And don’t project goal post moves on those who haven’t.
Here is the statement you made:
“Cardiac Cath: up to 1500R(1,500,000mR)”
Was it your intention to say that the procedure, when performed in such a manner that a reportable error is created can reach 1500R, or was it your intention to say that as normally performed it’s in the vicinity of 1500R? If your intent was the latter, please provide some evidence to that effect, not a cite to a “flagged for investigation” standard.
You were responding to a list of average exposures for various events, so it wouldn’t be a stretch to assume that you were using the same standard, but perhaps my assumption was incorrect, so please clarify.
Or, I guess, one other possibility is that you don’t think the phrase “flagged for investigation” equates to reportable error. Is that your claim?
1. You are not qualified to discuss radiation dose in the cath lab as evidenced by your previous post.
2. You implied that I had erred by orders of magnitude in your original post. This was of course wrong.
3. You have gone from arguing that I was off by orders of magnitude to semantics.
You sure you want to keep digging?