[ RadSafe ] Therapeutic CT

[Jerry Cohen]

Assuming the reduced Ca incidence in CT recipients results from the increased 
radiation dose, it is somewhat silly to suggest use CT for CA prevention.An 
ancient rumor on how man came to eat roasted meat relates that ages ago, a man's 
home burned down with his pig inside. The burnt meat tasted better than the raw 
meat  they had previously consumed and so the practice of burning one's home 
with livestock inside became a widespread practice. In time, simpler methods of 
cooking meat evolved
CT's are rather expensive and cumbersome. Accordingly, It might be much less 
expensive and easier to administer prophylacic radiation via xray or isotope 
irradiation.



________________________________
From: "Perle, Sandy" <SPerle at mirion.com>
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing  List 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Sun, November 7, 2010 3:40:04 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] CT vs. X-Ray for reduction of Cancer Death

Jerry and others,

My primary premise is that assuming the 20% reduction is due to better 
detection, and I believe that is the case, I don't believe that we should go out 
and give everyone a CT scan, not only to detect other cases, but to provide a 
benefit to the radiation dose.

I recognize Ed's references. I don't know that one can simply extrapolate the 
results of some studies and statistics to what benefit there would be if we 
exposed a significant % of the population.

If it were an absolute conclusion that the need for any dose reduction was not 
prudent, then all of us in the radiation protection field have wasted a lot of 
time and effort.

Note that the NRC is evaluating lowering the regulatory dose limits to be 
consistent with the majority of other counties. I see no need in that and 
believe current regulatory limits are adequate enough. Perhaps the limits could 
even be relaxed a bit.

Regards,

Sandy Perle
Sent from my Windows phone from AT&T