Register for Updates | Search | Contacts | Site Map | Member Login

ICRP: Free the Annals!

View Comment

Submitted by Alberto Torresin, EFOMP
   Commenting on behalf of the organisation
Document Radiological protection in paediatric diagnostic and interventional radiology


In collaboration with

Nederlandse Vereniging voor Klinische Fysica

Major comments

P14, paragraph (24) There is nothing mentioned regarding costs. If the costs of alternative examinations are much higher than radiological examinations, should we perform the alternative ones?

P16, paragraph (32). Are detection ports using ionising radiation at airports not allowed anymore? I think some airports already use them.

P16, paragraph (34). Should we separately establish DRN values for all examinations performed for children? I think our goal was to establish DRN levels to get an general idea on the quality of the department and not set these levels for all intervention. Perhaps one or two specifically for children but not all interventions, I would suggest. See also seciot 3.3.3 (starting at page 18)

P21, lines 493-496. Is this in accordance with the guidelines the NCS platform established?

P34, paragraph (88). It is stated that the image intensifier should be as close to the patient as possible. I understand why but I do not think the resolution improves in this way. If you have a divergent beam, the resolution is higher if the distance is larger. Or am I making a terrible geometric mistake here?

Noise (scatter) increases and the FOV becomes smaller though…

P37, paragraph (91). I think we should encourage the influence of a medical physicist here. He/she should be involved or consulted regarding the optimisation of the procedure.

P39, lines 1052-1053. I do not see the added value of using 2 dosimeters. The shielding of the lead (or other) apron is known, so the use of only one dosimeter outside the apron should suffice. This recommendation only increases costs and (administrative) workload

Minor comments

P9, In Table 1 there should be a comma (,) after ‘lung’.

P28, line 731 the words ‘should’ and ‘patients’ need to be swapped.

P38, line 1028. Why 0.450 kg and not 0.5. Is this because non-SI pounds were used initially? It suggests an precision that is not true so I would suggest to keep it at 0.5 kg.

P44, line 1182, after the word ‘treatment’, a point (.) is missing.