Re: unuseful dental x-ray

[Al Tschaeche <antatnsu@pacbell.net>]

Steven Rima wrote:
> 
>      Franz et al,
> 
>      The point I was trying to make was one of credibility (ours!) and
>      risks. I think we as a profession have a real credibility problem when
>      we (at least the majority of us) tell people that 5 or 10 mrem is not
>      harmful, and we (at least the majority of us) advocate a de minimus
>      value of 50 to 100 mrem per year as being "below regulatory concern."
>      At the same time we then talk about applying the ALARA concept to 5
>      mrem and even talk about it being an illegal x-ray! (I would not
>      expect any member of the public to trust a health physicist telling
>      them that low level radiation is not really dangerous while that same
>      HP refused a 5 mrem dental x-ray.) We can't have it both ways,
>      folks!!!

Amen.  After all of the discussion about the effects of low levels of
ionizing radiation, ethics, etc.,etc. on radsafe, I would hope that most
radsafers now have a healthy skepticism about the linear hypothesis as
the basis for estimating real radiation effects at low doses.  True, the
regulators still use the recommendations of the NCRP and ICRP as the
basis for their regulations, but that doesn't say that those
recommendations are in any way representations of reality.  I, for one
would have no compunction about telling a patient, or anyone, that a
dose of 5, 10, 100 or even higher millirem is nothing to be concerned
about and carries no measurable risk.  

I think we have gotten ourselves into an impossible situation by our
slavish adherance to the ALARA idea, just because a bunch of old men are
afraid they might be wrong.  I still want data that demonstrate low
doses are really harmful to humans before I will budge an inch from the
idea that a little radiation is good for you!  Or, at least, is not
harmful.  

I refuse to go along with the fiction that, just because you can't see
or measure "it", doesn't mean "it" is not there.  I demand hard evidence
before I will NOT do something just because someone is afraid it might
be harmful.  And yes, that means I need bodies in the street before I
will agree that low levels of ionizing radiation ARE harmful.  So far, I
haven't seen any and I have seen a lot of evidence that says low levels
either have zero effect or are beneficial and may even be essential to
life as we know it.  

Now, all of this diatribe only applies to ionizing radiation about whose
effects we know a lot.  It does not apply to any other insult that may
be hazardous.  So, please don't try to feather me with the tobacco, or
any other brush.  We are only talking about ionizing radiation here.  Oh
well, you all know that I think this already, but maybe, there are some
new radsafers who haven't heard it.  Onward and upward to the beneficial
uses of radiation.  

Al Tschaeche antatnsu@pacbell.net