| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Physics was never my strong suit. I believe that can be said of many radiologists. We studied physics drudgingly in order to achieve even the most modest level of understanding; that is to say, enough to pass the Boards. I was fortunate to have a good teacher, Dr. Arnold Feldman, then of the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Denver, to prod me to a semblance of competence in this field. Otherwise I might not have made it. A nice man, the good doctor Feldman has since followed my career with a modicum of bemusement.
Although most radiologists may not have a primary interest in radiation physics, fortunately for us there are physicists who do. Because of the contributions of radiation physicists, diagnostic radiology, indeed all forms of radiology—nuclear, therapeutic, as well as diagnostic radiology—are relatively safe. Diagnostic examinations can be safely performed by physicians and should be of little or no risk to the patient. The same can be said of radiation therapy. It was not always so.
In the beginning, the dangers of radiology were unapparent and preventative measures non-existent. Many pioneer practitioners of radiology paid with their lives. Skin cancers led to amputations, gross disfigurement, and even death. The incidence of leukemia was high. As late as the 1960s, the average life span of radiologists was lower than the average for other physicians. Indeed, my parents initially objected to my career choice of radiology because they feared the risk of malignancy among radiologists.
The work of radiation physicists has changed all that: improvements in X-ray tube and equipment design, development of methods of radiation protection, adoption of radiation safety measures, and a general appreciation of the dangers of radiation exposure. As a result, the use of radiation has become safe in the hands of the practitioner who respects the dangers, is aware of the proper techniques, and is willing and capable of using these techniques judiciously.
All of which is, at the same time, fortunate and unfortunate. Fortunate in that with proper use radiation is now generally safe. Unfortunate in that the medical use of radiation is now commonly perceived as so safe that it is no longer considered to be a problem for the public.
However, the proper use of radiation is not intuitive. Proper use must be learned through the formal study of radiation physics, radiation safety, and radiation protection. Unfortunately, clinicians who are not radiologists are willing to forgo these requirements for formal study and thereby expose both themselves and their patients to unnecessary risks.
Radiology equipment manufacturers may do only the minimum to meet safety requirements. Manufacturers have a vested interest in minimizing the costs of equipment. Potential operational glitches of therapeutic equipment that might result in increased exposure may go uncorrected. Features, such as ways to minimize exposure dosage for children undergoing CT, may not be addressed.
Thus, there is great value given to the public and radiology practitioners by an independent organization that oversees and monitors radiation protection and radiation safety. And that is the role of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, more commonly known as the NCRP.
In this issue Eugene Saenger [1] recounts the history and accomplishments of the NCRP, extolling the virtues and vital role of the NCRP in establishing standards of radiation safety and radiation protection. What Dr. Saenger doesn't tell you is of his long and exemplary service to that organization, for which he still represents the interests and concerns of all radiologists. For years, in that role, Gene has gone hat in hand to the powers that be in our major organizations pleading the case for organized radiology's sponsorship and monetary support of the NCRP. And he has been successful. Because of Dr. Saenger's dedication, radiology and radiologists have long been viewed in the eyes of the federal establishment as supportive of the NCRP. In so doing, our specialty has been credited with a genuine concern for radiation safety and radiation protection. All radiologists owe the good Dr. Saenger a debt of gratitude for his efforts on our behalf.
However, all the news is not good. Dr. Saenger relates that the federal budget crunch has led to decreased governmental support for the NCRP. Clearly, this decrease does not reflect the public need and importance of this vital public service. It is in the best interest of our specialty and the patients we serve that this vital public service be maintained.
Dr. Saenger solicits your personal support in addition to increased support by all radiologic organizations. Money, of course, would be appreciated. But if any of you should know a member of Congress who might champion the cause, that might be even more helpful. After all, support of the NCRP seems to be a rather safe issue. Radiation safety and radiation protection are hard to argue against. Radiation safety and radiation protection are clearly nonpartisan and free of entanglements with opposing vested interest groups. In fact, a politician could construe support of the NCRP as an environmental issue. And there is no question but that present-day politicians are given to revel in the environment. A desire to protect people from the ravages of unnecessary radiation is certainly a laudable goal, similar to fighting against pollution of the air and water and preserving our natural flora and fauna. Get in touch with Dr. Saenger if you should know of any Representative or Senator who might be willing to pick up this cudgel on behalf of the people of America.
America needs the NCRP, and ways must be found to foster and support its vital activities.
References
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
