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
Discussion
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