Originally Posted by
Trollkiller
Ok I am not a lawyer but the way I see it is a person may not use radiation (x-ray) on a human being unless he or she qualifies under the rest of 468.302.
Maybe if you explain your reasoning I will understand.
Sure. "or OTHERWISE PRACTICE radiologic . . . " I think that a genuine legal read of the statute is that the x-ray usage is in context with it being for medical usage. Can it be read the way you highlighted it? Yes. But I truly think that the "correct" reading needs to consider the entire statute, and its legislative intent, which includes the "or otherwise".
I am not picking on you TK. If you check my history you will find posts that I almost filed an ACLU suit against screening in 1978. (Yes, 32 years ago.)