[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
September 1968


Author Affiliations

450 Sutter St San Francisco 94108

Arch Dermatol. 1968;98(3):313. doi:10.1001/archderm.1968.01610150099019

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor.—  In the recent article by Brodkin and Bleiberg on alleged neoplasis resulting from grenz-radiation (Brodkin, R. H., and Bleiberg, J.: Neoplasia Resulting From Grenz-Radiation, Arch Derm97:307-309 [March] 1968) it appeared likely to me that the final exposure of alleged grenz-rays was a large dose of conventional x-rays instead. I say this because acute dermatitis developed in the areas of alleged grenz-radiation midway in the third course of therapy. Why should acute dermatitis develop unless there was an accident or an overexposure of some sort?Correspondence with Drs. Brodkin and Bleiberg revealed the fact that the machine in question was an "X-ray Manufacturer's" type of grenz-ray machine otherwise known as XRM. Consultation with my expert here on radiation equipment and a very knowledgeable physicist reveals that this equipment was indeed a dual range type of machine or rather had a dual range head. There was therefore

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview