Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:36:05 GMT

[quote user="Luke Edwards"]Hand holding generators seems a popular pastime with some equine practioners but appalls others. Having seen more than one xray system trashed by a horse I can see why some vets are reluctant to let go of the machine...[/quote]

Luke - personally I have no great issue with the lass holding the generator it is the bloke holding the cassette and getting the scatter that concerns me far more. He's the one getting the bigger dose.

My written scheme from our RPA states no-one within 2m of primary beam.

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Luke Edwards — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 20:20:30 GMT

Hand holding generators seems a popular pastime with some equine practioners but appalls others. Having seen more than one xray system trashed by a horse I can see why some vets are reluctant to let go of the machine...

I found the following paper which my illuminate/irradiate matters:-

"Estimated operator exposure for hand holding portable x-ray units during imaging of the equine distal extremity"

Tyson R. et al . Veterinary Radiology and Ultrasound, Vol 52. no2 2011. p121-124.

Basically what the authors did was to simulate the exposures recieved by hand holding the generator whilst x-raying a leg. They did this for the hand holding the machine and for a site on the operators collar, with and without lead gloves or apron.

The conclusions they came to:

Suggested Occupational limits for whole body exposure = 0.05Sv/year

Suggested Occupational limits for extremities = 0.5 Sv/year

( recommended levels <10% of occupational levels)

Number of exposures required to reach occupational levels for hands without gloves = 106,157

Number of exposures required to reach occupational levels for hands with gloves = 13,269,639

Number of exposures required to reach occupational levels for body without apron = 15, 291

Number of exposures required to reach occupational levels for body with apron = 493,243

Attenuation of beam by lead protection =approx 98%

So it seems that the risk would be less than generally thought. However they did point out the risk is probablistic and there is no "safe" dose. A lifetime culmative dose of 100mSv was quoted as leading to a 10% increase in mortality from cancers in nuclear power workers.

Luke

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Malcolm Ness — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:08:35 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]I don't think there is ever an excuse for poor punctuation.[/quote]

Kudo's!

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:53:44 GMT

[quote user="James Laidlaw"]What's happening in Cornwall???[/quote] Its called granite Jim.

I've told this tale before but despite no-one in my practice ever doing anything more protective than standing more than a metre away from the x-ray machine, and the reserve badge being left a metre away from it at all times, the only person who ever got a reading was one nurse. Upon interrogation she revealed that on the odd occasions she took it home still on her uniform she took it off and left it on a window sill for a few hours!

I have to say though that after having had multiple X-rays myself for various fractures and disorders including a CT scan of the brain (in my case I think it was just to see if I had one!) and a radio-isotope scan of my kidneys I felt I'd had enough exposure to radiation and I declined a routine x-ray at the dentist last time which seemed to quite upset her.

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Rachel Perry — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 17:08:30 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

I don't think there is ever an excuse for poor punctuation.

[/quote]

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:38:29 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] Is it a blessing in disguise - i.e. they now get you on medication which should stop you having another, bigger one?[/quote]

Yes, I'm on a very expensive drug called aspirin, that's all.

I went to the doctor when the symptoms hadn't reduced after 5 days, and he sort of blenched and phoned the hospital.

The CT scan was interesting. Neat oval black hole in my brain.

It is getting better, if very very slowly, thank you. I'm truly touched by everybody's good wishes, but I don't particularly want to discuss it further on this thread.

I don't think there is ever an excuse for poor punctuation.

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 11:18:00 GMT

Keep us posted on your recovery

Wynne

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

James Laidlaw — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:58:23 GMT

[quote user="Mike Martin"]

Evelyn, I hope you have a complete recovery.

In view of the radiation discussion, I though this list of radiation exposures might interest some. I prepared this for an article I wrote, but this chart didn't get used.

[/quote] What's happening in Cornwall???

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Virginia Campbell — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:37:40 GMT

Best wishes for a swift recovery Evelyn.

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:25:46 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]It was a stroke, which baffled the junior doctors because the impairment was all sensory, hardly any motor at all. [/quote] Good on you for acting swiftly. There was an article in a paper I was reading that said people who ignore the first signs of a stroke, which may be very mild and transient, are much more likely to suffer a severe stroke within a short period of time. I assume the reverse is also true.Sadly with my 4 Yorkshiremen attitude to illness and injury I may fall in the former group. As the others, I wish you a full and speedy recovery.

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Kate Richardson — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:16:02 GMT

Evelyn, really hope you are okay and as Arlo said prevention of further incidents can now be instated and a blessing in disguise.

[quote user="james herriot lied"]

I note, though, that your grammar continued to be well-constructed in the preceding period. It doesn't, after all, do to let one's standards slip; a cerebrovascuar accident is no excuse for poor punctuation.

[/quote]

LOL!

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Mike Martin — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:55:25 GMT

Evelyn, I hope you have a complete recovery.

In view of the radiation discussion, I though this list of radiation exposures might interest some. I prepared this for an article I wrote, but this chart didn't get used.

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:02:34 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]It was a stroke[/quote] God how frightening. Glad to hear you're recovering. Is it a blessing in disguise - i.e. they now get you on medication which should stop you having another, bigger one?

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

james herriot lied — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:40:43 GMT

Holy Moley. Hope it was just a transient event.

www.youtube.com/watch

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Tim Cheyne — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:30:19 GMT

What a weird and horrible experience,Evelyn. Glad to hear that you are recovering. Take care.

Tim.

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:11:21 GMT

Best wishes and I agree with you that unless the intended use of the radiograph is to paper the wall,then it comes under the remit of the 1966 VSA-diagnosing and treating disease in animals-and therefore these people are undoubtedly criminals Why oh why won't anyone do anything about it?

Wynne

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Bob Russell — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:05:35 GMT

Scary - hope all is going well!

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Dagmar Steele — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 17:24:26 GMT

yikes, get better soon. Very scary stuff, glad you're recovering, look after yourself!

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 16:40:11 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]

Are you OK, Evelyn? (and those around you, of course?)

[/quote]

Yes, recovering, thank you. Thanks to all who sent good wishes. It was a stroke, which baffled the junior doctors because the impairment was all sensory, hardly any motor at all.

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

james herriot lied — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 10:09:36 GMT

Are you OK, Evelyn? (and those around you, of course?)

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 22:26:00 GMT

[quote user="Luke Edwards"]

I think this might well be a promo picture - if you look at the table in the background it appears to have a display of dental tools on it with what looks like a head torch on a mannikins head.

If it not a promo then they will get a useless dental radiograph - they are aiming at the wrong point....

Luke

[/quote]

Yes I expect it's posed rather than actualité but why pose it like this?

It's taken at a course and the table in the background is a sales display.

[quote user="David Mills"]This all reminds me a bit of that peculiar 21st century tabloid disease, the pre-judgement judgement (perhaps it was ever thus?). All you have is a picture showing a nice horse, someone holding an xray machine and suitably kitted up. From this, it has mushroomed to radiation safety, this is what these people practice, a general tut-tutting and now some peculiar conviction that this horse has been sedated.[/quote]

Well, I posted this picture without comment for everyone's interest. The discussion developed freely by itself.

It's a picture, posed probably, purporting to show a horse's teeth being radiographed with the clear implication that this is how they do it. The participants are all togged up apparently ascribing to their gear a magical protection of every part of their bodies from the leaking or scattered radiation that may be highly significant at this zero range.

[quote user="David Mills"]As for radiography being an act of veterinary surgery - utter poppycock.[/quote]

Not quite utter poppycock old chap. Possibly one might argue that the actual taking of the radiograph was not veterinary surgery, although I would venture to disagree (shooting Xrays through all the tissues of the head seems pretty much to come under veterinary surgery to me), but what use is the radiograph in itself? I was going to suggest an emergency cat-feeding-bowl mat to protect the carpet, but of course in this case the images are digital so all I can suggest is screen wallpaper. The making of a diagnosis from examination of the radiograph and the giving of advice and treatment based thereon are most definitely acts of veterinary surgery.

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Rajat — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:55:45 GMT

[quote user="Luke Edwards"]I think this might well be a promo picture - if you look at the table in the background it appears to have a display of dental tools on it with what looks like a head torch on a mannikins head.[/quote]

I was just thinking the same thing...

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Luke Edwards — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:08:29 GMT

I think this might well be a promo picture - if you look at the table in the background it appears to have a display of dental tools on it with what looks like a head torch on a mannikins head.

If it not a promo then they will get a useless dental radiograph - they are aiming at the wrong point....

Luke

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:35:48 GMT

Hope Evelyn ok?

Re: Radiation safety: an interesting approach

James Laidlaw — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:54:07 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

Alternatively, it could simply be a promotional picture where all the elements are present. I wouldn't have thought for one minute that someone would take a picture at that angle of that horse.[/quote] So why take a picture showing it this way? Maybe there's vet input involved, but it does look a little suspect.