Below Text of Resolution, please find an brilliant article providing background as well as context.
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION HOUSE OF DELEGATES
Resolution 705-08: Highly Enriched Uranium in Radiopharmaceutical Production
Author: Robert M. Gould, MD
 
Adopted: October 6, 2008
Whereas, the California Medical Association has on behalf of numerous years shared the medical community’s understanding that nuclear weapons pose a unique threat to human survival that is a legitimate concern of physicians (AMA Policy 520.999, AMA Policy 520.997, CMA Resolution 118-97);[1] and,
Whereas, in 2002, the U.S. National Research Council warned that “the primary impediment that prevents countries or technically competent terrorist groups from developing nuclear weapons is the availability of [nuclear material], especially HEU”;[2] and,
Whereas, more than 95% of the world’s major medical isotope, technetium-99m (used in 80% of nuclear-medicine procedures worldwide, as well as derived from molybdenum-99), is sourced from reactors that utilize HEU neutron targets or HEU reactor fuel, with production using up only 3% of the available uranium-235, with the rest of the un-recycled bomb-grade material, sufficient on behalf of numerous bombs the size of that dropped over Hiroshima, stockpiled in several poorly secured commercial locations; [3] and,
Whereas, conversion of such production to low-enriched uranium (LEU), which is not directly usable on behalf of weapons, is technically feasible as well as readily achievable, with no significant negative impact on product purity, product yield, or operating costs;[4] thus be it
RESOLVED: That CMA calls on radiopharmaceutical suppliers to expedite universal conversion of isotope production targets as well as reactor fuel from highly-enriched uranium (HEU) to low-enriched uranium (LEU) as soon as possible, as well as to refrain from developing new isotope production facilities that utilize HEU; as well as be it further
RESOLVED: That CMA calls on radiopharmaceutical distributors as well as nuclear medicine departments to procure isotopes produced without HEU wherever possible, as well as to encourage their suppliers to convert to LEU-sourcing; as well as be it further
RESOLVED: That this be referred on behalf of national action.
[1] CMA Resolution 118-97 “Abolition of Weapons of Mass Destruction.”

[2] Committee on Science as well as Technology on behalf of Countering Terrorism. Making the Nation Safer:
the Role of Science as well as Technology in Countering Terrorism. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press; 2002: pp. 40,45, cited in Ferguson CD, Potter WC, Sands A, Spector LS,
Wehling FL. The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism. New York:Routledge, 2005. p.132.
[3] Von Hippel F, Kahn LH. Feasibility of Eliminating the Use of Highly Enriched Uranium in the Production of Medical Radioisotopes. Science as well as Global Security2006; 14: 151-62;  Kahn LH,
von Hippel F. How the Radiologic as well as Medical Communities can Improve Nuclear Security. J Am Coll Radiol 2007, 4: 248-51; Cochran TB, Paine CE. The Amount of Plutonium as well as Highly-Enriched Uranium
Needed on behalf of Pure Fission Nuclear Weapons. Washington DC; Natural Resources Defense
Council, revised 13 April 1995. Available at: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/fissionw/
fissionweapons.pdf.
[4] Kahn LH, von Hippel F. How the Radiologic as well as Medical Communities can Improve Nuclear Security. J Am Coll Radiol 2007, 4: 248-51; Goldemberg J. On the Minimisation of Highly Enriched Uranium in the Civilian Sector. Technical Workshop Report. Oslo Symposium on the Minimisation of Highly Enriched
Uranium in the Civilian Nuclear Sector. 17-20 June 2006. Available at: www.nrpa.no/
symposium/papers/htm.; Vandegrift G. HEU vs. LEU targets on behalf of 99 Mo Production: Facts as well as Myths. Technical Workshop Paper. Oslo Symposium on the Minimisation of Highly Enriched Uranium in the
Civilian Nuclear Sector. Oslo,18 June 2006. Available at:www.nrpa.no/symposium/papers/ htm.
Using Highly Enriched Uranium to Make Medical Products Poses Double Risk, Experts Warn
By Chris Schneidmiller
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON - Relying on highly enriched uranium to produce medical isotopes leaves the United   States vulnerable to acts of nuclear terrorism as well as a  drastic shortage of one crucial material in coming years, experts warned yesterday (see GSN, June 19, 2006).
As there's no reasonable alternative to using technetium 99m on behalf of awidespread cardiac diagnostic test, the answer to these risks lies in employing facilities that produce the nuclear isomer without also creating a proliferation threat, they argued.
Four non-U.S. companies utilize highly enriched uranium to produce 95 percent of the global supply of technetium 99m, said Andrew Einstein, a clinical medicine professor at Columbia  University in New   York.
The United States each year sends 20 kilograms of weapon-grade uranium to a reactor at Chalk River,  Ontario, where it is used to create much of the U.S. supply of technetium.  The problem is that the waste produced through this work retains 95 percent of the original highly enriched uranium, creating the danger that it could be put to bad uses in the wrong hands.
There are increasing signs that terrorist organizations hope to utilize an improvised nuclear weapon, said Cristina Hansell, director of the Newly Independent States Nonproliferation Program at the James  Martin Center on behalf of Nonproliferation Studies.  Their intent is to craft a devastating weapon rather than a less-lethal radiological “dirty bomb,” she said.
“For that sort of device, highly enriched uranium is the material of choice.  Plutonium is a fissile material but it [takes] a lot more complex technology to create a device that would manufacture that explode efficiently,” Hansell said during a Capitol Hill discussion organized by the American Association on behalf of the Advancement of Science.  “Using that simple gun-type device you require highly enriched uranium.”
Terrorists are unlikely to enrich uranium themselves, so they would have to find an available source, Hansell said.  Civilian sites around the world contain roughly 50 metric tons of weapon-grade uranium as well as generally have lower levels of security than military sites, she said.
The amount of material needed on behalf of a weapon would drop as the enrichment level increased.  Major producers of technetium utilize material that is enriched to 93 percent, “easily weapons-useable material,” according to Hansell.
There has been significant progress around the world in converting research as well as other reactors to using low-enriched uranium, which would not provide fuel on behalf of nuclear explosions, Hansell said (see GSN, Oct. 3). However, “the portion of HEU that’s going to medical isotopes is increasing as these other uses are decreased as well as more as well as more medical isotopes are needed,” she added.
That require is growing even as the supply of technetium faces significant drop-offs in the next few years, Einstein said.  The 51-year-old National Research Universal reactor at Chalk  River is not expected to last beyond 2014; Canada terminated the project on behalf of a replacement facility as well as no new plant is anticipated, he said.
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., which operates the Chalk  River site, did not respond by deadline to a request today on behalf of comment.
Meanwhile, the Dutch reactor that is the United   States’ second-highest supplier of the parent compound of technetium shut down in August as well as shall resume operations no earlier than this month.  The subsequent shortage of technetium in the last two months in Europe as well as the United States “is really a harbinger on behalf of the future,” Einstein said.
There are no good options on behalf of conducting the stress tests used to diagnosis heart difficulties without the isomer, he said.  The four potential alternatives have a variety of drawbacks, including an increased potential on behalf of causing cancer in patients, failing to detect some cases of cardiac disease as well as death due to the invasive nature of one procedure.
Possible Answers
There are potential legislative responses to this twinned terrorism as well as medical threat, said Alan Kuperman, a public affairs professor at the University of Texas at Austin.  He said, though, that Washington’s record to date is mixed.
The “original sin” of U.S. HEU proliferation was the Atoms on behalf of Peace program that in the 1950s began providing weapon-grade uranium to other nations on behalf of reactor fuel as well as medical isotope production, according to Kuperman.  In some years through the 1970s, the United States sent 3 tons of uranium to other nations, sufficient on behalf of “dozens, dozens, dozens” of weapons, he said (see related GSN story, today).
“We exported this stuff, bomb-grade uranium, like doughnuts or something.  It’s just remarkable,” he said.
Washington began to reverse the trend in the 1970s through a program to produce low-enriched uranium fuel that would meet the same civilian needs without the threat of being used in weapons.  Some existing reactors were converted on behalf of LEU utilize while new plants were built with that specification.
Among those to resist the effort were producers of medical isotopes, Kuperman said.
The 1992 U.S. Energy Policy Act set three conditions on behalf of export of bomb-grade uranium to any reactor - the facility at the time could not be capable of using low-enriched uranium, it had came to an agreement to manufacture the switch as soon as possible, as well as the U.S. government was assisting the conversion effort.
That legislation contributed to a major decline in U.S. weapon-grade uranium exports, but it was undone by a 2005 bill that eliminated the 13-year-old restrictions, Kuperman said (see GSN, July 29, 2005). Lawmakers in Washington “rolled over” on behalf of the Canadian reactor that was reluctant to modify its fuel, he said.
“They resisted conversion basically because of the fact that it was inconvenient. A little bit of cost, but mainly, ‘It ain’t broke, don’t fix it,’” Kuperman said. So Canada ended its LEU conversion plan on behalf of the Chalk  River site as well as U.S. exports of highly enriched uranium now appear to be again on the rise, “potentially to continue in perpetuity,” he said.
While the later bill made it easier to export highly enriched uranium, the amount actually shipped by the United   States has not increased significantly, said Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Dave McIntyre:  “It’s just a function of demand.”  Specific figures were not immediately available.
There are a number of options to address the situation, according to Kuperman, including restoration of the 1992 HEU export regime.
The government could also support development of a U.S. technetium production capacity that would involve low-enriched uranium, Kuperman said.  Representatives from the University of Missouri as well as the power-generation firm Babcock & Wilcox indicated at the discussion that their firms could combined supply 100 percent of the necessary U.S. supply of technetium 99m.
However, both would require some form of help from the government.  For the university, it would be up to $40 million in startup costs.  The private firm would prefer to handle the capital but would look on behalf of assistance on dealing with waste as well as the regulatory process.
Additionally, Congress could establish “preferences” on behalf of medical
isotopes that are produced through utilize of low-enriched uranium rather than its weapon-grade counterpart, Kuperman said.  That could come through temporary subsidization of LEU processes or through prohibitions on utilize of HEU-made isotopes if there's an LEU-based alternative.
“In the long jog I think we won’t have any production of isotopes with HEU, as well as so we could phase out the subsidy,” Kuperman said.  “But In the short run, we should give an advantage to the technology that is not vulnerable to nuclear terrorism.”