Injurious Effects of the Roentgen Rays Page 10

been sustained at so short a distance as six inches, using the static current, while one case I recall was burned by the induction current x-ray tube at a distance of eighteen inches.

If the intensity of the brush discharge is governed by the same law as other form of radiated energy, it would require an exposure of some thirty-two hours at a distance of twelve inches, and fifty-seven hours at a distance of sixteen inches, to produce a lesion as Professor Thomson did while using the static current in his tube for half an hour at one and one-half inches distant, making no allowance, of course, for idiosyncrasies of patients.

The radical treatment that has been employed consists in a complete excision of the lifeless tissues, as in gangrene, thereby producing a healthy granulating surface in the wound, which rapidly heals. One surgeon claims to have cured twenty-five or thirty cases by cutting down clear through the affected part, and then dressing with carbolic acid until granulation sets in. Balsam of Peru was then applied, and healing took place by granulation. Of course the necrotic tissues had to be sloughed off in this latter treatment.

In noting the conclusions of this paper it will be valuable to compare results strikingly similar of a series of experiments (23) by Oudin, Barthelemy and Darier, of Paris.

Conclusions

1. The general character of the tissues affected in the "x-ray burn" is that of absolute necrosis and more or less exudative inflammation. The resulting alopecia is more or less marked in lesions involving hair follicles.

2. The x-rays themselves exert no appreciable heating effects, and consequently do not burn. All evidence seems to point to the conclusion that the lesion is due to the direct effects of the electric currents upon the tissues and fluids. The nature of this effect is as yet wholly speculative.

3. The ozone irritation theory is not supported by evidence.

4. Metallic particles of the platinum anode are not projected into substances near to x-ray tube.

5. X-rays do not decompose the silver salt of the photographic plate directly, but produce in the gelatine film a fluorescence which in turn acts upon the silver salt as ordinary light.

6. The use of the static rather than the induced electric current in producing the x-rays is less liable to result harmfully, (a) because it is of low amperage, and (b) being of very high potential comparatively, does not necessitate so short distance between the tube and the exposed part.

7. In all cases where exposure is required at a distance less than twelve inches from the tube an aluminum screen, electrically grounded, should be placed between the tube and the exposed part. - Medical Review of Reviews, N. Y.

121 West Sixty-second Street.

Bibliography

1. Chicago Law Journal.
2. American Journal of Science, January, 1898.
3. Electrical Review, New York, March 11, 1896. page 131: March 18, 1896, page 147; April 1, 1896, page 171; April 8, 1896, page 183.
4. Electrical Review, New York, January 5, 1898.
5. E. Thomson, Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, December 10, 1896, vol. cxxxv., No. 24. Pp. 610-611.
6. American X-Ray Journal, February, 1898, page 170.
7. American X-Ray Journal, February, 1898, page 170.
8. Nikola Tesla, abstract in Public Opinion, vol. xxi., No. 24.
9. Baltimore American (extract).
10. Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin, February, 1897.
11. Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin, February 1897.
12. Medical Record, April 30, 1898: American X-Ray Journal, December, 1897.