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 , both room and adjacent areas with time are subject to changes. McLean  and Wilkinson  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  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  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 . 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 firstname.lastname@example.org SA Medical Imaging, Women’s and Children’s Hospital, North Adelaide, SA, Australia Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3
Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine – Springer Journals
Published: Mar 22, 2018
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
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
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.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera