[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.163.129.96. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
September 1968

REPLY

Author Affiliations

40 Union Ave Irvington, NJ 07111

Arch Dermatol. 1968;98(3):313. doi:10.1001/archderm.1968.01610150099020

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

Abstract

To the Editor.—  During the course of our investigation of the case entitled "Neoplasia Resulting From Grenz Radiation, published in the Archives of Dermatology in March, 1968, we investigated as thoroughly as possible under the circumstances of such an event, exactly the type, quality and other factors of the radiation given to this patient. It is true that the dermatologist who administered the grenz radiation has both a grenz ray machine and a combination grenz and x-ray machine in his office. In spite of the fact that the inadvertent use of x-radiation in this patient is entirely denied by the office of this physician and this denial is based on many extra safety features which were installed in the machine along with the standard safety features, one cannot deny that it is within the realm of possibility that an error was made and x-radiation was administered instead of grenz radiation.

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