Funky hairstyle

Avatard · 08-04-2010, 03:43 PM

...But there's probably easier ways to go about it.

Sorta gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling about western medicine...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/he...radiation.html

the chi · 08-04-2010, 03:59 PM

Thats rather terrifying. Oh, we want a better picture, lets up the radiation, that'll do it.

tommymac · 08-04-2010, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the chi

Thats rather terrifying. Oh, we want a better picture, lets up the radiation, that'll do it.

Some cases you have to, we do not do those types of ct scans on strok epts, but I work in a ghetto area so we dont have all the latest and greatest in technology. there hav ebeen some recent articles about the dangers of ct scans and some places using too much radiation.

Our problem is when we do belly scans of the local fatties all the fat actualy distorst the images becasue it has to travel through all the fat tissue to get to th eorgans we need to see.

Smittie61984 · 08-04-2010, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the chi

Thats rather terrifying. Oh, we want a better picture, lets up the radiation, that'll do it.

But if they don't up the radiation and miss something then they wind up in court and having a lawyer tell them "So you could have upped the radiation and caught this and patient X would be alive today having a picnic with their sweet little children (points to now fatherless/motherless children and waits for the jury to go Aaaawwwweee) after going to church on Sunday"

the chi · 08-05-2010, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Never ceases to amaze me how nobody keeps track of how many x-rays and scans they've had in a year. Totally fucking retarded.

There seems to be a mentality in this country that "only a pussy would worry about stuff like that."

Um, unless it's something you do often, why would you keep track of it? Especially since most folks dont realize it can be bad for them.

Most folks trust their Dr., after all, they went to school for this, it's their job to keep us healthy and not endanger us. Who would think that the Dr. would be putting you at risk when they're just "taking a picture" to determine the problem?

The Dr.'s never say, I'm going to put you in this machine and its going to take a picture but while doing so it can give you cancer 10 years from now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

But if they don't up the radiation and miss something then they wind up in court and having a lawyer tell them "So you could have upped the radiation and caught this and patient X would be alive today having a picnic with their sweet little children (points to now fatherless/motherless children and waits for the jury to go Aaaawwwweee) after going to church on Sunday"

Sadly, this is so true.

tommymac · 08-05-2010, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the chi

Um, unless it's something you do often, why would you keep track of it? Especially since most folks dont realize it can be bad for them.

Most folks trust their Dr., after all, they went to school for this, it's their job to keep us healthy and not endanger us. Who would think that the Dr. would be putting you at risk when they're just "taking a picture" to determine the problem?

The Dr.'s never say, I'm going to put you in this machine and its going to take a picture but while doing so it can give you cancer 10 years from now.

Sadly, this is so true.

Thats not entireley the case, certain ct scans and mri's we have to get pt consent before we do them. usualy its when we give IV contrast since there are risks associated with that as well. But non contrast scans which we use to look for strokes in the brain or kidney stones in the belly we dont. At least at the facility I work at.

Trip · 08-04-2010, 04:09 PM

Average dosage of a skull x-ray = .1 to .2 mSv = 10 to 20 millirem

200 x (10 - 20) = 200 - 400 millirem per normal scan

13 x (200 - 400) = 2600 - 5200 millirem per overdose scan

So 2-5 rem per shot

5 rem is the annual limit for nuclear workers. After that, you can't work in the plant anymore for that year. 100 rem is acute death exposure.

It's not a super high number that should leave lasting damage or could pose a huge health problem potential, but I would still be pissed the fuck off.

Homeslice · 08-04-2010, 09:15 PM

Never ceases to amaze me how nobody keeps track of how many x-rays and scans they've had in a year. Totally fucking retarded.

There seems to be a mentality in this country that "only a pussy would worry about stuff like that."

08-04-2010, 03:43 PM	#1
Avatard Crotch Rocket Curmudgeon Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Here to integrity Moto: Li'l red baby Ninja Posts: 7,482	Funky hairstyle ...But there's probably easier ways to go about it. Sorta gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling about western medicine... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/he...radiation.html __________________ Insert free thought here.

08-04-2010, 04:09 PM	#7
Trip Hold mah beer! Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: 80 Miles South of Moto Heaven Moto: 08 R1200GS Posts: 23,268	Average dosage of a skull x-ray = .1 to .2 mSv = 10 to 20 millirem 200 x (10 - 20) = 200 - 400 millirem per normal scan 13 x (200 - 400) = 2600 - 5200 millirem per overdose scan So 2-5 rem per shot 5 rem is the annual limit for nuclear workers. After that, you can't work in the plant anymore for that year. 100 rem is acute death exposure. It's not a super high number that should leave lasting damage or could pose a huge health problem potential, but I would still be pissed the fuck off. Last edited by Trip; 08-04-2010 at 04:13 PM..

08-04-2010, 09:15 PM	#8
Homeslice Elitist Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: SF Bay Area Moto: Gix 750 Posts: 11,351	Never ceases to amaze me how nobody keeps track of how many x-rays and scans they've had in a year. Totally fucking retarded. There seems to be a mentality in this country that "only a pussy would worry about stuff like that."