lead apron thicknesses

[Chris Alston <alstonc@odrge.odr.georgetown.edu>]

>X-Sender: dsimpkin@mail.execpc.com
>Date:         Tue, 19 May 1998 10:51:34 -0500
>Reply-To: Medical Physics Mailing List <MEDPHYS@LISTS.WAYNE.EDU>
>Sender: Medical Physics Listserver <medphys@lists.wayne.edu>
>From: Douglas Simpkin <dsimpkin@EXECPC.COM>
>Subject:      lead apron thicknesses
>To: MEDPHYS@LISTS.WAYNE.EDU
>
>Dear Fellow MedPhysers:
>
>I'd like to see some discussion of a very mundane topic: The thickness of
>"Lead" aprons in diagnostic and interventional radiology.
>
>In the good old days there were two flavors of aprons: 0.5 mm and 0.25 mm
>thicknesses constructed with Pb. My State regulations require aprons to not
>be thinner than 0.25 mm. This institution has historically further limited
>the use of the 0.25 mm aprons, requiring all aprons be 0.5 mm thick lead.
>This seemed to be the community standard 10 years ago, with certain
>standards (e.g. Webster's conversion from neck and waist film badge
>readings to effective dose equivalent, Health Physics 56:568-569; 1989)
>built on the assumption of a 0.5 mm apron.
>
>With the advent of the light-weight composite aprons, a third option has
>arisen: a 0.35 mm "lead- equivalent" apron. In tests on a limited number of
>samples, I have seen twice the dose transmitted through the 0.35 mm apron,
>with not more than a 7% decrease in weight (relative to a 0.5 mm
>lead-equivalent composite apron). Doesn't use of a 0.35 mm lead-equivalent
>apron also invalidate Webster's conclusions?
>
>How do others feel? Do we no longer have a consensus/ community standard on
>the thickness of lead aprons?
>
>Douglas J. Simpkin, Ph.D.
>Certified Radiation Physicist
>St. Luke's Medical Center
>2900 West Oklahoma Avenue
>Milwaukee, WI 53215
>(414)649-6457
>fax:(414)649-5061
>email: dsimpkin@execpc.com
>
>                    *****
>Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Medphys at:
>http://www.mindspring.com/~sherouse/MPFAQ
>
>
>