Re: HPS Objective -Reply

[FRAMEP@ORAU.GOV]

David Lee wrote in part:

>I would sincerely welcome the
>citation of any professional literature that truly documents the harmful
i>njuries that Paul describes from shoe-fitting fluoroscopes.  I am
>presently unaware of any such citations.  

At the same time John Moulder expressed doubt that such effects would
have occurred.

As a general comment: Shoe fitting fluoroscopes were x-ray units. 
X-ray units have been known to cause these kinds of injuries.
Thousands upon thousands of these units were used around the world.
They were used by shoe store personnel i.e. untrained people who
were working in close physical proximity to these units and subject to
repeated exposure. There was little to no concern about the possible
harmful effects of overexposures for most of the time period when
these units were used. Some percentage of these units would have
malfunctioned or have been modified in such a way that the normal
exposure rates were exceeded. For much of the time period in which
these units were employed, there were no inspections that would detect
malfunctioning units. Given all this, which is a more reasonable
assumption:1. no radiation injuries occurred, or 2. some injuries
occurred?

Radiation Damage Caused by Shoe-Fitting Fluoroscope, by H. Kopp,
British Medical Journal Dec 7, 1957 describes radiation damage to the
foot of a shoe store worker. For what its worth, a photograph of the
damaged foot is included.

Shoe Fitting with X-ray by H. Bavley in National Safety News, Sept 1950
refers to a case in Massachusetts where an individual had to have her
leg amputated.  This paper also refers to a study at the Harvard School
of Public Health that an exposure to the feet over 20 seconds could
range from 10 to 116 R for apparently normally operating units.  What
then might repeated exposures with a malfunctioning unit deliver?

Paul Frame
Professional Training Programs
ORISE
framep@orau.gov