[ RadSafe ] CT Risk/Benefit analysis by Maccabee - Great DVDfor meeting

[Franz Schönhofer]

Howard,

What happened to this criminal? Was he hanged publicl	y or was he just
told not to do this again??????? Due to the many "Westeners" at the cinema
we know very well, that horse thiefs were hanged immediately - whether they
were guilty or not..... The same was of course for people who killed others.

Expecting a reasonable answer

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] Im Auftrag von
HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
Gesendet: Montag, 02. August 2010 21:42
An: Clayton J Bradt
Cc: Jane Orient; radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] CT Risk/Benefit analysis by Maccabee - Great DVDfor
meeting



Howard Maccabee, PhD, MD radiation oncologist, 

 needed thousands of CTs to accurately locate cancers 

he burned out (prostate, breast, etc). 



He responded to, "one of the most important -- but most frightening 

 -- articles I've read  " in "Cancer Risks Associated with CT Scanning" 

 Dachs, American Family Physician, 81,2,1/15/10, 111-114, referring to 

 Computer Tomography - An Increasing Source Of Radiation Exposure, 

Brenner, NEJM 2007,;357,22. 



Entertain and enlighten a meeting of health physicists with 

his half-hour presentation (DVD available from; 

DDP 1601 N. Tucson Blvd # 9 Tucson AZ 85716, 

ddponline.org, or 520 325 2680). 

 For example, new background radiation data adds 

av. 20 mSv (0.2rem) from radon, so 1 CT has < 2 years 

of usual background radiation - and where most radiation - least cancer. 

  

Maccabee refutes, with excellent slides, the Brenner-Dachs fearmongering.  


Howard Long 



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Clayton J Bradt" <CJB01 at health.state.ny.us> 
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu 
Sent: Monday, August 2, 2010 6:53:08 AM 
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Latest installment from NYT on the CT brain perfusion 

 "over doses" 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/health/01radiation.html?_r=1&emc=eta1 

The techs are taking a beating on this, but its the docs and the 
physicists who screwed up.   Of course we are talking about diagnosing a 
stroke in progress so the pressure to use the technique even in doubtful 
situations must be overwhelming.  Still, not understanding the output 
parameters of the new equipment is unforgivable. 

Clayton J. Bradt 
Principal Radiophysicist 
NYS Dept. of Health 

_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu