Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
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: Dr. Hollander's remarks concerning air dose do not apply. All of the dose figures we used were tissue doses calculated at the surface to include backscatter. This was clearly indicated in Table 1 in my paper. Likewise, the quality of the radiation employed is given specifically in the same table. The correspondent appears to have misunderstood the paragraph on field size. For reasons stated in the text no figures on "incidence" of necrosis according to field size were given. The figures which do appear in this paragraph only refer to absolute numbers of cases. Thus, the statement in the letter "geometric progression in the incidence" is erroneous. It is astonishing to read Dr. Hollander's refutation of the fundamental and generally accepted concept that tissue tolerance for roentgen rays is lowered with increase in field size. In reply, any text on radiation therapy can be used as a
A.M.A. Archives of Dermatology – American Medical Association
Published: Jun 1, 1956
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.