[ RadSafe ] More "protection"

[parthasarathy k s]

Dear Dr John Jacobus,
 
I have read some of your useful notes on radiation related topics at the HPS website.
 
There was an FDA public health notification on MRI caused injuries in patients with implanted neurological stimulators.  It appears that there are no guidelines on worker safety against the possible impact of magnetic and electric fields from MRI.
 
The FDA notification inspired me to write an article on hazards from MRI scanners in a leading newspaper. You can read it if you so desire  using the following URL
 
www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050916/science.htm

 

Regards

 

K.S.Parthasarathy

Raja Ramanna Fellow

Department of Atomic Energy

Room No 18

Ground Floor, North Wing

Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan

Mumbai 400094

E-mail ksparth at yahoo.co.uk

91+22 25555327

91+22 25486081

9869016206 (mobile)

 


John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
Jim,
I am not familiar with any rules governing MRI
physicians or workers in the US. What is the source
of the article?

A couple of MRI safety site mention metal clips
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/safety/mrisafety.html 
and http://www.radiographicceu.com/article12.html

The OSHA Web site does not have much on MRI
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/healtheffects.html


--- "Muckerheide, James" wrote:

> 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.
> 

+++++++++++++++++++
"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea and never shrinks back to its original proportion." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com



__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

		
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.