[ RadSafe ] RE: More "protection"

[Muckerheide, James]

Sorry, I failed to report the source.  This is from Nature.

 

Regards, Jim 

==========

 

________________________________

From: Don Higson [mailto:higsond at bigpond.net.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 9:05 PM
To: Muckerheide, James; radsafe at radlab.nl; rad-sci-l at wpi.edu
Subject: Re: More "protection"

 

This looks like a new development. Historically, the basic principle of NIR
protection seems to have been "assume that there is no risk unless it can be
proved that there is a risk" (compared with "assume that there is a risk
unless it can be proved that there is no risk" for IR protection).

 

Mike Repacholi (who was the first Chairman of ICNIRP and is now a big wheel
in WHO) will be a keynote speaker at the ARPS annual conference in November.
I will ask him about the EU regulation.

 

Incidentally, I warn anyone who has not tried it that an MRI scan can
certainly be an intimidating (as well as expensive) experience, particularly
if you suffer claustrophobia. My wife freaked out immediately and I had to
sit and hold her hand throughout. Sedation would have been the only
alternative.

 

Don Higson

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Muckerheide, James <mailto:jimm at WPI.EDU>  

	To: radsafe at radlab.nl ; rad-sci-l at wpi.edu 

	Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 5:19 AM

	Subject: More "protection"

	 

	Friends,

	 

	This is about non-ionizing radiation protection.  Note the ref to the
rules to protect workers, primarily telecommunications and electricity
industry workers.  The were Congressionally mandated scientific reviews in
the U.S. in the 1990s on this, which seemed to have found no evidence of
risks to workers.  Does anyone know how the EU/UK guidelines/proposed rules
compare to applicable U.S. regulations? And whether any U.S. rules apply to
MRI physicians as well as telecomm and electrical workers?

	 

	Regards, Jim Muckerheide

	======================

	 

	Published online: 20 September 2005; | doi:10.1038/news050919-4 


	Radiation law to block doctors' work


	European regulations on MRI scans too strict, experts say. 

	Jennifer Wild

	Doctors across Europe are complaining loudly about new regulations on
radiation exposure, which they say will needlessly hinder their use of
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) when treating patients. 
	
	The European Union Physical Agents Directive, set to become law in
April 2008, is aimed at protecting workers in telecommunications and the
electricity industry from possible health risks caused by exposure to
electromagnetic radiation. 
	
	Strong fields can induce a current within tissues, which heats them
up and may cause damage. Some controversial studies have suggested that such
fields may also damage DNA.
	
	But the rules will also keep doctors away from MRI machines, which
are another source of electromagnetic radiation. This will prevent nervous
patients from being accompanied during scans, and may even restrict proper
cleaning of the devices. 
	
	Slim evidence
	
	Doctors say that MRI scanners are not dangerous, and that although
the electromagnetic frequencies from these devices can gently heat tissues
and stimulate nerves in the spine, this does not lead to damage because the
heating effects are miniscule.
	
	Peter Mansfield, a retired Nobel Prize winner who played a key role
in developing MRI, says the regulations are detrimental and "should be sent
back to the drawing board". 
	
	He and others note that MRI scans have been used to see inside the
human body since the beginning of the 1980s, with no known ill effects.
	
	Any firm evidence of adverse effects from standing next to a scanner
is sparse, says Ian Young, a retired engineer who helped to build the first
MR scanner for medical imaging. He adds that unpublished conference abstracts
may have fuelled the directive and the advisory guidelines that precede it.
	
	Michael Clark, a scientist at the Health Protection Agency in the UK,
says the directive is designed to protect workers. He admits that doctors are
right to point out the lack of clear evidence of harmful effects, but says:
"We are dealing with a new technology and perhaps a bit of caution is
necessary". "We can't rule out any long-term effect," he warns.
	
	The directive will turn the UK's current advisory guidelines into
law. These guidelines are based on the advice of the International Commission
on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection and the National Radiological Protection
Board. Researchers say these guidelines are also strict, but few people have
complained as they are only voluntary.
	
	Worst afflicted
	
	The patients most affected by the changes will probably be anxious
children and patients requiring specialized heart investigations. In the
absence of a comforting hand, scared children may undergo more harmful but
less intimidating X-ray imaging. And nervous patients may have to be
anaesthetized before being scanned, subjecting them to an unnecessary risk.