[ RadSafe ] A question of semantics
ALSTONCJ at gunet.georgetown.edu
Tue Oct 19 13:10:28 CDT 2010
Yes, why not? It's a bit old-fashioned, that's all. There is nothing ambiguous, or misleading, about it.
From: Luke McCormick [mailto:mccormickl at hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:00 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: [ RadSafe ] A question of semantics
One of our trainers referred to 'x-radiation'. I understand what he means, but have not seen it called antyhing other than x-rays or 'fluorescent radiation' in my manuals from Cember Knoll, etc.... Is this a legitimate word to use in training?
CONFIDENTIAL: The information contained in this communication,
including its attachments may contain confidential information and
is intended only for the individual (s) or entity (ies) to whom it
is addressed . The information contained in this communication may
also be protected by legal privilege , federal law or other
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this
communication , you are hereby notified that any distribution,
dissemination or duplication of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please
immediately delete and destroy all copies of this message and
please immediately notify us of the error by separate communication
. Thank you.
More information about the RadSafe