RE: Kodak X-ray film lowers radiation dose

["Flood, John" <FloodJR@NV.DOE.GOV>]

Nice news about the foot.



 



Technologically, digital imaging SHOULD replace film as older equipment

needs replacement.  However, I think there's a legal aspect that is

unresolved at the moment.  X-rays are introduced as evidence in criminal and

civil proceedings, and digital images can be altered.  In fact, they can be

altered very easily by people with no special skills.  That leaves the

digital x-ray open to debate over the validity of the image as evidence.

Many countries have already passed laws prohibiting any use of digital

images in criminal courts, and their use in civil cases has yet to be tested

by our precedent-based system.  So it seems likely that some people will

hold on to film for legal defensibility reasons, at least until the status

of the digital image as evidence is finalized.



 



Bob Flood



Nevada Test Site



 



 



 



-----Original Message-----

From: Vernig, Peter G. [mailto:Peter.Vernig@MED.VA.GOV] 

Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:56 AM

To: 'JGinniver@AOL.COM'; jim_hoerner@HOTMAIL.COM;

radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu

Subject: RE: Kodak X-ray film lowers radiation dose



 



Film is passé and will probably soon be all but obsolete in this country.

Digital imaging is here now and we switched over a year ago in radiology.

One of our clinics uses it in their dental clinic we do not as yet, matter

of inertia and start up costs.  But besides reducing use of chemicals with

toxic silver [that's right silver] and attendant silver recovery it allows

us to read studies from two of our clinics here.



 



My guess is Kodak is trying to retain as much business for as long as

possible by making whatever improvements it can.



 



I visited an orthopedist because my daughter had a problem [essentially like

having osteoporosis [sp?] in one bone in her foot because of poor blood

supply.  The doctor was able to zoom, enlarge, rotate, and very visually and

explicitly show me the problem, or actually the correction of the problem.



 



It was way cool!  And my daughter's foot is OK too.



 



Any opinions in this e-mail are solely those of the author, and are not

represented as those of the VA Eastern Colorado HCS, the Dept. of Veterans

Affairs, or the US Government.



Peter G. Vernig, Radiation Safety Officer, VA Eastern Colorado Health Care

System, 1055 Clermont St. Denver, CO 80220, peter.vernig@med.va.gov, Phone=

303.399.8020 x2447; Fax = 303.393.5026, alternate fax, 303.393.5248



"...whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is lovely, whatever is

admirable, if anything is found to be excellent or praiseworthy, let your

mind dwell on these things."



Paul of Tarsus 



-----Original Message-----

From: JGinniver@AOL.COM [mailto:JGinniver@AOL.COM]

Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:33 AM

To: jim_hoerner@HOTMAIL.COM; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: Kodak X-ray film lowers radiation dose





In a message dated 4/8/04 3:25:34 am, jim_hoerner@HOTMAIL.COM writes:











[Makes one wonder if it's more expensive film, and if so, is it worth it?

LNT in action, folks.







I don't know whether there will be some increase in price for this new film,

but I have got the dentist who undertakes work at our site to move from

group D to Group E films which reduces the dose by about half.  I did check

with his film supplier and the cost was the same.  In addition I checked

with Kodak and the  Group E film used the same processing as the Group D and

so there was no additional cost for new equipment, writing new procedures,

staff training etc. 



A true example of ALARA, where it was entirely reasonable to reduce doses by

half.



Regards,

     Julian