Re: Dental radiology; xeroradiography

[muckerheide <muckerheide@attbi.com>]

 From: "Jacobus, John (OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov>



> I also wonder what is wrong with reducing the dose?  In medicine we

> constantly see programs that reduce risks patients, and may or may not cost

> more.  



Another, what was it, "break in rational thought."  :-)



Again, "reducing the dose" does not, can not possibly, "reduce the risk to

patients."  This can be called the "LNT fallacy!"



Jim



> -- John 

> John Jacobus, MS

> Certified Health Physicist

> 3050 Traymore Lane

> Bowie, MD  20715-2024

> 

> E-mail:  jenday1@email.msn.com (H)

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Gibbs, S Julian [mailto:s.julian.gibbs@vanderbilt.edu]

> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 10:38 PM

> To: Radsafe Mail list

> Subject: Dental radiology; xeroradiography

> 

> 

> The arguments that newer faster dental films produce inferior

> images are based on the same sort of reasoning as the LNT

> hypothesis.  Conversely, several well-conducted studies have

> compared performance of D-speed films (the standard since the

> 1950s) with E-speed, for a variety of diagnostic tasks.  All show

> no significant differences.  F-speed film is new; studies are under

> way but not finished.  The costs of all three film types are

> comparable and in most cases identical.  Thus there is nothing to

> lose from use of faster films, and there may be some gain.  I think

> we all agree that if we can reduce unnecessary radiation exposure

> at no cost, then we should do so.  This has nothing to do with LNT.

> It is just common sense.

> Xeroradiography fell into disfavor for mammorgraphy (or any other

> diagnostic imaging) largely because the equipment was so

> unreliable.  The standard joke in radiology departments was that if

> one wants to use xeroradiography, one must purchase at least two

> units in order to have a 50% chance that one would be working when

> needed.  The manufacturer seemed unable to correct the problems.

> The xero images were good, but modern screen-film images are

> equally suitable for the diagnostic task.

> We must remember that for both dental radiography and mammography

> image quality is judged on the basis of diagnostic information, not

> esthetic quality.

> 

> ***********************************************************

> S. Julian Gibbs, DDS, PhD               Voice: 615-322-1477

> Professor, Emeritus

> Dept. of Radiology & Radiological Sciences

> Vanderbilt University Medical Center     Home: 615-356-3615

> 209 Oxford House        Email:s.julian.gibbs@vanderbilt.edu

> Nashville TN 37232-4245     or alias:j.gibbs@vanderbilt.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/

> ************************************************************************

> 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/

> 



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

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/