X-ray advice
auntie_biotic
Is this over the normal limit, what is the normal limit and am I at risk?
--
auntie...@tbandu.co.uk
http://www.tbandu.co.uk
Richard Cavell
news:ajm944$sqm$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> 2 years ago I had over 15 xrays and a ct scan within a period of 4
months.
> Is this over the normal limit, what is the normal limit and am I at risk?
There's no 'limit' in the sense that if you need an X-ray, you're going to
get it regardless of the radiation risk.
You are at a theoretically higher risk of radiation damage (cancerous
change, adhesions, internal burns, etc) but at the sorts of doses used
these days, it's unthinkable that anyone would actually get any of these.
So the answer is, for all practical purposes, no, you are not at risk.
Mo Fo
the exam. It is less potential harm to have 15 xrays and a ct than to not
know the answers that the study would find for him. Suppose you refused the
xrays because you were afraid of the potential harm it may be able to
cause - this would set your dr back from a swift diagnosis of your problem,
and fast effective treatment. Get it?
~Mo Fo
"auntie_biotic" <auntie...@tbandu.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ajm944$sqm$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
auntie_biotic
thanks for your reply but all the xrays and ct were unneccesary as it turns
out I was misdiagnosed. Thats why I wanted to know about risk of xrays
--
auntie...@tbandu.co.uk
http://www.tbandu.co.uk
"Mo Fo" <M...@Fo.com> wrote in message
news:7EG79.28567$N9.35...@twister.neo.rr.com...
Andrew Austin
> Is this over the normal limit, what is the normal limit and am I at risk?
If it helps, radiation doses of standard x-rays is insignificant to that
delivered by CT scans. When i worked in A&E dept, we often had self
proclaimed experts reporting to the department demanding a full spinal xray
examination because they had a "pulled muscle" in their backs - ("How do you
know it's muscular if you don`t x-ray it") - arguing with them didn`t help,
until i saw one doc use the following strategy:
"So, you want a full spinal examination xray?"
"yes, i do"
"Now, all xrays have to deliver a different dose of radiation, So, tell me,
how many chest xrays would you feel safe to have in one single go - one?
five? twenty five? How many?"
"Errr....two?"
"Well, did you know just to do a lumber x-ray exam, it`s the equivilient of
no less than forty chest xrays? I may need to take more than one xray in
order to get the full picture."
"What....you want to expose me to radiation!!! You curr, you bad man,
you..." etc etc ad nauseum.
I saw similar coversations played out pretty much every single day.
Now, i`m no radiographer, and i don`t know if the radiation dose comparison
is correct, but here`s one thing i do know, people worry about these
things - in neurosurgery, i have seen patients regularly undergo full neuro
CT scanning, i mean, more than half a dozen times in the space of a week
where necessary, to no ill effect. But, pretty much everyone receiving
regular xrays in their various forms tend to worry about it if it occurs
more than once.
Just because the diagnosis was incorrect doesn`t make you any less/more
liable to any ill effects from the xrays/ct scan.
However, worrying about it can produce all sorts of negative effects.
I haver never once seen any patient with x-ray induced disorders. Ever.
Might this be because we mistake these disorders for something else? No.
When x-ray machines were first made available, no one knew about the risks
of high exposure - they became something of a high street toy, with shoe
stores etc using them as a gimmick to show people's feet inside their new
shoes. Everyone it seemed like to play with xrays.
Eventually, as xray induced disorders started to appear, people started to
recognise that just maybe this wasn`t a good thing and so the restrictions
were brought in. X ray induced damage is well documented as a result of
these early days in technology.
Neither myself nor any of my colleagues can recall even hearing of a modern
day case of xray induced damage.
Relax.
Regards,
Andrew "glow in the dark" Austin.
--
__________________________________
Reply address: Andrew...@nospam23NLPeople.com
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
NLP, Neurology, Schizophrenia: http://www.23NLPeople.com
"Survival-conducive diverse experience drives neural activation in a
commensurately-diverse fashion, which, because neuronal microscopic
trophic modifications occur in a way that 'reflects' the neural
activation that actually occurs, generates diverse neuronal
microscopic modifications, which simultaneously preserves
relatively-more neurons, and allows TD E/I-minimized convergence
among them to occur in commensurately more ways."
Kenneth Collins on bionet.neuroscience
Mo Fo
Years ago, Thomas Edison invented Intensifying Screens, which are loaded
into all x-ray cassetes nowadays. These screens convert X-ray energy into
flourescent light, which is what is exposing the film in the cassettes. This
has reduced the radiation dose by, probably, 90% from what it was when they
didnt have these screens. This is why we dont see any ill effects from
exposure any more. Yes, back in the old days, they would see radiation burns
to varying degreees. But in my 11+ years as a radiographer, I haven't seen
any such side effects. I was always curious about the dangers of x-rays too,
and when I asked around to radiologists about if they ever saw any harmful
effects, they all said no. Not in this lifetime.
Fun fact: people who suvived the bombing in Hiroshima actually lived longer
than those who were nowhere near the area.
Also, radiation is used to shrink tumors.
~Mo Fo
"auntie_biotic" <auntie...@tbandu.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ajm944$sqm$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
dude2
> Well, let me just say this:
>
> Years ago, Thomas Edison invented Intensifying Screens, which are loaded
> into all x-ray cassetes nowadays. These screens convert X-ray energy into
> flourescent light, which is what is exposing the film in the cassettes. This
> has reduced the radiation dose by, probably, 90% from what it was when they
> didnt have these screens. This is why we dont see any ill effects from
> exposure any more. Yes, back in the old days, they would see radiation burns
> to varying degreees. But in my 11+ years as a radiographer, I haven't seen
> any such side effects. I was always curious about the dangers of x-rays too,
> and when I asked around to radiologists about if they ever saw any harmful
> effects, they all said no. Not in this lifetime.
>
> Fun fact: people who suvived the bombing in Hiroshima actually lived longer
> than those who were nowhere near the area.
>
> Also, radiation is used to shrink tumors.
Yes, and if you want to see radiation burns and long-term side effects
go chat with your colleagues in the rad.therapy dept..
Granted, they use a much higher dose than needed for a chest x-ray or
even a chest CT. But the side effects expected from diagnostic
radiation are mainly stochiastic, ie those patients will tend to get
more cancer than a (theoretical!) group that was never x-rayed. This
happens over a period of 10-30 years, so the indiv. radiologist won't
notice it, particularly if his patients move to other cities.
dude2
Richard Cavell
> Neither myself nor any of my colleagues can recall even hearing of a
modern
> day case of xray induced damage.
You make the point correctly. For the record, you'd need to talk to the
radiotherapy people to see Xray induced damage. It's quite common as a
side effect in the treatment of tumours.
Steve Harris
>Well, let me just say this:
>
>Years ago, Thomas Edison invented Intensifying Screens, which are loaded
>into all x-ray cassetes nowadays. These screens convert X-ray energy into
>flourescent light, which is what is exposing the film in the cassettes.
Yep. Not too many people know this.
Not long ago at my lab, the X-rays of our animals started coming out totally
clear. Uh-oh-- is the machine on the fritz or is it the developer? No
problem-- open up an X-ray cassette, put it under the machine, and fire off
a shot. You can see the breif green glow even in good light, better than
anything Roentgen ever had to work with. So the machine's fine. So I call up
my X-ray processor service, and we have a nice talk. The tanks of developer
looked like my favorite stout ale, and that's not good. And yep, that was
the problem.
SBH
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
Rose Marie Holt
"Richard Cavell" <richar...@mail.com> wrote:
Actually this has become a question of interest. It may be that kids
who get a lot of CT scans, etc, eventually get more radiation=-related
tumors. It is certainly worth studying and taking it for granted that
medical xrays have magical power that other xrays dont (which is
basically the assumption when folks are calculating someone's lifetime
xray dose) is a little short sighted, espec now that scanners are
screening people in malls.
That said, 15 xrays and a CT scan is nuthin. Relatively speaking. And
if you had something in your chest that had to be imaged, that;s that!
The risk is WAY less than the benefit. Ditto mammograms.
People have suffered radiation burns from overexposure. One way to do
this is to have a long angiogram especially of the head (lots of xrays
needed to penetrate the skull). So you cant say diagnostic xrays have
never caused rad damage in this day and age because they have. Usually
by some doc with a lead foot who doesnt think about the possibility.