Re: radiation exposue at st lucie

[Stewart Farber <farbersa@optonline.net>]

10/14/02 11:26:01 PM, hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net wrote:



>



>

>  The dose of ionizing radiation there was undoubtedly much less than if the

>  nuclear worker had chosen to have whole body MRI (1-10 cGy), now promoted at

>  Harvard for questionable screening value. ...........





Hi all:

Just to correct a simple typo in the above post, it would seem the phrase "whole body MRI (1 -

10 cGy)" should likely read  "whole body CAT scan (1 -10 cGy)". I'm not sure if this is the 

correct range of values for a whole body CAT scan, but MRI has no dose eqivalency in terms of 

cGy.



Stewart Farber

email: farbersa@optonline.net



 







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

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/