[ RadSafe ] Recertification, BEIR VII effect on medical radiation safety

howard long hflong at pacbell.net
Fri Feb 24 13:14:09 CST 2006

Unfortunately, certification assures safe treatment less than personal concern.
  Recertified in Family Practice 5 times (no sour grapes), I do not plan to again when due in 2 years because it has become intrusive on patient privacy and wrong in its science. Sharing patient files is now required for Maintenance of Certification, as is verifying that one does as dictated in continuing education. For example, I am put down if I prescribe hormone replacement for a non-smoking 65 year old woman  (to prevent osteoporosis, heart trouble, etc,) - even though the WHI's own graphs show no difference from placebo in total mortality when smokers are included.  And smokers have 250% more CV mortality (Layde graphs in all PDRs), so non-smokers must have had LESS heart risk than placebo! You all have seen the publicity that saves social security money for the bureaucracy, by patients dying sooner! 
  Trust the market, not Leviathan, for radiation safety - as in the debate over CT scan benefit/risk.
  Howard Long

John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com> wrote:
You are not boring me with your posting. All I am
saying is that this is not a new comment that had
appeared in the medical arena. As I have said, the
idea that doses need be reduced in medicine is not a
new issue. I believe the term is optimization. 

Physicians and other professionals need to keep
abreast of new findings in their field. As a
certified health physicist, I have to apply for
recertification every five years, and have to submit
information of courses, class and meetings I have
attended to get CECs. If I do not have enough CECs, I
will not be recertified. You also have to pay your

The source of CECs are sometimes developed by the
professional society themselves, although CECs
obtained from other sources are frequently accepted if
the material is relevant to the profession. In some
cases, the partipant has to take a test to demonstrate
they actually learned something. In some states, you
cannot practice medicine without professional

--- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:

> John:
> The categorical tone of this unreserved promotion of
> the LNT-postulate in a professional - rather than
> media - context outside the radiation protection
> community struck me as something new. Excuse me if I
> was boring you.
> Frankly, as a non physician and a non-US scientist I
> have no idea how much the "Continuing Medical
> Education" program (under the auspices of the AMA?)
> affects thinking and practice of the U.S. medical
> community.
> Unless the statements below are pure hot air,
> "continuing education for medical professionals" in
> the spirit of this "CME/CE activity" can hardly grow
> beneficial results.
> Kind regards, Rainer
> -----------------------------------------
> Medscape self-portrayal:
> CME/CE in this activity indicates continuing
> education for medical professionals.
> Medscape is accredited by the Accreditation Council
> for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide
> continuing medical education for physicians.
> Medscape designates this educational activity for a
> maximum of 1.0 Category 1 credit(s) toward the AMA
> Physician's Recognition Award. Each physician should
> claim only those credits that reflect the time
> he/she actually spent in the activity.
> ------------------------------------------
> ________________________________
> Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
> Gesendet: Fr 24.02.2006 17:11
> An: Facius, Rainer; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] BEIR VII repercussions in
> the medical community
> Rainer,
> This is really not new news. Similar comments
> appears
> when the BEIR VII report appeared last year. There
> has been an effort over many years to reduce
> radiation
> exposures to patients. Well before the publication
> of
> the BEIR VII report. The real issue is the effect,
> if
> any, such statements will have on the quality of
> medical care. I haven't heard of any.
> --- Rainer.Facius at dlr.de wrote:
> >
> > Some quotations from a recent MEDSACPE tutorial
> for
> > general physicians
> > and in particular for radiologists.
> >
> > http://www.medscape.com/viewprogram/5063_pnt
> > You may get access to the full paper at the above
> > URL after registering
> > for (free) access.
> >
> > Imaging X-rays Cause Cancer: A Call to Action for
> > Caregivers and
> > Patients
> >
> > Author: Richard C. Semelka, MD; Director,
> Magnetic
> > Resonance Services,
> > Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of
> > Radiology, University of
> > North Carolina at Chapel Hill
> > Disclosure: Richard C. Semelka, MD, has disclosed
> no
> > relevant financial
> > relationships.
> >

"It is not the job of public-affairs officers to alter, filter or 
adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical 
MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, NASA administrator.

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

More information about the RadSafe mailing list