Rejoinder to Letters to the Editor: Luke Wilkinson and Donald McLean, in response to Giovanni Bibbo’s letter to the editor: Standardisation of shielding of medical X-ray installations

Rejoinder to Letters to the Editor: Luke Wilkinson and Donald McLean, in response to Giovanni... Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine (2018) 41:361 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-018-0631-1 LE T TER TO  THE   EDITOR Rejoinder to Letters to the Editor: Luke Wilkinson and Donald McLean, in response to Giovanni Bibbo’s letter to the editor: Standardisation of shielding of medical X-ray installations Giovanni Bibbo Published online: 22 March 2018 © Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine 2018 In replying to my letter to the editor regarding standardi- of the initially installed X-ray equipment and the uses of the sation of shielding of medical X-ray installations [1], both room and adjacent areas with time are subject to changes. McLean [2] and Wilkinson [3] indicated that there is a need Upgrading the shielding of an existing X-ray room will be for the standardisation of shielding in medical practices but much more expensive than if the room was properly shielded the stumbling block is the non-uniformity of radiation safety from its design stage. legislations across local regulatory authorities. With refer- Standardisation of medical X-ray facilities should be the ence to shielding, the lack of uniformity is related to the next step in the evolution of radiation protection in Aus- lack of a shielding standard. The local regulatory authori- tralia and it can only be achieved through organisations such ties do not set standards. Their roles are to enforce stand- as ARPANSA and Standards Australia with input from the ards. In Australia, standards in radiation safety can only be professional societies ACPSEM and ARPS. As mentioned, established by ARPANSA with the publication of codes of it is not the responsibility of local regulatory authorities practice or Standards Australia through AS/NZS documents. to set standards; their functions are to enforce established As a standard, shielding requirements could be as simple standards. as specifying for each medical imaging modality the thick- nesses of the shielding barriers in terms of lead equivalent and the height. References Wilkinson [3] in his reply expressed his concern regard- 1. Bibbo G (2018) Standardisation of shielding of medical X-ray ing over-shielding. A simple cost analysis of lead sheets installations. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 41:7–8. https ://doi. available in hardware stores indicated that there is only a org/10.1007/s1324 6-018-0619-x small difference in the costs per square metre of lead sheets 2. McLean D (2018) Reply to letter to the editor: Giovanni Bibbo, −2 of thickness 10, 15 and 20 kg m . This reflects the result of Standardisation of shielding of medical X-ray installations. Aus- tralas Phys Eng Sci Med 41:9. h tt ps : // d oi. or g /10 .1 00 7/ s 132 4 the cost analysis of shielding design performed in 1973 [4] 6-018-0625-z which showed that a tenfold increase in radiation protection 3. Wilkinson L (2018) Reply to letter to the editor: Giovanni Bibbo, could be achieved with only a 25% increase in cost. This Standardisation of shielding of medical X-ray installations. Aus- statement was also reported on page 6 of the NCRP 49 [5]. tralas Phys Eng Sci Med 41:11. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1324 6-018-0626-y Thus, over-shielding is not an issue as it does not represent 4. Braestrup CB, Wyckoff HO (1973) Shielding design levels for an additional huge cost in the shielding of X-ray facilities. radiology departments. Radiology 107:445–447 Even with the currently used shielding methodologies, in 5. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements specifying the shielding requirements for an X-ray room, the (NCRP). Structural shielding design and evaluation for medical use of X-rays and gamma rays of energies up to 10 MeV. NCRP shielding designer should take into account that the lifetime Report No. 49,1976. Bethesda, Maryland of clinical use of the X-ray room could be many times that * Giovanni Bibbo giovanni.bibbo@sa.gov.au SA Medical Imaging, Women’s and Children’s Hospital, North Adelaide, SA, Australia Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Springer Journals

Rejoinder to Letters to the Editor: Luke Wilkinson and Donald McLean, in response to Giovanni Bibbo’s letter to the editor: Standardisation of shielding of medical X-ray installations

Free
1 page
Loading next page...
1 Page
 
/lp/springer_journal/rejoinder-to-letters-to-the-editor-luke-wilkinson-and-donald-mclean-in-i2JHlLyYUw
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine
Subject
Biomedicine; Biomedicine, general; Biological and Medical Physics, Biophysics; Medical and Radiation Physics; Biomedical Engineering
ISSN
0158-9938
eISSN
1879-5447
D.O.I.
10.1007/s13246-018-0631-1
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine (2018) 41:361 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-018-0631-1 LE T TER TO  THE   EDITOR Rejoinder to Letters to the Editor: Luke Wilkinson and Donald McLean, in response to Giovanni Bibbo’s letter to the editor: Standardisation of shielding of medical X-ray installations Giovanni Bibbo Published online: 22 March 2018 © Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine 2018 In replying to my letter to the editor regarding standardi- of the initially installed X-ray equipment and the uses of the sation of shielding of medical X-ray installations [1], both room and adjacent areas with time are subject to changes. McLean [2] and Wilkinson [3] indicated that there is a need Upgrading the shielding of an existing X-ray room will be for the standardisation of shielding in medical practices but much more expensive than if the room was properly shielded the stumbling block is the non-uniformity of radiation safety from its design stage. legislations across local regulatory authorities. With refer- Standardisation of medical X-ray facilities should be the ence to shielding, the lack of uniformity is related to the next step in the evolution of radiation protection in Aus- lack of a shielding standard. The local regulatory authori- tralia and it can only be achieved through organisations such ties do not set standards. Their roles are to enforce stand- as ARPANSA and Standards Australia with input from the ards. In Australia, standards in radiation safety can only be professional societies ACPSEM and ARPS. As mentioned, established by ARPANSA with the publication of codes of it is not the responsibility of local regulatory authorities practice or Standards Australia through AS/NZS documents. to set standards; their functions are to enforce established As a standard, shielding requirements could be as simple standards. as specifying for each medical imaging modality the thick- nesses of the shielding barriers in terms of lead equivalent and the height. References Wilkinson [3] in his reply expressed his concern regard- 1. Bibbo G (2018) Standardisation of shielding of medical X-ray ing over-shielding. A simple cost analysis of lead sheets installations. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 41:7–8. https ://doi. available in hardware stores indicated that there is only a org/10.1007/s1324 6-018-0619-x small difference in the costs per square metre of lead sheets 2. McLean D (2018) Reply to letter to the editor: Giovanni Bibbo, −2 of thickness 10, 15 and 20 kg m . This reflects the result of Standardisation of shielding of medical X-ray installations. Aus- tralas Phys Eng Sci Med 41:9. h tt ps : // d oi. or g /10 .1 00 7/ s 132 4 the cost analysis of shielding design performed in 1973 [4] 6-018-0625-z which showed that a tenfold increase in radiation protection 3. Wilkinson L (2018) Reply to letter to the editor: Giovanni Bibbo, could be achieved with only a 25% increase in cost. This Standardisation of shielding of medical X-ray installations. Aus- statement was also reported on page 6 of the NCRP 49 [5]. tralas Phys Eng Sci Med 41:11. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1324 6-018-0626-y Thus, over-shielding is not an issue as it does not represent 4. Braestrup CB, Wyckoff HO (1973) Shielding design levels for an additional huge cost in the shielding of X-ray facilities. radiology departments. Radiology 107:445–447 Even with the currently used shielding methodologies, in 5. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements specifying the shielding requirements for an X-ray room, the (NCRP). Structural shielding design and evaluation for medical use of X-rays and gamma rays of energies up to 10 MeV. NCRP shielding designer should take into account that the lifetime Report No. 49,1976. Bethesda, Maryland of clinical use of the X-ray room could be many times that * Giovanni Bibbo giovanni.bibbo@sa.gov.au SA Medical Imaging, Women’s and Children’s Hospital, North Adelaide, SA, Australia Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3

Journal

Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in MedicineSpringer Journals

Published: Mar 22, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off