[ RadSafe ] Fwd: X-Ray Art: A Deeper Look at Everyday Objects

[Chris Alston]

Hi Andy

Many states (a good central reference point is the Suggested State
Regs of the CRCPD) do have regs such as these from the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) Title 246-225:

(g) Persons shall not be exposed to the useful beam except for healing
arts purposes. Only a licensed practitioner of the healing arts shall
authorize an exposure to the useful beam. This requirement prohibits
deliberate exposure for the following purposes:
(i) Exposure of an individual for training, demonstration, or other
purposes unless there are also healing arts requirements and proper
prescription is provided;
(ii) Except for mammography performed by registered facilities on
self-referred patients, the exposure of an individual for the purpose
of healing arts screening without prior written approval of the state
health officer; and
(iii) Exposure of an individual for the sole purpose of satisfying a
third party's prerequisite for reimbursement under any health care
plan, except for exposure required under medicare provisions.

Cheers
cja
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: KARAM, PHILIP <PHILIP.KARAM at nypd.org>
Date: Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] X-Ray Art: A Deeper Look at Everyday Objects
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
I agree that there SHOULD be some sort of benefit - but I can't think
of any regs that say that there MUST be a benefit to the person being
x-rayed. And, for that matter, I'm sure there are many who would feel
that producing a work of art is a net benefit to society that would
justify a very low dose to an informed person. And, again, the person
being x-rayed might indeed receive a benefit - albeit psychological
rather than medical - from having their foot displayed in a gallery
somewhere.
Personally, I think it's sort of nutty - but I don't think that it's
forbidden by the regs.