[ RadSafe ] Fwd: Hospital workers subjected to excessive radiation, lawsuits claim
Ted de Castro
tdc at xrayted.com
Tue Jan 21 15:05:47 CST 2014
No shielding - I doubt it.
When I do a shielding requirement my design limit is and always has been
- as far back and the mid 70's - 500 mrem/yr for controlled area and 50
mrem/yr for non controlled areas and almost always the corner of the
room where the head end is usually tucked requires 6# lead. The control
booth is USUALLY much further and ends up with between 2# and 4# (I'd
have to look up old reports to be sure exactly on that - but the corner
I am sure of as it stands out).
On 1/21/2014 12:51 PM, Chris Alston wrote:
> We don't really know the specifics, at this point. But it was CT,
> not, for instance, interventional radiology, or even a chest x-ray
> room, wherein the pt could have been standing against that wall.
> There is a great deal of inherent shielding of CT scans, and given the
> inverse-square law, it is possible that the output of the shielding
> calculations was: "So, no shielding is required". Bear in mind, too,
> that the room was likely designed when the limit would have been 500
> mrem/y, not 100.
> I know of a hospital at which, back in the 1990's, the x-ray
> technologists refused to work with one (or two, I cannot remember now)
> of the "portable" radiographic machines, because they could get images
> on film via the head leakage. This machine met the regulatory spec
> for leakage (which I no longer remember). The manufacturer had tried
> to save some money on shielding, by not kitting it out to
> near-background levels, unlike most other OEM's. The hospital needed
> the machine in service, for operational flexibility, and, of course,
> there was the investment of das Kapital it represented. So, the
> manufacturer came up with a custom-retrofit of shielding for the unit.
> Cheerfully I await the slings and arrows
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: S L Gawarecki <slgawarecki at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Hospital workers subjected to excessive
> radiation, lawsuits claim
> To: Franz Schönhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
> Cc: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> What makes this story even more jaw-dropping is that Methodist Medical
> Center is located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, one of the original Manhattan
> Project sites, home of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and birthplace of
> health physics. Of course the facility is in violation of the strict
> standards specified by the state of Tennessee which enforces federal
> requirements in this area.
> This is what can happen when there is no oversight of a contractor's work.
> Someone with a radiation safety background should have verified the
> installation of shielding.
> *Susan Gawarecki*
> 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