TheLancet, in a recent issue, remarks that in the medical world there is generally a question of the day when a particular operation or line of treatment or diagnosis is being decried by some and as warmly defended by others. At present radiology is holding the stage. As there is a certain section of the lay public which prefers a medical attendant with alcoholic tendencies on the ground that “he is so clever when sober,” so there is in the medical profession a section which blindly follows the result of an X-ray examination and believes as it were in a radiogramper se, not knowing whether it is good, bad, or indifferent. This attitude of mind leads to many mistakes and produces much indifferent work. The question then arises as to what constitutes a good radiogram. It is easier to say that a bad radiogram is one in which some variation from the normal is not shown owing to want of reasonable care or knowledge on the part of one or other of the persons concerned. But does the onus of a bad radiogram rest entirely on the radiologist? We venture to think not. Other possible culprits, assuming that first-class modern apparatus is used, can only be the patient and the physician or surgeon at whose request the work is undertaken.