Re: Kodak X-ray film lowers radiation dose

["Gerald Nicholls" <Gerald.Nicholls@dep.state.nj.us>]

Don't ever count Kodak out in any market unless they make a business

decision not to be in it.  They are making inroads into digital

radiography and have made significant strides in the digital camera

market.  As one who follows photography somewhat more religiously these

days than radioography, and who has purchased one of Kodak's cameras for

the emi-serious photographer (and considering the purchase of another) I

can attest to their ability to innovate.



On the issue of whether or not digital images are admisable in court,

we recently had a case in which individuals were alleged to have

radiographed people who had no prescription as part of testing for a new

device (it was also alleged that they paid these "patients").  Many

images that would have been helpful to the case were either missing from

the computer files or were believed to be altered, so they could not be

used to support our case.  



Gerald Nicholls



>>> Russ Johnson <rujohnso@nmsu.edu> 08/05/04 03:09PM >>>

Filmless photography is the rage now, so why not filmless medical

radiography? Kodak had better prepare or they will become obsolete.

Our

local hospital went with digital imaging a couple of years ago. Works

fine. Only thing to keep in mind is that digital radiographic images

might not be admissible as evidence in a court of law. I don't know if

that one has come up yet or not. So, film will likely be around for a

while longer, just for things like that.

-Russ



"Vernig, Peter G." wrote:



>  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

>

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/