Re: Mammography Doses (two more cents worth)

[Keith <WELCH@CEBAF.GOV>]

You should use 5w30 or 10w30 year round, anything "heavier" is potentially
harmful to your engine, as was mentioned earlier.

Wes Dunn mentioned,

>On the other hand, many radiation "professionals" may overreact as
>they do not really have a good feel for medical radiation exposures
>and might feel that a 600 mrem xray is very "hot", since they are
>trained to react strongly to 5 and 100 mR/hr fields (in which case,
>don't ask about the output for fluoro).

There is no argument (I think) about the general low risk and high value of
diagnostic x-rays.  Since I made the comment about the 600 mrem dose, I will
explain my statement a little.

In keeping with the ideas mentioned regarding physician's knowledge and
patient's concern for the risk of ANY particular treatment or test, I would
expect my doctor to be able to tell me what the possible risks are from any
medical procedure he/she prescribes.  In particular, a radiologist (who is
hopefully keenly aware of most people's fear of radiation) should be able to
describe qualitatively to a curious patient what the level of radiation
exposure is from a given procedure.  Not knowing this, or saying it's not much
tends to highten the fear - not dispell it.  The fact that a given
procedure or test has a high benefit to risk ratio, or is deemed "routine" does
not excuse the caregiver from the responsibility to deal with a patient's
concerns when asked about such matters.

I think the thing that motivates most people (including me) in their requests
for this kind of information is an underlying need for (1) confidence in the
person prescribing the procedure, and (2) some perceived "control" or at least
knowledgable consent in the process of their medical care.  When one or both of
these is not at an acceptable level, people become frustrated and untrusting,
even when there are absolutely no grounds for it.

Now come to think of it, arn't these two conditions generally true about the
nature of the general public's attitude toward the nuclear industry and all
things radioactive?  Aren't we continually baffled about how "they" can be so
irrational?  How can we hope to ever overcome these problems if we don't
aknowledge these two basic needs within the relatively small "professional"
community?  It's the ATTITUDE of the person (group, industry) imposing the
risk, not necessarily the MAGNITUDE of the risk that counts.

These are my opinions and are worth what you paid for them.