U-238 targets to produce plutonium could also irradiate other materials to produce large quantities of other materials. Savannah River also had the expertise and facilities to seperate and fabricate radioactive materials. Again, this was an offshoot of weapons activities.
The Idaho National Laboratory also had facilities for the production of specialty materials in quantity, including plutonium 238, californium 252 and other heavy elements. This was not directly weapons related, however. There were also some test reactors at the Hanford site that were capable of producing isotopes. The Fast Flux Test Reactor was supposed to be used in experiments to produce high quality isotopes efficiently using fast spectrum neutrons.
This is generally gone at this point. Savannah River had all their reactors shut down in the name of disarmament, even though they were being used for other things. Because the reactors -could- product weapons material, this was justification for their retirement. The Idaho national laboratory only has one reactor in operation and it is used primarily for materials testing. The Fast Flux facility is in mothballs and scheduled to be torn down.
To be blunt, this is politics. We do not have the capability anymore to produce some very important materials. They are generally being imported from Russia. This has become a major issue with Pu-238. We can’t make it anymore and so we might not be able to send any more probes into deep space.
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:12 pm
My mother’s life was saved because of radiation treatment. Nuclear energy has saved and/or prolonged the life of far more people than it has ever harmed.
Sadly, this fact escapes many anti-nuclear fanatics. Their response to an article like this is often something like “this technology is not needed for cancer and may be causing these cancers in the first place!” Or “we should be using natural methods to cure cancer, radiation treatment is a conspiracy”. Their ignorance knows no bounds.
Quote Comment
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Another health related radiation technology that depends on radioisotopes is of course the pasteurization of food with high flux radiation. Several high profile tainted food incidences in the past few years would not have occurred if there was a greater use of food irradiation. While it is true that this can be done with X-rays and electron generators, the fact is that it is more economical and faster through process using cobalt or cesium sources.
An Actual Scientist said:
Ain’t that the truth. The big issue is that isotope production reactors will always be seen as ‘dual-use’ and thus will always be high on the hit list when there is talk about proliferation. Both India and Pakistan used reactors initially tasked for industrial/medical isotope production to create plutonium for their respective weapons programs, so unfortunately this is real enough that it cannot be brushed off as a myth.
However we cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater, we have managed to live with nuclear weapons for a generation now, and I believe that it is time to accept that this demon is not going back into Pandora’s box, and there is no reason why we have to live without the benefits of radiation technology trying to do so.
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2009 at 3:46 am
This is very serious! We could be looking at a medicine shortage in the coming decades. When rationing begins, anti-nuclear scum don’t get any.
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2009 at 3:58 am
You know this may be an opportunity. With impending cancer medicine famine, it should be easier to whip up support for a bit of “fiscal stimulus” to build a new research reactor for medical applications. We need a better term for it though than “research reactor”. Something more cuddly sounding.
Quote Comment
May 24th, 2009 at 4:54 am
Josh said:
Well AECL did try with the MAPLE reactors, ‘maple’ sounds harmless enough.
Hopefully the problems at the NRU will help break the logjam over those two reactors at Chalk River. Mostly the issues there are regulatory – it isn’t that the reactors don’t work – they just don’t work exactly as stated in the initial licensing application. The HANARO reactor in Korea (which is a MAPLE) is already producing isotopes with a modified operating permit. From what I can gather the same thing could be done for the ones in Canada.
It looks to me like the government is going to have to deal with its regulator again, as they did two and a half years ago to get things moving.
Quote Comment