Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Mar;21(3):10-19.
doi: 10.1002/acm2.12708. Epub 2019 Sep 20.

COMP Report: A survey of radiation safety regulations for medical imaging x-ray equipment in Canada

Thorarin A Bjarnason  1   2   3 , Robert Rees  4 , Judy Kainz  5 , Lawrence H Le  6   7 , Errol E Stewart  6 , Brent Preston  8 , Idris Elbakri  9   10   11 , Ingvar A J Fife  9   10   11 , Ting-Yim Lee  12   13   14 , I Martin Benoît Gagnon  15 , Clément Arsenault  16 , Pierre Therrien  17 , Edward Kendall  18 , Elena Tonkopi  19   20   21 , Michelle Cottreau  22 , John E Aldrich  2
Affiliations

COMP Report: A survey of radiation safety regulations for medical imaging x-ray equipment in Canada

Thorarin A Bjarnason et al. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020 Mar.

Abstract

X-ray regulations and room design methodology vary widely across Canada. The Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists (COMP) conducted a survey in 2016/2017 to provide a useful snapshot of existing variations in rules and methodologies for human patient medical imaging facilities. Some jurisdictions no longer have radiation safety regulatory requirements and COMP is concerned that lack of regulatory oversight might erode safe practices. Harmonized standards will facilitate oversight that will ensure continued attention is given to public safety and to control workplace exposure. COMP encourages all Canadian jurisdictions to adopt the dose limits and constraints outlined in Health Canada Safety Code 35 with the codicil that the design standards be updated to those outlined in NCRP 147 and BIR 2012.

Keywords: diagnostic radiology; medical imaging; occupational dose; radiation safety; shielding.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Average and median annual occupational dose for radiographers in Canada. All median values are zero.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Fraction of Canadian radiography workers receiving different ranges of annual occupational dose. Note the log scale on the y‐axis. Years where there were zero workers for a specific range are not shown on the log scale graph.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Distribution of average occupational dose badge readings by province/territory for 1990–2016. Box and whisker plot shown with central horizontal line representing the median value, the upper and lower limits of the box are the 25th and 75th percentiles, and the extent of the whiskers are the 10th and 90th percentiles.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. International Commission on Radiological Protection . ICRP publication 26: recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann ICRP. 1977;1-80. - PubMed
    1. International Commission on Radiological Protection . ICRP publication 60: 1990 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann ICRP. 1991;21:1–201. - PubMed
    1. International Commission on Radiological Protection . ICRP publication 103: the 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:1–332. - PubMed
    1. International Commission on Radiological Protection . ICRP publication 118: ICRP statement on tissue reactions/early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs – threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context. Ann ICRP. 2012;41:1–322. - PubMed
    1. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements . NCRP Report 147: Structural Shielding Design for Medical X‐ray Imaging Facilities; 2004.

MeSH terms