OK, before I ask my question, I'll try to make a long story short. I
am a radiographer (x-ray technologist) for a busy inner-city medical
Center in New Jersey. Recently, one of the techs in my department was
up in the NICU about to shoot a chest x-ray on a premature neonate,
when the father of the baby (who happened to be a paranoid know it all
chiropractor) became extremely agitated because the tech did not place
lead shielding over his baby's gonads. Shortly after news of this
occurrence reached the head of my department, a memo was dispatched
asking all technologists to use lead garment shielding on all
children.

Although it's been some years since I was a student, I remember being
taught that additional lead shielding wasn't required by law when the
x-ray field in contact with the patient is more then 3 cm. (or
something like that) from the patient's gonads, because proper
collimation is actually shielding and protecting the patient.
(Collimators are adjustable lead shutters that the radiographer
adjusts prior to shooting the x-ray that limits the x-ray field to the
anatomy of interest. All x-ray machines have built in collimators as
required by law.)

OK, so now for the questions. Are there any laws (nationally or in
N.J.)  requiring technologists to place lead shielding directly over a
patient's gonads even though proper collimation techniques are being
utilized? How about for pediatric cases? If not a law, are there any
guidelines regarding lead garment shielding that must be adhered to
according to the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists ( the
credentialing organization that radiographers must belong to in most
states)?

The reason I'm asking the question is because sometimes applying a
lead garment and trying to keep it in place agitates children, and
makes it more difficult to get a proper diagnostic film on the first
try. Also, if the lead garment moves at the moment the radigropher
pushes the x-ray button, it can obscure the area of interest,
requiring another film to be taken. Of course repeat films add to the
amount of patient exposure, and that's what was trying to be limited
in the first place.

---

Request for Question Clarification by justaskscott-ga on 16 Aug 2003 20:39 PDT

I should emphasize the disclaimer at the bottom of this page, which
indicates that answers and comments on Google Answers are general
information, and not intended to substitute for informed professional
legal or medical advice.

As someone who can only do general research on this subject, and is
not an expert on the law or the medicine, I don't think I can say for
sure whether the following regulations are sufficient to answer your
question.  But perhaps you can figure that out for yourself.  If you
think that these regulations are sufficient, you can let me know, and
I would be happy to post them as an answer.

"Title 21--Food and Drugs - Chapter I - Food and Drug Administration,
Department of Health and Human Services - Part 1000--General"
National Archives and Records Administration -- Code of Federal
Regulations
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/21cfr1000_03.html

"New Jersey Administrative Code, N.J.A.C. 7:28 - Radiation Protection
Programs -Subchapters 1 - 21 & 24-25 - All Ionizing Radiation
Regulations except Radon"
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
http://www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/download/chap28.pdf