This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

M. C. REINHARD, M.A.

Arch Derm Syphilol. 1940;41(4):718-721.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The recent introduction by the manufacturers of low voltage x-ray therapy tubes which are both ray proof and shock proof offers the roentgenologist or the dermatologist certain advantages, such as safety from electrical shock and the ability to treat at shorter distances, and opens the field of intracavitary irradiation. On the other hand, there is the disadvantage that with such equipment the inherent filtration is considerably greater than with the older type of x-ray tubes with thin glass walls.

The question is immediately raised: Can such shock-proof equipment meet the requirements for therapy with low voltage, unfiltered radiation, or, in other words, does the inherent filter in the new tube produce a beam which is harder than that usually used for superficial therapy?

It is well known, particularly with mechanical rectification and thinwalled x-ray tubes, that the qualitative agreement among various machines operating at the same voltage and current and . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
BUFFALO, N. Y.

From the State Institute for the Study of Malignant Diseases, Burton T. Simpson, M.D., Director.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?