Re: A LNT Experience

[Gary Isenhower <garyi@BCM.TMC.EDU>]

"Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" wrote:

> 

> I doubt that the Dental Board requires him to use fast film.  The use of

> high-speed films are not new and any good dental technician should not have

> to retake a film unless there was a misalignment.  I do not remember having

> a second film taken due to improper techniques (settings).

> 

 



I don't know anything about the Dental Board, but I do know that, in

Texas at least, for regular Dx imaging the slower speed systems were

effectively killed by a reduction in entrance exposure limits some years

ago.  The push for lower limits is directly linked to a common

perception of LNT as a working model of health effects.



Anything less than 300-400 speed systems can not meet the regulated dose

limits.  So, it really isn't a matter of Drs motivated by profit. 

Faster speed systems really do lose some image information by being

faster.  Slower speed systems really have been eliminated as a result of

LNT as a working model.  



I also recall a thread recently about the NCRP's use of 25 mrem as a

dose constraint, and the accompanying intro to the report stating that

LNT was the justification for it.  



Ruth is correct in her assessment of the situation vis-a-vis LNT.



   _______________________________________________



	Gary Isenhower

	713-798-8353

	garyi@bcm.tmc.edu

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/