Radiation control at the grassroots.

Abstract

The first place that most of us have looked to see if radiation exposures can be reduced has been in our own radiological offices and departments. Protection, like charity, properly starts at home, and self-inspection and re-evaluation of our own technics have been a worthwhile activity. By now, such efforts in radiation control have been sufficiently emphasized that our equipment and procedures should have been brought up to modern acceptable standards. But is this enough? Is the radiologist's responsibility completed at this point? As part of the small group with pertinent specialist education and comprehensive understanding of radiation problems, we can offer our talents at least to our community and regional situation. As civic-minded citizens we shall find here a real opportunity for service which no one else can provide. The need is apparent. Elsewhere in this issue of Radiology is a report of a community survey of radiation exposure from medical fluoroscopes. Fluoroscopes were chosen for this investigation because they contribute a major proportion to both somatic and gonadal radiation exposure of the population. In this study of 81 fluoroscopes in the Philadelphia area, the findings show that both apparatus and technics are frequently not up to acceptable or desirable levels. Only about half of the fluoroscopes were producing exposure dose rates considered acceptably low. Less than one out of ten machines met more critical performance standards. The apparatus of radiologists and that found in hospitals was generally better than the apparatus of non-radiologists, but need for some improvement was apparent in all groups. More remarkable, however, was the finding that 90 per cent of these fluoroscopes could be brought up to acceptable standards by relatively minor and inexpensive modifications. The medical action taken in this community was voluntary and self-generated. A Radiation Committee of the County Medical Society made arrangements with a commercial radiological safety group to provide comprehensive inspection and analysis of fluoroscopic apparatus for its members. A cost of approximately $40 per machine includes a written report of the findings and recommendations, but does not include alterations unless they are so simple as to require no additional charge by the inspection physicist. More extensive alterations were considered to be the province of regular x-ray service organizations. To date about 100 members of the Philadelphia County Medical Society have availed themselves of this service. This appears to be a plan suitable for wide use and one which can be initiated by radiologists in their own localities. The problems of medical radiation control involve much more, of course, than correcting deficiencies in apparatus alone. Considerably more important are the methods of use of the apparatus and the judgment involved in choice of procedures for individual patients.