[ RadSafe ] Fwd: X-Ray Art: A Deeper Look at Everyday Objects
Egidi.Philip at epa.gov
Wed Feb 12 10:06:41 CST 2014
I believe a similar argument was raised over the use of backscatter X-Ray machines at airports for security purposes.
There was no medical benefit, although it could be argued there was a benefit to society in general...
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Radiation Protection Division
(202) 343-9186 (work)
(970) 209-2885 (Cell)
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Alston
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:49 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: X-Ray Art: A Deeper Look at Everyday Objects
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.
---------- 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.
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe