Re: radiation exposue at st lucie

[hflong@postoffice.pacbell.net]

Thank you for the correction, Stewart,

Indeed, I meant to write "More than one rem (cGy) is usual from CT of the chest-"

I learned this by surveying 3 local hospital imaging departments with 4 different machines.

Of course MRIs have no ionizing radiation, using radio waves with very low frequency.



The point remains that nuclear power workers and clean up crews are burdened with unreasonable

regulation, and  medically justified exposure much less so.



Please change "MRI" to "CT", and thank you, Stewart.



Howard Long



Stewart Farber wrote:



> 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/