[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A LNT Experience !!NOT!!
Title: Re: A LNT Experience !!NOT!!
Ruth Weiner wrote:
Perhaps I was too terse in my recital.
The local Dental Board requires him to use fast film and not to
use slower film. I thought you might have realized
that.
Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com
No, in fact you were anything but terse. Terse is "brief and
to the point; effectively concise, clear." Your communication was
not concise or clear on the issue of who was doing the requiring. in
fact, you clearly attributed the decision to the dentist and made no
mention that he was required by some agency or quasi-agency to use the
film in question. Therefore, assuming that I am not omniscient, I had
no way to "have realized that."
May I ask what city this dentist practices in?
In California there is no requirement that a dentist use these
faster films; however, most (or all) do. There are recommendations,
but no rule.
The complaint that the new faster film does not give good images
may have been true for the D-speed Kodak Ultra-speed intraoral dental
films; however, since July of 2000 a new film (InSight F-Speed Dental
Film) became available. Kodak sent out a "DentALERT" for
this new film on July 21, 2000. The dentists I have spoken with say
that this new film (F-speed) gives them image quality that is adequate
for their needs. Therefore, 60% dose reduction and adequate image
quality - where is the LNT issue?
If these faster films were giving images of such poor quality
that additional x-rays needed to be taken, the very purpose of the
lower dose (lower by 60%) claim would be lost. Additionally, any
dentist who was having to take additional films would be complaining
about the time and money being spent (it is a business and these do
cost the dentist). Suppliers (Burkhart's technical support) are not
reporting that they are receiving these complaints.
Finally, unless there is a definitive requirement from an agency
that has the authority to require use of this new film, I continue to
support my belief that this was a business decision.
Ruth Weiner wrote:
If you lived in
New Mexico you would understand that the certification boards here do
strange things ( e.g., the legislature just told the medical board to
license psychologists to prescribe drugs; e.g.(2) physician's
assistants can prescribe drugs and treament with no M. D. oversight;
e.g. (3) some medical insurance plans here pay for treatment by Native
American healers).
Okay, in California some pay for acupuncture treatments and
massage therapy. That is, they do some strange things. The examples
you gave are medical and not dental. Has some dental "board"
actually enacted a rule that forces the use of a specific speed film?
Again, what city is this in Nevada?
Paul Lavely
lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu
--