Re: Rad workers - but not trained

[Kent Lambert <lambert@allegheny.edu>]

There has been a lot of criticism of x-ray and NM techs recently, but it
seems that this criticism has not considered the principle purpose of
these technologists - that is to provide diagnostic quality images of
patients to physicians.  The techniques (for x-rays) and the
administrated activity (for nuclear medicine) have been determined in
advance, thereby relieving the technologist from making the risk v.
benefit decision.  Asking a technologist for dosimetry information is
akin to asking the attendant at Jiffy Lube to describe the chemical and
mechanical properties of oil additives.

This is not to excuse misinformation (a dental x-ray is like a day in
the sun) or improper procedures (failing to place the lead apron between
the patient and the x-ray source, or disinformation (the
radiopharmaceutical is a non-radioactive dye).  

If a patient asks what their dose is for a procedure what would you, the
HP answer?  The absorbed dose?  If so, where, entrance, bone marrow,
midplane, exit?  Maybe exposure? After all that's what the medical
physicist measured.  But the skin entrance exposure does not really
reflect risk.  How about dose equivalent, equivalent dose, or effective
dose?  

How many of the HP's can answer off the top of their head (i.e., if a
patient asks) what the effective dose is for a dental bitewing
radiograph?  We just learned that the skin entrance exposure is
nominally 150 mR.  Quick now before you lose credibility by hesitating.

--
Kent N. Lambert, CHP
lambert@allegheny.edu

My employer takes no credit for opinions
expressed by this writer.