Answer Choices –	Responses –
– Yes	58.51% 55
– No	40.43% 38
– Responses Other (please specify)	1.06% 1
TOTAL	94

If yes, why?

Answered: 50
Skipped: 44

I personally believe the model works for keeping to and supporting ALARA but I highly doubt the low dose effects are accurate.

2/19/2019 04:29 PM

We are closer to the radiologists than the health physicists and the current crop of radiologists and rad oncs are scared shitless of radiation

2/13/2019 11:11 PM

This is a highly unstable and complicated issue and there is a lot of mixed point in different societies.

2/13/2019 08:41 PM

N/A

2/13/2019 02:52 PM

It would be appropriate to have a position statement on the issue, based on data.

2/12/2019 06:37 PM

Because medical physicists are dedicated to continuing quality improvement, and the LNT model might be improved upon.

2/12/2019 03:35 PM

The current LNT model is deeply flawed. The AAPM, as a premier medical and radiation safety organization, needs to lend its credibility to an analysis and hopefully come up with a more scientifically justified model.

2/12/2019 12:48 AM

The validity of the LNT model is something we should know

2/11/2019 08:22 PM

It is a current topic and is controversial. Scientific minds are needed to evaluate the "Facts", make recommendations.

2/11/2019 06:12 PM

In AAPM, we have encouraged dose reduction from CT scans etc. due to cancer concerns based on the LNT model. Recent publications have raised major issues with the LNT model. Asking medical physicists to perform dose reduction when there is no evidence of benefit from the dose reduction is not ethical and does not serve the public but it serves medical physicists' financial interests. This behaviour would be considered as repulsive by the public if they figure out what we are doing as medical physicists. It is important that the issue of validity of LNT model be resolved and the dose reduction efforts ceased if the LNT model is shown to be invalid.

2/11/2019 05:50 PM

Q3 w

If no, why not?

Answered: 36
Skipped: 58

Radiobiologists and epidemiologists are better at this. We need to be skeptical of any published data, of course, but they are really equipped to do this work properly.

2/19/2019 06:11 PM

Although there is a great deal of interest in this topic in the AAPM, The majority of our members are not experts in biological models of radiation effects and cancer incidence, and are not actively doing research in this area. A task group on the LNT topic would probably be better handled by the HPS (Health Physics Society). Remember that Richard Feynman said that even great scientists working outside their own specialty can be just as dumb as the next guy.

2/13/2019 04:26 PM

This is not the scope of AAPM. There are already plenty other scientific organizations such as the US HPS, the US NCRP, the ICRP, the BEIR and UNSCEAR commissions that have the expertise and that continuously review data on risks of radiation exposure. Most of us medical physicists are not 'experts' on that subject, and there are more important tasks that the AAPM as an organization should focus on.

2/13/2019 02:52 PM

already an NCRP publication on this matter; task group would be redundant and even a rude disregard for their work

2/12/2019 06:47 PM

asdf

2/12/2019 03:35 PM

While I support the revision of LNT, it is a Health Physics issue. AAPM is not as directly involved in this Public Health issue, and probably would not add much to what the former has to say.

2/11/2019 05:02 PM

NCRP is already doing this.

2/11/2019 03:46 PM

There other organizations dedicated to radiation safety and protection.

2/11/2019 02:31 PM

I think we can leave this work to the Health Physicists. We have plenty of projects in the realm of Medical Physics.

2/11/2019 01:54 PM

Q4 w

Please add any comments on the topic of AAPM and its role in the LNT controversy.

Answered: 30
Skipped: 64

In my view, we spend too much time on this topic. The answer is beyond any of the studies today, and no amount of debate will change that (for now).

2/19/2019 06:11 PM

relatively new to this field, i don't know what the AAPM has done to create controversy here

2/12/2019 06:47 PM

Assuming LNT is dropped, getting public sentiment to change will be one of the bigger tasks. AAPM should partner with HPS, ACR, SNM, FDA?,etc. to get a unified front to spread the word.

2/12/2019 06:37 PM

Since advisory bodies have failed to do a fair assessment of publications that support both sides of the question, i.e. publications that support the LNT model and radiation hormesis, e.g. see NCRP Commentary No. 27 which examined publications supporting the LNT model only, it is important that AAPM assesses the validity of the LNT model by evaluating publications that support the LNT model and radiation hormesis.

2/11/2019 05:50 PM

AAPM could certainly issue statement supporting the idea that there is enough evidence to revisit the issue. Talk about the impact of cost on vaults, etc.

2/11/2019 05:02 PM

As a professional organization of scientists the AAPM should be in a position to offer guidance on this topic

2/11/2019 04:53 PM

AAPM needs to admit that we and our vendors and sponsors benefit from rad-fear. Our stock goes up. But we must help articulate that what is going on with uber-ALARA is not helping. Much more often I'm being asked to consult on a patient to manage their fears of radiation, and some of that fear came from some ill-informed physician. May I suggest that AAPM focus on rad-risk education to physicians of all specialties.

2/11/2019 04:16 PM

I think AAPM should rep' via NCRP

2/11/2019 03:46 PM

AAPM certainly has a role. But we should act in concert with other radiation professionals, especially radiation biologists.

2/11/2019 03:27 PM

Invite others to add a comment