Document text
Machine-read from the scan, so expect some errors. Lines that couldn’t be read are left out.
Page 1
I have studied subject ocmor8ndum. U r have long known that, eventually you would require an operating schedule as contfnuous and contiguous as posriblc. t o maka it so, consistent vith the nec err l ty to maintain the faculty and to prepare for higher intensity operation. tht any facility in the vorld has ever given more thought and conridetation t o accommodating its biomedical goals than has WF. are hampered by a real morale problem among those of OUT people who are involved in this program. This is brought about because we are too often in thr dark a8 to future plans and bec8use of vhat appear to be erratic changes in programs and procedures. entire program of cooperation and collaboration with UXM, which I have worked so hard to establish over the past 10 years, is in danger o f collapse. Novhere else a t LAMPP do w e have bod relations vith I cannot clolm to understand it However several points merit cowaent. We have # tatted I fear that the 2) On page 3 of rubject memo, it is stated tbat "In the spring, as a q meed for a reven week treatment rc he duh to begin around the eud of t h i o calendar year (see attached docuMatation)." None of the attached documentnticn bears out the specifics of above statennt.I identify thls 08 an example of tha cm i cations problem vith vhich we are constantly involved on the biomedical facility. Th memorandum contains other statements thatI cannot corroborate either on the bash of my manory o r my files. Tha statement oa page 5 "I vas very surprised thit 8 three-week cycle vas settled upon without Qf rzlput from you (some o f it confusing and/or contradictory), oa the bails of which we chose a three-veek rather than a two-veek -le, knowing that three weeks i o less than opt-, but as good u vo could do right now. our rchedule in the light of your wishes. If there is any chance of safely extending the length of the cycles at that time, without jeo pardi ting our schedule t o increase intensity, ve vi11 cert a i aly jour own attachmeats to subject muPo clearly show. We got lots Next spring we will cer ral n lyre evaluate
Page 2
On page 2 you aay that you wanted t o start treat lng pelvic tumora I n October, 1976. The information I previously had was that you would f i r o t treat lung tumora, then head and nock tumrs a d then pelvic tumors. This is another uuplple of the confusion ve have all experienced on this program. fact,4a of a =nth ago, I underotood you d d not need the r urge ah if ter for at least another year. ba 8 critical itcm, -ediately. In the middle of page 2 you state that when you entered t h e meet* on September 9 it v8a apparent t o you thet a meeting hrd already taken place. conaidered it dishonorable on our part since it wuld smack of conspiracy. Ijust don't operate that way. I don't believe out word was spoken, before you entered, on the subject of our Now i t appeura LO tl.d this happened I would have It f . not atall clear t o me that you C M complete treat nw te Ob8erP8tlOn of patient8to the 70% levdl in lese than on0 year. Ithhk1 understand the safety aspect r involved in 60% and 70% t o tha 80% level vith out evaluating the effects ot the 70% level, end this evaluation must certainly involve observation over periodo of 8t least afev months. 8great deal of radiobiology to be done. done in dosimetry, beam development and programing f o r treatment But th io safety cannot be realized if you go In addition,ao you sap, there is still There io also much t o be I am equally rt a loer t o understand your arguments on aplit - course therapy. I only ruggested that le88 than 10%of the fractions cons irt of x-ray#, in order t o permit 46 fractions r8ther than 22. You may have t o use more thm thio number of x-ray fr act ioa o if the accelerator functiono as moot accelerator. do, w e n on three-veek cycles. fractions negate your experiment? In (13) you again imply that a dominating reason for the three week cycle io t o permit more efficient scheduling of physics this consideration has taken, and will take, a e cod place to considerations such as the requirements of the biomedical So how can tbree planned x-ray I said a t our meeting and I now ray again, that You 4re a bro lute ly correct in rta ting that vc vant pion therapy t o be aucce8rful every b i t &a much a# you do. correct in raying thatI have used our biomedical activities unique value of LAMPF. You seem to forget, however, that it was I who went tothe AEC, t o Congress and tothe NCX to obtain
Page 3
fwding for conrttuction of the biomedical facility, an$ even your Cancer Perurch and Treatment Center. It -8 8180 I who 8pent uncounted hour8 educating and per sud hg the radical c-nity t o addre88 this program. Idl not consider LaMPF do whatever 18 nacasury, no m8ttar hov painful I t may be, t o make sure that it is a rnucceea, before I start drawing Finally in (12) you point out that your efforts " t o effect the clinical pion program have inter far red with broadening a d rttcngthcning our Center on other fronts." forget recent history. The point is that there muld be no md the initiatives I took, long before you appeared on the #cane, to effect a collaboration between USL, UNM, NCI and t h e AEC in the area of pion therapy. Again you seem t o