Oddbean new post about login | logout i guess what im trying to say is that when I leave the room , it is probably pointless but we do it as a matter of routine and to operate within regulations. Same goes for the lead vest that is used in North America still (AFAIK, most regulatory bodies in Europe have come to their senses and eliminated this policy) x-rays are harmless in a diagnostic context in medicine. I say this and I believe it strongly.
the real problem is patients who fear or avoid medical/dental xrays. Knowing whether or not you have an actual infection/pathology is MUCH more important than avoiding some miniscule, almost none existent dose of radiation. the amount of energy and time it takes to convince patients to take a simple xray when they come in excruciating pain is absolutely nonsensical. That said, I will continue to operate by the ALARA principle. But ALARA for me just means to avoid using imaging willy-nilly. if there is ANY reasonable benefit to be gained from a diagnostic film, we take the radiograph
X rays being less harmful than lack of knowledge doesn't mean x rays are harmless. There may also be actual harmless methods that are overlooked, even for bullshit financial reasons. Don't be misleading
under a certain biologic threshold, there is a dose of x-rays that is harmless
At this point idk if you're talking about real x rays or like a strain of cannabis
dose of radiating ionisation measured in Sieverts (or rather microsieverts - µSv).
I'm sure 1 nanosievert is perfectly safe but there are too many medical professionals who care more about convenience than safety and will manufacture and use machines operating at unsafe levels
no, there are not. Our diagnostic radiography equipment is so over-engineered and redundantly safe that it would not be possible to create a meaningful amount of radiation from them. The problem is that the staff are trained to care TOO MUCH about the imagined dangers. It is a waste of valuable time and resources.
My favorite strain of weed is therac-25, you heard of it?
that was for radiation therapy, not diagnostic radiography. I have been careful to only talk about diagnostic imaging. Also, that unfortunate event is from almost 40 years ago. Yes, I have heard about it MANY times in the countless radiation safety courses that have interupted my clinical time. This is my point
Good cameras don't need redundantly safe over-engineered preventative measures against emitting harmful radiation. Today is not the day to find out why yours have so many
ok, to be clear we are talking about radiographs. not cameras
Same thing
they are simiilar but no, that is incorrect. they are not the same. cameras are for photographs. Radiographs aren't the same. you are reaching here if you think they are. I have never once heard of a medical radiography device be referred to as a camera. there is an important distinction between a visible light source that a camera uses and the ionising radiation made by an x-ray tube
The first camera made heliographs The important distinction is that your camera can make a cell rebellious ser
what are you talking about. why do you keep changing the topic. we were talking about medical radiographs
Your medical radiograph can cause cancer
I'm a former nuclear engineer so I feel *somewhat* comfortable with this topic, and I don't see anything particularly controversial here. (Linear no-threshold and all that jazz ... we can sidestep those debates). Where I do sympathise with the general public is that radiation operates entirely outside of the human sensory apparatus, and so there is no inbuilt, instinctive 'feel' for the danger level. It's not irrational to be ... irrationally fearful of it, if you see what I mean :)
i mean if you are side-stepping that then what are we talking about
Sidestepping, i just mean, take LNT as true and stick with those guidelines and it's reasonable. Unless you think even LNT is noymt cautious enough?
i do not believe that a linear no-threshold model is valid. I agree with that article that we should denounce that model. Hopefully the public can one day understand that dental and most medical imaging is benign and harmless
So you believe there's a threshold. Back when I was studying this, I remember also feeling strongly that this should be true, logically. Reminds me of the old (possibly apocryphal) story of the guy who dropped his banana from lunch on the floor of a nuclear power plant and it triggered alerts on people's dosimeter readings 😄 Natural sources are easily high enough to matter, a lot, with LNT. So yeah i agree it's probably just wrong, and 'ALARA' is ... not even wrong 😄
ya I think we're on the same page. what do you mean when you say 'ALARA is ... not even wrong'?