THE intensity or effective wave length output of our present high tension X-ray transformers and X-ray tubes does not appear to be either scientifically or practically uniform and constant; at least, not sufficiently accurate to permit the desired exact duplication of dosages, even though the determinations are made under the most favorable conditions of constant voltage and tube current. A review of the many careful recent researches of the physicists studying these problems more or less substantiates our practical experiences and observations in the administration of X-ray dosages in our daily clinical routine treatments, and the results observed in our biological researches at the Barnard Free Skin and Cancer Hospital. Duane has recently stated that “Variations of 40 per cent and more in the intensity of the X-ray projected through the same filter and at the same distance from the tube with different machines are not uncommon, and in the extreme cases one machine may project twice as much X-radiation as another.” Many physicists and investigators, including Glasser, Mutscheller, Erskine, Kelly, and Fricke, have predicted that spark gap estimation and energy input valuation will become obsolete, since the presence of so many variables almost necessitates measuring the output of the tube rather than the intake. In the past the usual standard sphere gap measurements and milliamperemeter readings have been erroneously considered the basis or indications of the quality and quantity of the filtered X-rays employed in the treatment of benign and malignant disease. It seems to us, however, that uniform results can neither be expected nor duplicated under the above conditions. It is becoming more and more self-evident that perhaps the great irregularity in results reported at meetings in the past are traceable to our present inaccurate method of defining and measuring the X-ray dose. Failla recently stated that the present radiation technic is due almost entirely to chance. We use whatever amount of radiation is available, or the voltage and current our machine can deliver, and then we adjust the treatment accordingly. If we have obtained some good results it is perhaps by mere accidental coincidence. That is indeed a most serious indictment. If the above deductions are partly correct, then even the study of the unknown biological phenomena must be considered secondary to the physical standardization of our X-ray beam. The biological phenomena of radiated cellular tissues as a whole cannot be interpreted and duplicated with precision, and, therefore, such changes are not of practical value unless considered in terms of a known physical agent producing such an effect. It would seem most logical and opportune to, first of all, continue our efforts in the latter direction, provided we do not ultimately find the many variable factors and physical obstacles too difficult of elimination in the production of our X-rays.