[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LEAD APRONS: TIME FOR CHANGE ???
Before starting to redesign the standard lead apron, someone should do a
study to look at the actual exposures of female radiologic
technologists. This could be just a hypothetical problem.
In any event, the portion of the whole body receiving the highest
exposure is considered the deep dose, and must be a factor in the
calculation if the licensee uses effective dose.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
"Daniel F. Kane" wrote:
> An interesting commentary on this issue is
> http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q3422.html Dan KaneAssociates in
> Medical Physics, LLC d.kane@ampmedphysics.comwww.medphysics.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lori White
> To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 2:27 PM
> Subject: LEAD APRONS: TIME FOR CHANGE ???
> Standard lead protective "aprons" used by medical
> radiologic technologists have not changed appreciably in
> many decades. They all follow the same open-sleeve or
> sleeveless pattern. Standard open-sleeve aprons offer very
> poor protection to the lateral breast and axillary region of
> women, particularly large-breasted women. Leaded rubber
> does not drape well or conform to the upper female anatomy,
> tending to buckle-open, generally proportional to the breast
> size of the wearer. Clearly, standard apron design
> contributes to (preventable) occupational exposure of the
> female breast and axillary region. This realization, viewed
> in regard to conclusions of the U.S. Radiologic Technologist
> Health Study, 1983-1998, that increased breast cancer among
> female radiologic technologists may be due to occupational
> exposure, indicates the need for ALARA-based corrective
> actions in standard safety practices. While occupational
> exposure of the female breast due to apron design cannot be
> designated the primary cause for increased incidence of
> breast cancer, it must be acknowledged as a contributor to
> study findings. J White
>