Re: population exposure

["David Adcock" <david@dcsmserver.med.sc.edu>]

Could someone explain to me why so much physicist effort, at 
least in the United States, is devoted to controlling occupational 
exposure to ionizing radiation while so little is directed toward 
reducing medical (including dental) exposure?  The physicist 
involvement and the amount of population exposure from these two 
sources seem to be inversely correlated.  Maybe the real question 
is, why do the physicists seem to be so passive in the diagnostic 
medical environment?  Are all of the imaging procedures needed?  
Are all of the individual images necessary within each procedure.  
Could the technique be changed to reduce exposure?

Physicists seem awfully pushy in controlling occupational 
exposure to be so easy on the unnecessary medical exposure.

This question is asked from the perspective of a physician who 
practices both Radiology and Occupational Medicine (Board 
certified in both).

Thanks.

***********

David Adcock
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC  29208
803 733 3295
  
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html