Looks pretty nice as-is. What are you modifying?
what are you talking about. why do you keep changing the topic. we were talking about medical radiographs
Ya ha these guys have definitely had enough bullshit
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
ok, to be clear we are talking about radiographs. not cameras
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
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.
dose of radiating ionisation measured in Sieverts (or rather microsieverts - µSv).
ya I think we're on the same page. what do you mean when you say 'ALARA is ... not even wrong'?
under a certain biologic threshold, there is a dose of x-rays that is harmless
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
i mean if you are side-stepping that then what are we talking about
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
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.
as far as dental x-rays go, they are harmless for the patient that receives maybe 10 a year max. go ahead and strike me off. memes like the one above are funny but you should keep in mind this xkcd.com comic below:
if I am administering thousands of x-rays a year, I'd rather reduce that radiation for myself and the staff.
