Re: Spikes and chest x-rays

["Kent N. Lambert" <lambert@auhs.edu>]

Although I, too, have a problem with the chest x-ray yardstick, it's 
not for the reasons given by Philip Hypes.  I believe the use of 
effective dose (rather than entrance exposure) should satisfy 
Phillip's objections.

I have two objections to using the effective dose from a chest x-ray 
as a comparison for other radiation exposures (e.g., for informed 
consent).  First, there is nothing standard about a chest x-ray.  The 
effective dose from a chest x-ray will vary greatly between a 
gymnast and a defensive tackle.  Second, it does not tell someone 
what the risks are.  Is the equivalent of 5 chest x-rays safe?  50? 
500? 5000?  

The only argument for chest x-rays is that most people have had 
one (or know someone that has) and they didn't die from the 
procedure (e.g., familiarity and no harm).   

Kent Lambert

On 1 Oct 98, at 12:18, 1LT Philip Hypes wrote:

>      I've always had a bit of a problem with the "about as
>      much as a chest x-ray" yardstick.  ...
>      In this case, whole body irradiation is being compared
>      to irradiation of the lungs and surrounding tissue....
>      This comparison is often made in an attempt to help
>      members of the general public make some sort of 
>      connection between the levels of risk from an incident
>      or exposure scenario.  
lambert@auhs.edu
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html