RE: [AIRNEWS] Sydney Morning Herald 7/10/02 'Searching for trouble'

[Michels, Gail]

How can we compare an ultrasound examination to a full dose of radiation to the body??? Most sites don't do rib, nasal and skull x-rays (in some cases), lateral chests on paeds etc as the dose is considered unnecessary versus benefit as management for say rib # will not change, unless lungs are involved! (As CXR should only be done for rib#'s) So having said that, why do we limit current examinations due to patient dose, and yet allow full body CT? Why are we so particular with gonadal sheilding, compliance testing to ensure skin dose is a minimum, and have such strict education to reduce repeats, but full body CT is ok!! Ultrasound risk versus benifit can not be compared to CT.  Although most anatomy scans are normal, they do provide other essential information that may be missed form clinical examination alone, such as placental position and confusion over fetal lie....This scan affects 2 individuals and is relatively much safer that CT. As for mammo, the secret here is early detection of Ca without clinical symtoms has a much greater success rate.  How is this different?  Much smaller dose to a specific region!  I don't think that the latter as screening tools are in the same league as full body CT...   Just my thoughts Gail M -----Original Message----- From: Greg Menzies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 7:09 PM To: AIRNEWS Subject: RE: [AIRNEWS] Sydney Morning Herald 7/10/02 'Searching for trouble' Should we be looking at all screening exams we do? For example Preg US at 18-20 wks is a screening test but an accepted one, the same with screening mammography. Should we have a better debate than the emotional stuff we are getting. I personally cannot condone irradiating people on the off chance we might find something, but my understanding is the detection rates are similar to the routine obstetric exam, which is accepted by the general medical community, how then can we say that someone who wishes to pay for a "Whole body scan" is being commercially misled? Just a thought.   Cheers     Greg M -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kevin Power Sent: Sunday, 3 November 2002 8:44 PM To: AIRNEWS Subject: Re: [AIRNEWS] Sydney Morning Herald 7/10/02 'Searching for trouble' You are right Peter but who is it that makes AIR Policy? The AIR of course. Let's not have members mouthing off on behalf of the AIR. We could form an action group and then elect Mike Sobotta as spokesman.   That is the democratic way   Kevin Power ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Rouse To: AIRNEWS Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 9:33 PM Subject: RE: [AIRNEWS] Sydney Morning Herald 7/10/02 'Searching for trouble' No question the AIR needs a position. But "the AIR" position?  Shouldn't that be "our" position? We should be careful not to abdicate responsibilities under the cloak of "them". At the end of the day, if the "them" are left with all the responsibility for action without your input, them you will wear the consequences (and the AIR is "us" not "them"). You are right! What a great PR position to present a responsible response to this. How do you think "we" should proceed? Peter -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Sobotta Sent: Monday, 7 October 2002 11:50 AM To: AIRNEWS Subject: [AIRNEWS] Sydney Morning Herald 7/10/02 'Searching for trouble' Does the AIR have a position on full body CT 'screening' examinations? What a nice article to get some publicity for radiographers standing up for the public in our position as 'defenders against aberrant radiation doses'!   I for one would like to see at least a letter to the editor from the AIR stating their position. I would also be interested to see if there are any rads subscribing to AIRNEWS that perform these CTs. Is it under pressure from radiologist? Personal investment? mike sobotta