– are we giving it away?
A year ago most folks in the medical supply chain business had never heard of the Chalk River nuclear reactor. As it turns out, this little site in Canada essentially provides North America with 100% of the materials used to produce isotopes for nuclear medicine applications. When it went down, for desperately needed repairs, supply chain managers and clinicians alike learned the ugly truth: our entire supply of isotopes depended on the good will of the Canadian people and its government. When Canada deliberated on closing the plant, rather than investing in expensive repairs, the result was near panic for those of us responsible for obtaining sources of supply. Alternatives sources were found in Europe and Russia, but they weren’t able to fill the U.S. demand for product. Life-saving patient treatments were delayed, rescheduled and in some cases substituted with less effective alternative modalities. It would be easy to dismiss this as one arcane product used in one line of medicine. Unfortunately this writer, and others, believe it is symptomatic of a much larger issue: the U.S. has lost its resolve to do whatever is needed to be a world leader. We love the perks of being a leader, but are we willing to do what is necessary to maintain this position?
I, of course, speak from a supply chain perspective. Let me present some recent evidence to support this position. First, Chalk River became an issue only because the U.S. has totally turned its back on nuclear energy. This is why we don’t have a reactor of our own to produce the isotopes that as consumers of medicine we demand. We are consumers, but not producers. Given how we beat our breast while crying about reducing the need for oil (code for foreign dependence) why have we ignored nuclear as an option? Second, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico became a large disaster partially because of where it happened: in deep water. Had it been in shallow water – closer to the shore – dealing with it would have been a much simplier task. Oil companies prefer shallow water. Everything is easier in shallow water. It was in deep water because we (Dept. of Interior) no longer allows drilling close to shore. Hence the environmental impact was actually been made worse due to controls and regulations that were supposedly intended to protect the environment. We seem to have good intentions, but bad results - because our rules-making process reflects feelings and not facts. Drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would have had minimal, if any, effect on the environment. Yet through some Alice-In-Wonderland logic we continue to place ANWR off limits. Meanwhile we continue to be consumers, but not producers. Last, the recent “revelation” in the NY Times that Afghanistan contains vast mineral deposits is typical of popular press news. The vast mineral deposits in this region have been known for several years. In 2007 China took over operation of a copper mine in Afghanistan (as my dear wife Joyce pointed out, on George W’s watch - this is a party neutral problem). If anyone has been paying attention to this commodity, its price on the London Metals Market is always going up. Among the many obvious questions here is how many Chinese soldiers have died in the war to free Afghanistan from Taliban rule? (Hint: it’s starts with a Z). How did China even get a chance to run this mine? Why aren’t U.S. companies being moved in to harvest these materials in partnership with the Afghan people? Sure, we should pay for them, but no one else should control them or make the incremental profits from them. The scary thought here is that the U.S., through its tremendous financial debt to China, has become a de facto foreign legion for a communist regime. Our boys die, their boys mine the spoils. Are we now warriors without victories? The current administration continues to spend money that we do not have. Who do you think is financing our debt? Yes, China. They like that we consume their products, without selling them anything in return. Now we fight wars for their economic benefit. We have to ask if we wish to continue being an economic power or not. We are rapidly running out of time to make this decision. Are we committing our grandchildren to a new 21st century form of slavery simply so we may continue to consume, but not produce?
A year ago most folks in the medical supply chain business had never heard of the Chalk River nuclear reactor. As it turns out, this little site in Canada essentially provides North America with 100% of the materials used to produce isotopes for nuclear medicine applications. When it went down, for desperately needed repairs, supply chain managers and clinicians alike learned the ugly truth: our entire supply of isotopes depended on the good will of the Canadian people and its government. When Canada deliberated on closing the plant, rather than investing in expensive repairs, the result was near panic for those of us responsible for obtaining sources of supply. Alternatives sources were found in Europe and Russia, but they weren’t able to fill the U.S. demand for product. Life-saving patient treatments were delayed, rescheduled and in some cases substituted with less effective alternative modalities. It would be easy to dismiss this as one arcane product used in one line of medicine. Unfortunately this writer, and others, believe it is symptomatic of a much larger issue: the U.S. has lost its resolve to do whatever is needed to be a world leader. We love the perks of being a leader, but are we willing to do what is necessary to maintain this position?
I, of course, speak from a supply chain perspective. Let me present some recent evidence to support this position. First, Chalk River became an issue only because the U.S. has totally turned its back on nuclear energy. This is why we don’t have a reactor of our own to produce the isotopes that as consumers of medicine we demand. We are consumers, but not producers. Given how we beat our breast while crying about reducing the need for oil (code for foreign dependence) why have we ignored nuclear as an option? Second, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico became a large disaster partially because of where it happened: in deep water. Had it been in shallow water – closer to the shore – dealing with it would have been a much simplier task. Oil companies prefer shallow water. Everything is easier in shallow water. It was in deep water because we (Dept. of Interior) no longer allows drilling close to shore. Hence the environmental impact was actually been made worse due to controls and regulations that were supposedly intended to protect the environment. We seem to have good intentions, but bad results - because our rules-making process reflects feelings and not facts. Drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would have had minimal, if any, effect on the environment. Yet through some Alice-In-Wonderland logic we continue to place ANWR off limits. Meanwhile we continue to be consumers, but not producers. Last, the recent “revelation” in the NY Times that Afghanistan contains vast mineral deposits is typical of popular press news. The vast mineral deposits in this region have been known for several years. In 2007 China took over operation of a copper mine in Afghanistan (as my dear wife Joyce pointed out, on George W’s watch - this is a party neutral problem). If anyone has been paying attention to this commodity, its price on the London Metals Market is always going up. Among the many obvious questions here is how many Chinese soldiers have died in the war to free Afghanistan from Taliban rule? (Hint: it’s starts with a Z). How did China even get a chance to run this mine? Why aren’t U.S. companies being moved in to harvest these materials in partnership with the Afghan people? Sure, we should pay for them, but no one else should control them or make the incremental profits from them. The scary thought here is that the U.S., through its tremendous financial debt to China, has become a de facto foreign legion for a communist regime. Our boys die, their boys mine the spoils. Are we now warriors without victories? The current administration continues to spend money that we do not have. Who do you think is financing our debt? Yes, China. They like that we consume their products, without selling them anything in return. Now we fight wars for their economic benefit. We have to ask if we wish to continue being an economic power or not. We are rapidly running out of time to make this decision. Are we committing our grandchildren to a new 21st century form of slavery simply so we may continue to consume, but not produce?
No comments:
Post a Comment