|
VIP Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,579
|
You guys memories are wayyyy off.
The police officers gun in the MRI machine debacle (not itself magnetized) dates back several years and it was not the fault magnetization of any part toward the firearm itself...
Quote:
Case Report
Spontaneous Discharge of a Firearm in an MR Imaging Environment
Anton Oscar Beitia1, Steven P. Meyers1, Emanuel Kanal2 and William Bartell3
1 Department of Radiology, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave., Box 648, Rochester, NY 14642.
2 Department of Radiology (D-132), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop St., Pittsburgh, PA 15213.
3 Rochester Police Department, Rochester, NY 14624.
Received September 4, 2001; accepted after revision November 6, 2001.
Address correspondence to A. O. Beitia.
Introduction
Top
Introduction
Case Report
Discussion
References
An incident recently occurred at an outpatient imaging center in western New York State, in which a firearm spontaneously discharged in a 1.5-T MR imaging environment with active shielding. To our knowledge, this is the first documented case of such an occurrence. The event confirms previously reported theoretic risks of a firearm discharging in an MR imaging environment [1]. In this report, we examine the incident in detail from the official police and ballistic reports.
Case Report
An off-duty police officer went to an outpatient imaging center (not affiliated with our institution) in western New York State to have an MR imaging examination. The facility housed a 1.5-T MR unit (Signa; General Electric Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI) with active shielding. The officer was carrying a model 1991 A-1 compact.45 caliber semiautomatic pistol (Colt's Manufacturing, Hartford, CT).
The officer notified the technologist that he was carrying the weapon before entering the MR dressing room. The technologist told the officer to take the gun with him. The technologist intended to meet the officer in the MR patient waiting area before the examination and secure the weapon in that room, where he felt it would be safe. However, the officer apparently misunderstood and took the gun into the MR suite. The technologist was entering the officer's personal data into the computer and did not see him entering the MR suite.
Once the officer was inside the MR suite, the gun was pulled from his hand as he attempted to place the gun on top of a cabinet 3 ft (0.9 m) away from the magnet bore. The gun was immediately pulled into the bore, where it struck the left side and spontaneously discharged a round into the wall of the room at the rear of the magnet. Fortunately, no one was injured. Although the gun struck the magnet bore, only minimal cosmetic damage occurred to the magnet itself. The MR unit had full functional capability immediately after the gun discharged. The weapon's thumb safety was reportedly engaged when the gun discharged.
An unsuccessful attempt to remove the gun from the magnet resulted in the gun being pulled to the right side of the magnet (Fig. 1). The decision was then made to power down the magnet to remove the gun.
At the time the weapon discharged, it was reportedly in a cocked and locked position; that is, the hammer was cocked and the thumb safety was engaged to prevent the hammer from striking the firing pin. A live round was in the chamber. (Many people who choose this weapon for personal protection will carry it in this manner because it allows them to quickly fire the weapon if needed.)
When the firearm was removed from the magnet, the gun was still in a cocked and locked position. An empty cartridge was found in the chamber. The presence of an empty cartridge in the chamber is highly unusual. If the thumb safety were not engaged and the weapon fired normally by depressing the trigger, the normal backward recoil of the slide should have automatically ejected the empty cartridge, and a new live round should have automatically been chambered. As discussed earlier, the thumb safety performs two functions: it prevents the sear from releasing the hammer, thereby preventing the hammer from striking the firing pin; it also locks the slide in place, preventing retrograde motion of the slide and automatic ejection of the empty cartridge. Thus, the presence of an empty cartridge in the chamber confirms that the thumb safety was engaged at the time the gun was fired. Given that the thumb safety was engaged when the gun discharged, it is also likely that the normal trigger and hammer mechanism of firing the gun was bypassed because the thumb safety would have also prevented release of the hammer.
The gun likely discharged as a result of the effect of the magnetic field on the firing pin block. The firing pin block was probably drawn into its uppermost position by force of the magnetic field. The firing pin block has to overcome only light pressure from a relatively small spring to release the firing pin. The pistol was likely drawn into the magnetic field so that the muzzle struck the magnet's bore first. With the firing pin allowed to move freely in its channel, the force of the impact on the muzzle end was sufficient to cause the firing pin to overcome its spring pressure and move forward to strike the primer of the chambered round.
This account explains how the weapon discharged when the thumb safety was engaged.
The presence of an empty cartridge in the chamber explains why the gun did not discharge a second time when it was moved from the left to the right side of the bore. Even if the identical forces were repeated, an empty cartridge, not a live round, was in the chamber at this time.
Discussion
In this incident, the gun discharged despite the thumb safety being engaged. This has important implications in that it shows that the weapon poses a risk for discharging in an MR imaging environment even with the thumb safety engaged.
One can look at the sequence of events preceding the discharge of the weapon and see several points at which the incident could have been prevented. When the officer came in with the gun, it should have been immediately secured in a safe location, even before the officer changed for the examination. The technologist, knowing the officer had a firearm, should have instructed him that under no circumstances could he bring the weapon into the MR suite. Also, the technologist should have been monitoring the officer more closely to make sure he did not enter the MR suite with the weapon. Signs should have been posted at that site, if they were not already there, warning the public of the dangers of approaching the magnetic field of the MR imager with implants, metallic devices, or objects such as firearms.
In light of this incident, all radiologists should reexamine our own site's screening methods to ensure that steps are implemented to prevent such a situation from ever recurring.
References
1. Kanal E, Shaibani A. Firearm safety in an MR imaging environment. Radiology 1994;193:875 -876[Abstract]
2. Sweeney P. Gunsmithing: pistols and revolvers. Iola, WI: Krause, 1998:30 -34
The whole of the report along with pics of the MRI machine and the firearm can be located at; Spontaneous Discharge of a Firearm in an MR Imaging Environment -- Beitia et al. 178 (5): 1092 -- American Journal of Roentgenology
|
- Ripley's Believe It Or Not
__________________
"Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy
Monday, March 12, 2007 -- Op Ed -- The Washington Post
|