Re: Re[3]: unuseful dental x-ray

["Franz Schoenhofer" <schoenho@via.at>]

Schoenhofer
Habichergasse 31/7
A-1160 Wien
AUSTRIA
Tel./Fax: +43-1-4955308
Mobiltel.: +43-664-3380333
e-mail: schoenho@via.at

----------
> Von: Steven Rima <Steven.Rima@DOEGJPO.COM>
> An: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Betreff: Re[3]: unuseful dental x-ray
> Datum: Dienstag, 28. Oktober 1997 22:52
> 
>      Let's keep some perspective in this discussion. First, from my 
>      experience in doing consulting with dentists on radiation safety 
>      issues, they do not have any requirement regarding ALARA for
patients.

This is a personal opinion. Can anybody comment on the legal side, whether
dentists have to observe the ALARA principle or not? In my opinion and
according to legislation in the European Union they have to and they have
to justify any exposure as well as in a nuclear power plant! The only
difference is that the exposure has to be balanced as to the net health
(!!!) benefit. 

>      Second, ALARA is supposed to balance benefit versus risk. Benefit
does 
>      not have to be medical, it can also be monetary, as Bob Flood
already 
>      noted.

The benefit can be verified - as pointed out - by other means than ionizing
radiation. I repeat that the testimony of a dentist - that no tooth was
present - has to be accepted by an insurance company without asking for
further proof. I refuse that facts written by professionals have to be
"proofed" by x-ray pictures! 
      
>      Third, and most important in my opinion, a typical AP or PA dental 
>      x-ray results in only a few mrem effective dose equivalent to the 
>      patient. If we are going to worry about an exposure of less than 10 
>      mrem, and try to apply the ALARA concept, we are guilty of doing
what 
>      we complain about the regulatory agencies doing. 

I do not want to touch anybody´s right to complain about regulatory
agencies - and I do it myself. This does not mean, that we can ignore the
legal aspects of regulations and subject without any need people to mrem,
mSv, rem, Sv or whatsoever which are not covered by legislation and make no
sense. 

What is the REAL risk of 5 - 10 mrem to try to apply ALARA??? Personally, I
don't worry about any single exposure under 10 mrem, unless I get LOTS of
them. :-)

This is your personal view, which I respect and I assure you that I do not
feel endangered by such an exposure myself. I have been last year on the
atolls of Mururoa and Fangataufa - the sites of the French nuclear bomb
tests and I did not feel a minute endangered. But there is a difference
when you go from a personal exposure to the public with milliions of
people. You are not in accordance with the opinion of international
organisations and not even with national legislation. 

I hope the LNT discussion will not start again......

> Subject: Re[2]: unuseful dental x-ray
> Author:  Kim D Merritt <kdmerri@sandia.gov> at Internet
> Date:    10/28/97 3:25 PM
>    
>      Remember though that the picture could be of anybody's mouth.  An 
>      x-ray would uniquely identify your mouth.  Not that I think that
this 
>      is a good practice.
>      
I do not agree, why should a photo of surrounding teeth not be good as well
as an x-ray????????  


Franz