Re: HPS Objective -Reply

[FRAMEP@ORAU.GOV]

David lee wrote in part:

>One of the most egregious historical examples, from a total 
>radiation exposure standpoint, is the past use of
>shoe store fluoroscopes.  While I think most HPs would agree 
>that the use of these devices provided no real "value-added" 
>in terms of fitting shoes better, most of us might also have 
>acknowledge that use of these devices did not really result in any
>biological harm to the feet of those who used
>the devices.  The radiation exposure was admittedly "unnecessary,"
>but who amongst us wishes to argue that it was "harmful," 
>and if so, if what way?

In general, I would be careful when I  suggest that a procedure of
whatever type resulted in no harm. Because of the use of shoe-fitting
fluoroscopes, some people lost fingers, some people lost legs.  As I
recall, those involved were salespeople who received repeated
exposures and/or were exposed to malfunctioning equipment. In other
words, the unnecessary use of radiation resulted in harm. So should the
HPS  take the position that routine use of shoe-fitting fluoroscopes was
okay (although unnecessary) but at the same time maintain that the
improper use of these machines was unacceptable?

I recently had a tooth recapped while out of town in Illinois and I
commented to the dentist there that my dentist back home had the habit
of taking an x-ray and then proceeding to work on the tooth without
consulting the x-ray. The Illinois guy offered the comment that about 25%
of the x-rays he took were unnecessary.  He then stated that he did so
for insurance purposes - that the insurance company often enquired an
x-ray as proof of a particular procedure.  I now feel much better about it
knowing that such x-rays serve a good purpose.

As a final thought: given that the main stated objective of the HPS is the
protection of people and the environment from radiation (unnecessary or
harmful), what exactly does the HPS do in this regard? Does it have a
committee looking into the unnecessary or harmful use of radiation -
something you would expect if this is the main objective of the Society?
There are a few Position Statements regarding exposures to the public,
but these make essentially the same recommendations as proposed by
various regulatory agencies and others. In other words, "we agree"
positions. Okay, there are some exceptions, but not many. In other cases
the Statements take a "don't worry" approach. What I'm getting at is that
there doesn't seem to be that much the HPS does in meeting its objective.
Maybe the HPS needs a completely new objective.

Best wishes

Paul Frame
Professional Training Programs
ORISE
framep@orau.gov