From: Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rob
I agree about the technical aspects of radiation as I said EMR (electro-magnetic radiation) and sound waves 'radiate' but a radiographer does not really descibe a sonographer as many sonographers have little to do with ionising radiation and radiographer implies ionising radiation.. Granted that technician/technologist does not entirely reflect us as professionals but then neither does radiographer. It has been said before, that if all MRS's, MIT's, MRT's, sono's can agree on one solution then nothing could stop us. We just have to agree on something. The Victorian example is close but it still calls us technologists. Nuc Med I presume would come under a similar banner to radiographers as they both use ionising radiation to diagnose disease. Unless they want to be different. They are an unusual lot. (yes I have lots of good Nuc med friends) Any ideas to replace technologist ? Dieter At 15:46 25/03/2003 +1100, you wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Deiter > >Both MRI and sonography use radiation, but not ionising radiation. >Radiation is any form of energy that once emitted from the source that >will radiate (spread out from a central point). Both sound and radio >waves are forms of radiation. > >I agree that we need some title to incorporate MR and U/S, what about >trying to include Nuc Med? > >We need a name that reflects us as professional - not technologist / >technicians as this implies that we are not autonomous and if not >autonomous then definitely not professional > >Rob > >_________________________________________________ >Rob Davidson >Lecturer & Course Coordinator: Ba App Sc (Medical Imaging) >School of Clinical Sciences >Charles Sturt University >Locked Bag 588 >Wagga Wagga NSW 2678 Australia >Phone: 02 6933 2503 >Fax: 02 6933 2866 >Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Web: www.csu.edu.au/faculty/health/clinical >=20 >Avoid people who say they know the answer. >Keep company of people who are trying to=20 >understand the question. >Billy Connolly's Desiderata from Billy by Pamela Stephenson >=20 >=20 >=20 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dieter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, 24 March 2003 8:44 PM >To: AIRNEWS >Subject: RE: [AIRNEWS] definition > > From: Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >I think we need to move away from the "Radiographer" label. This doen >not=20 >fully encompass both MRI technicians and Sonographers as both of these=20 >modalities do not use radiation. You could start and be technical with=20 >EMR. Perhaps we should leave it that these two do not use "ionising=20 >radiation" nor do they "irradiate" people. We are all medical imaging=20 >technologists or mecical radiation technologists (RT's). > >If we are going to stand on our feet then we need to get straight what >we=20 >are going to call ourselves. > >Dieter > >At 16:24 19/03/2003 +1000, you wrote: > > From: Ken_Spong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Maybe Radiographer Initiated Opinions might be a plank to start > >building > >with??? > > > >Ken > > > > > >At 06:56 PM 19/09/2002 +1000, you wrote: > > > > >The Australian Bureau of Statistics - Australian Standard > >Classification > > >of Occupations (p. 173) defines a Medical Diagnostic Radiographer as > > >someone who: > > > > > > > > > "Operates X-ray and other medical imaging equipment to >produce > > > images for the medical diagnostic purpose in conjunction with > > > radiologists and other medical specialists" > > > > > >So it seems that even in this day and age, radiographers are > >continued to > > >be defined as personnel allied to radiology/radiologists. Do we not > > >deserve an independent status?? > > > > > > > > >Sarah Lewis > > >Lecturer: Diagnostic Radiography > > >The University of Sydney > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Wright, Lee [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 6:19 PM > > >To: 'AIRNEWS' > > >Subject: RE: [AIRNEWS] definition > > > > > > From: "Wright, Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >..define what Radiography is/was... > > >Responsible Medical Imaging to aid/assist in the confirmation/denial > >of a > > >medical prognosis/diagnosis... > > >with due regard to the minimisation of irradiation and/or >interventional > > >procedure... > > > > > > > > >Lee Wright > > >Carnarvon, WA > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Ong, Teresa > > >Sent: Wednesday, 18 September 2002 2:57 PM > > >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > >Subject: [AIRNEWS] definition > > > > > > > > > From: "Ong, Teresa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >I have a question for all airnews readers and lurkers, > > > > > >If I had to define what Radiography, is or was, what would that be, > >also RT > > >and also sonography. > > > > > >Can anyone give me an all encompassing definition or 3 individual > >ones > > > > > >Thanks. > > > > > >Teresa > > > > > >Teresa Ong > > > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= This message is being broadcast by AIRNEWS, the Australian Institute of Radiography list Server Send messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For assistance send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Commands should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Opinions expressed on this list are not necessarily those of the moderator, his assistants or those of the A.I.R.
