Samm Stark not surprising, modern techniques use such low doses - and since the latest x-ray images are digital, they can enhance images far better. Before the digital image, you would set up general settings and exposure times for images based on research. A kind of 4 size fits all: baby, child, adult, obese. The digital images measure a certain amount of exposure and then stop the x-rays. We still use the presets, but when we have enough we have precisely enough. This also prevents retakes, which reduces overall dose even more. But, say you are before or of reproductive age, we may give a wallet for the gentlemen and a lead butterfly for the ladies. To reduce dose to the gonads - though the dose is so extremely low, thats not exactly necessary either. The fetus is extremely sensitive, so we only take x rays of pregnant women when there is no other option. Exceptions are made for a parent of a child that needs an x-ray. They need to sit still, and the dad/mom may keep the child still - and for their protection a lead vest is given.
atherion0 well... a lead apron can be fine, if that which needs imaging isnt blocked by a lead apron it wouldnt hurt to use it. However x-ray tubes have sufficient shielding to only direct radiation to the section that is imaged. X-rays do scatter a bit, but that scatter is a fraction of the dose, and it scatters mostly directly back at the machine. Also, as with any brightness calculation, the further away the less bright. So the dose on, for example your hand, is alrdy small - and since your face is further away the dose there is already much further due to added distance... Another issue is hygiene... In the hospital its good practice not to use materials unless necessary, since everything used between patients requires cleaning. Though a rare event, certain infections may be transferred - and cleaning... well... Still 10 years is a long time. Back then the phosphorus plates were still widely in use. Today we use digital flat panels which allow for additional dose reduction. So since that transition we ve seen about a 75% drop in radiation exposure... Compared to most exams today, a 4-6h flight gives you the same radiation dose as an x-ray would in a second. Being overprotective isnt a bad thing when working with radiation, but its hard to justify the effort when the gains are so little compared to every day life. In CT or CAT scans its different - you can make a 1000 x rays for the radiation you can get from those scans.
Also if you're getting say an xray of your pelvis. I can't exactly put shielding there. I could put it over your chest but the scatter is produced in the body so shielding on your chest will have minimal effect as far as actual protection goes. To be honest most of the time I shield just so people don't bug me about it.
The only reason the dentists run all the way back to the door when they do x-rays is because they do it 20 times a day probably, so they are more exposed.
0:34 "X-rays are waves that have a higher energy than gamma rays...." This is not true!! X-rays typically have longer wavelengths than gamma-rays. Photon energy is inversely proportional to wavelength. Because x-rays tend to have longer wavelengths, they tend to have lower energy.
This is misunderstanding. She said it has high energy in the spectrum bcoz its on the high end of the spectrum. If you look at subs you will understand correctly.
6% chance of causing cancer? That actually seems pretty high. I am scheduled for a chest xray. I was informed that ct scans produce much more radiation, and dental xrays are equal to direct sunlight radiation. But chest xray? I honestly don't know how necessary it is with 6% being the chance of giving myself cancer. I only wanted to know if my acid reflux has done damage in my lungs. Might not be life threatening.
This is misunderstanding. She said it has high energy in the spectrum bcoz its on the high end of the spectrum. If you look at subs you will understand correctly.
The term is TECHNOLOGIST! Radiologic Technologists have more education and internship hours than registered nurses. It's insulting to call them a technician.
Some states allow untrained people to take X-rays. The way you tell if they have enough education is to look at their credentials. They should have R.T. (R) behind their name. R.T. stands for registered technologist and (R) stand for radiography (or X-ray). (CT) means they have advanced education and certification in CT scan. (MR) is for MRI, etc. you should really add this to your video so people know how to ask for someone properly educated. This is especially true for CT scan which uses up to 800 times the radiation as an X-ray.
Joshua Harbour yah the right word is technologist not technician here in saudi if the MOH came call me where the technician .. there no technician here .. but the technologist standing in the front on you cause am not technician .. am technologist or radiographer either
A regular X-ray scan is fine, say, for broken bones or at the dentist. However, if a doctor wants you to get a CT scan (sometimes called cat scan), see if you can get an MRI instead. CT scans use a lot more radiation than the quick ones for bones or teeth, while MRIs have no radiation at all.
@@dafyddthomas7299I had a doctor give me a ct head scan for little reason and I asked if it was the one with alot of radiation, they told me it was like being on an airplane. After I looked it up and yeah it is like being on an airplane for a year all at once!
I've heard of something called Terahertz radiation that is a good alternative to X-rays, but I have never seen it in hospitals or doctors' office I've ever been to. This makes me wondering if its even used at all by the medical field or if its even safe at all to humans.
sion8 A Hertz is the unit of measure for frequency, it simply means "per second". So a Terahertz is a 1000 billion oscillations per second. If you convert it to wavelength, 999 Terahertz correspond to 300 nanometers which would place such radiation in the UVA spectrum. That kind of radiation can at most penetrate the top layer of your skin, so I highly doubt hospitals would use it as an alternative to X-rays.
A couple of years ago I had to have pretty extensive surgery on my front teeth which I broke when I was very very young. This meant that for about a year I had to get regular exrays. every month or two
All of you need to understand the importance of diagnostic imaging and the use of x-rays... I see a lot of comments referring to x-rays as being bad for you. Yes, long term radiation can leave you at a serious risk to cancer and other health problems... (Notice I said LONG TERM EXPOSURE) BUT, as a trained X-Ray technologist, we are taught how and when to prevent as much radiation as possible from reaching body. As she said in the video, it is very true that the x-rays we work with come in very small amounts... We are also trained in radiation protection, know where to shield you, and adhere to ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable), which basically means getting the best image possible with as little radiation possible. People- please do not be afraid of x-rays if your physician orders them on you... Keep in mind they are ordering them for a reason, and that the benefit outweighs the risk almost 100% of the time!
And for all of you who are still totally opposed to x-ray, I challenge you to come up with a better diagnostic imaging tool that is able to look inside the body that isn't invasive.
hello, I had a lumbar x-ray 5 months ago. not all technicians are like you, I was not given any testicles protection during the x ray. my testicles were directly under exposure. could you please tell me what this can lead to. thank you.
When I go to the dentist, they convince me to take an X-ray which I did just a little bit more than a year ago. But if I go to the doctor which is funded and run by the government in Canada, it's totally the opposite story. It is harder and long wait. I hope both care about me either protecting me from unnecessary radiation exposure or diagnosing me properly before it gets worse.
Friendly notice Julia, there is no such thing as a radiologic 'technician', we are called radiologic technologists. Technicians are those that actually work on machines, while we are the ones who have gone to intense schooling to understand the machines and how to operate them. ;)
Okay. Here in Texas, we found out that State Police were traveling around in vans, and performing x-ray scans of homes in neighborhoods everywhere. They started doing this about 6 or 7 years ago, and we don't know how many passes the average home has been dosed. How dangerous is this?
It's pretty impossible to perform x-ray scans of homes. The x-rays would need to travel a lot of feet and x-rays don't have that great a reach, check out Inverse-square law. Also, the machines to generate x-rays aren't exactly small and you need a detector to 'catch' the x-rays coming out of the other side of the house. I'm sure people would have noticed way earlier if there were huge devices inside their front and backyards. Lastly, as mentioned in the video, x-rays have a hard time passing through bones. In a house there are a lot more things x-rays wouldn't be able to pass through. Like a fridge, stove and even a spoon. So you asked how dangerous is was. The answer: it's not dangerous at all, because it never happened.
LordUkkepulk The Reverse sting by Barry Cooper of Odessa Texas police involved X-ray vans used in 2008. Maybe they can use radar now, and not irradiate the population like they use to.
"xray vans" with the operator sitting inside the van with the equipment are being radiated too. There is no way xray technology is used in a van. The dose to operator is prohibitive, and police can not apply radiation to humans unless they went to school to learn radiologic technology and got a state license to practice in that state. Lots of unhealthy law breaking described in your scenario.
Like somebody here before said you need a detector (the sice of the house) to catch the rays and the dose is just impossibel because of the distance and material it is needed to go threw (and reducing noise). And a vary important thing about an x ray machine is it generator especially to generate enough for a house. I think the used thermals rather than x rays
There was a video on Dnews explaining why aluminium deodrant may make you smell worse than deodrant without, but is it true, that it could also cause breast-Cancer or cancer in general?
1 lumbar spine X ray = 15 chest x-rays = 1500 hand or foot x-rays. So it matters what part of the body gets the x-ray. Stem cells that turn into immune cells and red blood cells reside in the spinal column bone marrow and that's the part you don't want to mutate too much. Also the distance your spine is from the machine matters hugely (Google "the inverse square law") So consider how many spinal x-rays you absolutely need to get. Sometimes they don't tell you how many x-rays they will take, (seems there is lacking a inform the-patient-beforehand-law regarding the dosage and amount of picture you received) so in this day and age you gotta ask up front how many photos they want to take, and if there are other options or if they can do with less. Best of luck.
i did 3 x-rays in the past 30 days, 2 ankle(broken ankle) and one back(had terrible back pain and wanted to be sure if it had some underlying issue from gym heavy lifting or bad posture). should i be concerned at all? got rid of back pain and ankle is in rehabilitation(broken veins is still an issue)
I'm here for the science, and don't like comments about the looks of moderators. So please Julia, consider not looking better each time you make a new video. For science.
The so called basic x ray make me sick. I get a flu like sick for two to three days of up-chucking, runs, cramps, fever. nausea. Every time I take x-rays.
"X-rays are higher energy and a little longer than gamma rays" What? No, that is not true. X-rays have GENERALLY LOWER energy than gamma rays. Furthermore, X-rays and gamma rays are not defined by their length or energy, they are defined by their emission source. X-rays are emitted by electrons whereas gamma rays are emitted by atomic nuclei.
***** It could be a CT scan. I've had two and total there were 73 X-rays taken to get the results. You can scroll through the scans in 2D. The CT scans didn't cause my brain legions. MRI scans look very similar and I would assume the image on the right could be an MRI do to the color but in truth they are so similar I thought I was getting an MRI as I requested until I checked the radiation profiles in my area during the time the CT scanner was being used for my scan. MRI radiation is colored blue spikes in the WREM profiler for some reason, while X-rays are shown as red profile spikes - the system automatically chose the colors for each. MRI radiation is overwhelmingly bright it can be compensated for pretty easily, but if an MRI machine was being used in my local area at the same time I had my CT scan I would have seen the spike. Any way I had to look up the difference between a CT scan and MRI on the internet to find out why the profile didn't provide the right results. And that only took place after I found out the hospital provided me with the wrong type of scan... I requested a CT scan to find out if I'm having minor bleeding or even mild seizures presenting as extremely intense headaches (significantly worse than a migraine) caused by heavy blood flow to part of my brain
VariantAEC you are confusing too many things... 2:26 on the right is an MRI image. Period. I can make MRIs and CTs. The key difference between a CT and MRI is the method of imaging. CT uses x-rays, which check for density. The brain is pretty uniform in density, so you will see the folds of the brain's surface, and the dark patches in the middle which are filled with fluids. The rest is all grey. A tumor, generally has a very large blood supply, making it less dense than the brain, appearing darker grey/black ish. The MRI uses magnetism and radiowaves to alter proton (H as in H2O) spin. It essentially measures concentration of fluids in tissue. If you scan the brain you would notice clear difference between white and grey matter of the brain. You see that in this image: a bright outer band of the brain and darker inside of the brain. Tumors, since they have good blood flow, light up like a light bulb. Which is the case here....
VariantAEC as far as what you are talking about... WREM profiler... you are going to have to clarify and show links to what you mean... The difference between MRI and CT for a patient is easy: - CT: you lay down, go in and out a few times through a small donut shaped device, it buzzes and its quiet. Exam goes kinds fast, you are generally done between 10-15min - MRI: you lay down and go through a narrow tube and you lay in there, you have to remain very still. the device is noisy! You often get headphones. and makes a ton of rythmic sounds. exams can lasts 15min-60min. A note to your doctor/technician... You should ask questions what the exams are for and what the thing does. What risks are ect. As a patient you have the right to know answers to those questions, and they should inform you on exactly what they do.
***** Having gone through two CT exams I can tell you a whole body scan would take less than five minutes. WREM profile tools and hardware are ideas that function with computer hardware unintentionally. Mostly just getting it to work seems to be a fluke of engineering. I don't even understand how the SSL (solid state [opaque] lens) assemblies will work yet or what the benefits of a newer idea of a not yet tested or even created array of SSLs will be. In fact no SSLs have even been created yet basically in the past I used naked copper wires to detect signals thought to be cast off of pretty much all types of electronic devices. These aren't just random signals or standard radio waves they are directly influenced by the flow of electrons through metals, certain invisible light-waves from the Sun or other sources extra terrestrial objects like planets gamma ray bursts ect. and living animals plants don't show in scans and the Earth only shows if powerful radiation is present only if the shoddy tools are working to begin with. I plan on going back to school for engineering to learn how I can turn this tech into something more reliable sometime in my life (which is looking kinda short right now). As of Dec 2014 after losing my only job I cleared house of all the crap I couldn't really use. I didn't sell anything off I just threw it away.
Nikola Tesla discovered the X-Rays, someone stole his Idea, but he could NOT recreate Tesla's science and humanity. YOU GUYS ARE SO UNGRATEFUL. I suggest learning more about Nikola Tesla.
That laugh in the background made me laugh. So creative it was, it was like breaking all of the known rules of video production yet marrying different aspects of comedy all at the same time. I'm sure you guys didn't put as much thought when you thought of adding that bit on 0:03. But like a scientist that stumbled across a magnificent discovery, that bit you guys did worked out brilliantly. Normally everyone out of the shot is supposed to stay quiet with a few exceptions, of course unless it's comedy, which usually has a laugh track or mention of a live audience, but a laugh man? A single one man laughing? This changes things in so many levels. Usually when a joke sucks you have your classic crickets, or sometimes to add insult to injury, they literally add insults(some "anonymous" heckler) but no, this time, out of the blue, there is a laugh man: A single one man(sounds like trace which takes away the anonymity of a heckler) live audience, out of screen, anti-heckler, plowing through what could've been an awkward silence with disengaged crickets in the background chirping the temperature or calling for sex with instead a very engaged laugh. This bit was, as I like my steak, well done. I hope you guys stumble across other great discoveries. Who am I talking to here? Discovery news, of course you guys will! Now that I've finished expressing this thought, I'm going to resume this video from 0:04, as I came here because I was legitimately curious of the dangers of x-rays.
@Jose Ryan Gonzaga yes its safe. WiFi routers don't produce enough energy to hurt you. Some people apparently have an RF sensitivity, and their is a town completely void of any type of radio frequency.... Like WiFi and cell phones
In kuwait, these dentists will spam you with X rays to ensure their insurance claims are paid off. I literally had 4 bite wings x rays in a period of 2 months in addition to a panoramic. now my ortho requires another panoramic which I have decided to postpone for a while.
I'm going to Spain on a plain in a month and according to my pedants the X ray they do at the airport can damege my phone, us this true, and if so how much damege can it do?
The lead blocks the x ray so if you wore it the doc would see jackshit so you don't wear it so the doc can see your bones pretty sure the effects only appear after being exposed after a long time or frequently
bertjedekat Speaking as a radiotechnician: A radiation vest is also rather heavy. Which is why they dont make them into belts or other things that dont hang over your shoulders. The thing would fall off. Not surprising, since it contains led. So realistically there is no way to hang things things on you for your protection. But lets ask another question, if you are so concerned about radiation exposure... Do you smoke / drink? Both increase your risk of cancer more than a simple x-ray. Do you take the airplane sometimes? The dose you receive on those x-rays is about the same as a 6h flight (thanks to more cosmic radiation exposure at that altitude). Throughout the whole year you get exposed to some radiation, called background radiation. This amount of radiation is extremely low. Your shoulder image is getting about a weekend's worth of background radiation in a second to take that image. So really, you should consider the risk in perspective. A simple x-ray with the modern , digital techniques has become very safe. You should rather worry about CT exams, which can give you 0.5 a year to 4 years worth of background radiation in one exam. Its why we would much rather take an x-ray image, than put you through the scanner. But if your issue doesnt show up on x-rays, we have no other option. Well... you could operate and look in some case... Ill have the radiation dose over a scar. So now you know :)
Alright thanks :) i guess x-rays are not that bad. I would think it's saying something that you have to wear lead to block the radiation though. I do not smoke, i do drink, although evidence of alcohol increasing cancer is not clear in my opionion, from research people that drink alcohol get more cancer but people that drink also eat and live less healthy in general. and CT scans Yikes not doing that. My grammer problably isn't that good but i'm from the the Netherlands :D.
I was thinking of taking an X-ray for what my everyday breathing problems are. I have shortness of breath all the time. I though I had Asthma but took an inhaler and almost passed out. It feels more like I have less breath but my doctor does not know me. I was just trying to look how expensive they would be.
Good Evening Am I safe for 3 chest x-rays in 1 year?. I resigned to my work cause I applied to another company. I had 2 chest xrays in 1 year Already. and tommorow is another Chest X-ray.. "This picture is my previous X-Ray May 2015. Is it safe if I tried again? Doctors and pedias here in the Philippines always says. 1 per year of chest xray is enough and should not be done again. I wanna know what is truth.
Xray protection vests are only one millimeter thick, 1mm. . . That is sufficient to protect you from daily xray use, the high levels of xrays are filtered through an even thinner sheet of aluminium, that is enough to shield you from them
I have to get 4 x rays done tomorrow. Kinda nervous, as I don't want cancer lol.. I have to get a chest x ray, lower back x ray, shoulder x ray and left arm x ray.
GodsLastGift dont worry,these are really small doses you get,only ls spine is higher in order to penetrate dense bones ( lets say compared to 2-3 weeks of background exposure ) . For your info,one catscan of brain is equal to around 300-400 chest xray if you compare doses. Hope I helped.
You may need to get xrays on 4 body parts, but each body part requires a certain number of poses so that all the parts of the bone are seen well. Like the mug shots in the post office, you know a lot more about who you are looking at if you have multiple views of that person...same goes for bones. So for 4 body parts you may actually need at LEAST 8 poses (projections we call them) to adequately see the anatomy enough to make a diagnosis.
X-rays are not accumulative. They pass through your body the same as light passes through glass. But the odds of getting a mutation from blasting the cells of your body is accumulative. The more x-rays one gets, the chances of a mutation is greater. So, it is the odds that are accumulative.
+turbojer1 So the odds of a mutation are accumulative. Even though X-ray Technician check their radiation accumulation of their body in regular basis, there is no point doing that. X-ray passed through their body having that much radiation left to be checked. but actually their chances to get a mutation in Thyroid or reproductive system or something would be accumulating. Is that what you are saying??? I don't know anything about X-rays. I am just asking you and thank you for your helpful comment. If someone know about this, please enlighten me :)
+wmwvic The tags or badges that they wear do not show accumulated x-rays, they show how much exposure they have been subjected to. If they showed accumulated radiation in their body, wouldn't a new badge show that accumulation? It doesn't. It starts all over again showing exposure with the new badge. X-rays are part of the light spectrum, just a bit more on the potent side. Thanks for the comment.
I like that your only example is DR/CR x ray and you don't include CT ( witch give better pictures but also give a hell lot more 2nd x ray to the body ) or MRI ( witch have unknown side effects but are more expensive but makes the greatest pictures).@_@.- Oh by the way where do you got your numbers from? ( I want to know because it is around 1 ~ 1400 that gets cancer from CT x ray in the European union )
StefanTranemann Haha, actually they wrongfully included an MRI image (2:46). Lets compare it to the average radiation dose we just get from the natural environment: 5mSv. You dont really need to know how much that is, just remember 5. Looked up the radiation dose for some images. A lung image (thorax, DR x ray) gives 0.005mSv and a hand gives 0.035mSv. CT scans vary much more, so these are averages: Head gives 1.2mSv, lungs is 5.5mSv, stomach is 11.0mSv. (Numbers from the Ministery of Health, Netherlands, 2012) Dose goes up in older equipment, plus in the USA they are more afraid of lawsuits. They scan a larger area and they check for more than just whats wrong with you. If your doctor misses something, they get sued... So they tend to run more CT scans than x-rays. And as you can see, the difference in dose is significant. I also have to mention that CT isnt nessesarily better than DR xrays. CT requires computer calculation, which has a margin of error and generally an resolution much lower than DR x-rays. When looking for tiny fractures, x-rays are better for the job. When assassing complex fractures, CT scans are better because they give better 3D information. On x-rays you can only see high contrast objects. Air vs soft tissue. Bones vs soft tissue. Such things. Some organs in the stomach also show up a little. If you want a better look at those organs, CT is your way to go. MRI is a whole other story. Based on magnets and radiowaves, it doesnt do DNA damage like x-rays. But there are also safety issues: you cant have surgical metal (pins from old fractions, artificial hips, pacemakers, metal dentistry), and if you work in the metal industry metal splinters in your eye can react to the magnet and damage your eyes, at worst case causing blindness. The opening for MRI is also fairly narrow so there are some patients who cant go in because of claustrophobia, or they dont fit because of obesity. The issue with MRI is that scanning goes very slowly. In the CT the x-ray head and imager spin fast as you move through it. In MRI the magnet aligns the signal in your body, and radiowaves flip the signal. The signal gets echoed back and the radio antennas listen to a certain frequency, which becomes 1 image line... The higher your image resolution (the more lines), the longer the scan time... So a total exam (20 images or so) from start to finish may take 20-60min... If you moved, that image is useless and we will have to start over with that image, adding 5-10min to the exam time easily... So for one 30min MRI scan i can image 15 hands with x-rays. So in conclusion, each methods has risks and benefits.
Yeah. xD Oh now I got some numbers from the Danish medicin / heath side > "Sundhed.dk (læge håndbogen ( witch means Healh.dk the doctorhandbook) it says "The risk to get cancer from x ray by CT is 1:1.000 ( witch is 0,1 % ) if you get a CT of the Abdome or Thorax ( witch got the highest risk of x ray by cancer )" and from CR / DR x-ray it is 1:10.000 for abdome and 1:300.000 if it is thorax. I can get you the numbers from Sweden and Norway tomorrow ( I don't have time to look it up now because I got an German-Latin anatomy and physiology exam tomorrow ~ ( by the way I also got a cold (Just call me Bad luck Brian.
StefanTranemann ^^ interesting figures... The abdomen uses very different x-ray settings than thorax. Thorax uses much harder x-rays, meaning less get absorbed by the patient. Since abdomen uses weaker x-rays, more gets absorbed. Lets do a back of the envelope calculation... 0.005mSv to 0.035mSv is a factor 7, and your figures show a 1 in 300.000 to 10.000 increase, a factor 30. (1/10000-1/300000)/(0.035-0.005)=0.00322 So for every mSv you receive your chance of getting cancer increases with 0.32% .... So if you go in for a stomach CT scan (11mSv) you would get a cancer increase chance of 3.22% Not sure how i feel about that - though of course this kind of calculation is ridiculous. I work in radiotherapy (and im able to make x ray images, scans and so on). Damage to DNA does not increase linearly with radiation dose. And honestly... the smaller the dose the sketchier the %... Since its extremely difficult to measure low dose exposure to increased cancer risks. That said, in Holland we allow radiation doses to patients regardless of the dose. We use the ALARA principle: As Low As Reasonably Achievable. Non patients however, are only allowed to accumulate 1mSv of radiation from medical devices. This literally means that if you were to sit in the x-ray waiting room for the entire year, you would only receive 1mSv.... (so 0.32% seems acceptable to the government) Technicians though... depending on the type you may either receive 20mSv or 5mSv a year, and we carry radiation badges recording that. In a job where we were allowed 5, i received only 1-2mSv yearly (so 0.32 to 0.64%) Still 5 to 20... is 1.61 to 6.44% ... thats quite something... Disclaimer: Mind you, all back of the envelope calculations. It doesnt actually work that way! xD
Lets make just one more... horrible bit of information. So all people are legally protected to receive only so much radiation... Where else besides the hospital can you receive a higher dose than usual? If you guessed in the airplane, you are correct! Cosmic radiation is one of the strongest sources of background radiation, and the atmosphere and (some other mechanisms above that) shield us against these hard cosmic rays. As you flight in your airplane, the atmosphere shields you less, and you receive more radiation... First in comparison, whats the normal dose rate of background radiation on the ground? 5mSv a year, makes 0.57uSv/h (from milisievert a to microsiever, 1000x less). Depending on your altitude and measuring device, you receive on average 6.0-3.0uSv/h which is over 10-5 times the normal... Of course you dont spend your entire life at that altitude, and for passengers its not that big of a deal. But what about the pilots and the cabinet crew? Dutch law makes an exception for these flyers. They are exempt and may receive more, and are not checked on which dose they actually get... Grabbing some estimated numbers from various sites show that a pilot flying form USA to Europe 10x a month for 12 months receives 4.2mSv extra dose... So that about doubles their background dose...
2:46 As usual you guys fck up... X-ray Technician speaking here! In those 3 images, one does not belong~ The right one is MRI which uses magnets and radio antennas - it doesnt use x-rays.
I had an X-Ray at my Dentists recently. As soon as the Doc took the shot from across the room, I grabbed my jaw, screaming writhing in pain. Never seen anybody jump so high in my life. Haha. I'm pure evil.
Great question- some body parts SHOULD be examined by ultrasound (US), as that is the modality which will demonstrate certain organs best. But certain conditions are not well demonstrated on US, and CT, angiography or MRI are more helpful. It is up to the physician to determine the best test for what they are trying to determine. Unfortunately, not a lot of time in med school is spent on that...for more information go to www.acr.org and look for "appropriateness" charts.
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/af0phKxitX8/mqdefault.jpg)
I bought a book today called "X-ray vision for beginners".
I'm having a look through it now.
Rikard Holmqvist da dum tsssssss
I see what you did there....or did I?
***** Thats bull**** i see straight through you, i can tell your lies xD
I can see through your sentence :D
I laughed so hard, I'm gonna be Dead...Mou5!
I have never been offered any radiation protection when getting an xray, whether it be within the public or private health system
Samm Stark not surprising, modern techniques use such low doses - and since the latest x-ray images are digital, they can enhance images far better.
Before the digital image, you would set up general settings and exposure times for images based on research. A kind of 4 size fits all: baby, child, adult, obese.
The digital images measure a certain amount of exposure and then stop the x-rays. We still use the presets, but when we have enough we have precisely enough.
This also prevents retakes, which reduces overall dose even more.
But, say you are before or of reproductive age, we may give a wallet for the gentlemen and a lead butterfly for the ladies. To reduce dose to the gonads - though the dose is so extremely low, thats not exactly necessary either.
The fetus is extremely sensitive, so we only take x rays of pregnant women when there is no other option.
Exceptions are made for a parent of a child that needs an x-ray. They need to sit still, and the dad/mom may keep the child still - and for their protection a lead vest is given.
I have never gotten x-rayed without a lead apron. The last time I got one was at least a decade or so ago, though.
atherion0
well... a lead apron can be fine, if that which needs imaging isnt blocked by a lead apron it wouldnt hurt to use it.
However x-ray tubes have sufficient shielding to only direct radiation to the section that is imaged.
X-rays do scatter a bit, but that scatter is a fraction of the dose, and it scatters mostly directly back at the machine.
Also, as with any brightness calculation, the further away the less bright. So the dose on, for example your hand, is alrdy small - and since your face is further away the dose there is already much further due to added distance...
Another issue is hygiene... In the hospital its good practice not to use materials unless necessary, since everything used between patients requires cleaning. Though a rare event, certain infections may be transferred - and cleaning... well...
Still 10 years is a long time. Back then the phosphorus plates were still widely in use. Today we use digital flat panels which allow for additional dose reduction. So since that transition we ve seen about a 75% drop in radiation exposure...
Compared to most exams today, a 4-6h flight gives you the same radiation dose as an x-ray would in a second.
Being overprotective isnt a bad thing when working with radiation, but its hard to justify the effort when the gains are so little compared to every day life.
In CT or CAT scans its different - you can make a 1000 x rays for the radiation you can get from those scans.
Also if you're getting say an xray of your pelvis. I can't exactly put shielding there. I could put it over your chest but the scatter is produced in the body so shielding on your chest will have minimal effect as far as actual protection goes. To be honest most of the time I shield just so people don't bug me about it.
The only reason the dentists run all the way back to the door when they do x-rays is because they do it 20 times a day probably, so they are more exposed.
0:34 "X-rays are waves that have a higher energy than gamma rays...."
This is not true!! X-rays typically have longer wavelengths than gamma-rays. Photon energy is inversely proportional to wavelength. Because x-rays tend to have longer wavelengths, they tend to have lower energy.
And it’s not just “a little bit” lower in energy than visible light.
She didn't say that...you misunderstood her
This is misunderstanding.
She said it has high energy in the spectrum bcoz its on the high end of the spectrum.
If you look at subs you will understand correctly.
@@MartinTrebbin she said little bit shorter in length not energy.
You misheard. She said higher energy than visible light and have wavelengths longer than gamma rays.
6% chance of causing cancer? That actually seems pretty high. I am scheduled for a chest xray. I was informed that ct scans produce much more radiation, and dental xrays are equal to direct sunlight radiation. But chest xray? I honestly don't know how necessary it is with 6% being the chance of giving myself cancer. I only wanted to know if my acid reflux has done damage in my lungs. Might not be life threatening.
Error at :36 Xrays have less energy than gamma rays. Higher frequencies have more energy
E=hc/λ
This is misunderstanding.
She said it has high energy in the spectrum bcoz its on the high end of the spectrum.
If you look at subs you will understand correctly.
The term is TECHNOLOGIST! Radiologic Technologists have more education and internship hours than registered nurses. It's insulting to call them a technician.
Some states allow untrained people to take X-rays. The way you tell if they have enough education is to look at their credentials. They should have R.T. (R) behind their name. R.T. stands for registered technologist and (R) stand for radiography (or X-ray). (CT) means they have advanced education and certification in CT scan. (MR) is for MRI, etc. you should really add this to your video so people know how to ask for someone properly educated.
This is especially true for CT scan which uses up to 800 times the radiation as an X-ray.
Joshua Harbour yah the right word is technologist not technician here in saudi if the MOH came call me where the technician .. there no technician here .. but the technologist standing in the front on you cause am not technician .. am technologist or radiographer either
Joshua Harbour
Don't be a Pedant!
2:45 The picture on the right looks like an MRI, not an x-ray.
A regular X-ray scan is fine, say, for broken bones or at the dentist. However, if a doctor wants you to get a CT scan (sometimes called cat scan), see if you can get an MRI instead. CT scans use a lot more radiation than the quick ones for bones or teeth, while MRIs have no radiation at all.
Excellent response indeed - thanks for sharing
@@dafyddthomas7299I had a doctor give me a ct head scan for little reason and I asked if it was the one with alot of radiation, they told me it was like being on an airplane. After I looked it up and yeah it is like being on an airplane for a year all at once!
"Never lie to an X-ray technician."
"They can *_see right through you_*."
I've heard of something called Terahertz radiation that is a good alternative to X-rays, but I have never seen it in hospitals or doctors' office I've ever been to. This makes me wondering if its even used at all by the medical field or if its even safe at all to humans.
sion8 A Hertz is the unit of measure for frequency, it simply means "per second". So a Terahertz is a 1000 billion oscillations per second. If you convert it to wavelength, 999 Terahertz correspond to 300 nanometers which would place such radiation in the UVA spectrum. That kind of radiation can at most penetrate the top layer of your skin, so I highly doubt hospitals would use it as an alternative to X-rays.
I met a pHd student in Sept 23 who is building devices to produce them which uses lasers and high pressure to build microscopic aerials on a surface
A couple of years ago I had to have pretty extensive surgery on my front teeth which I broke when I was very very young. This meant that for about a year I had to get regular exrays. every month or two
Any update? They said it can you look 10 to 15 years older.
I've taken x rays 5times does it have any effect
Yah Hair fall😔
gg
he lived a full life
No
I had a girlfriend once who was an X-ray technician. Was never going to last, she could see right through me.
Conall i thought you were gonna say she died of cancer
She looks a lot better with straight hair
Ikr
I think people's natural hair is best for them. Straightening can be for fun but doesn't make it more beautiful.
RavenBird i also side with the nature =3
TheAjalin Nope. Curly.
Trevor Costelloe sorry
All of you need to understand the importance of diagnostic imaging and the use of x-rays... I see a lot of comments referring to x-rays as being bad for you. Yes, long term radiation can leave you at a serious risk to cancer and other health problems... (Notice I said LONG TERM EXPOSURE) BUT, as a trained X-Ray technologist, we are taught how and when to prevent as much radiation as possible from reaching body. As she said in the video, it is very true that the x-rays we work with come in very small amounts... We are also trained in radiation protection, know where to shield you, and adhere to ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable), which basically means getting the best image possible with as little radiation possible. People- please do not be afraid of x-rays if your physician orders them on you... Keep in mind they are ordering them for a reason, and that the benefit outweighs the risk almost 100% of the time!
And for all of you who are still totally opposed to x-ray, I challenge you to come up with a better diagnostic imaging tool that is able to look inside the body that isn't invasive.
Stfu
I have to get 4 done tomorrow and I'm scared :(
Galaxy Existence stfu you ignorant idiot
hello, I had a lumbar x-ray 5 months ago. not all technicians are like you, I was not given any testicles protection during the x ray. my testicles were directly under exposure.
could you please tell me what this can lead to. thank you.
When I go to the dentist, they convince me to take an X-ray which I did just a little bit more than a year ago. But if I go to the doctor which is funded and run by the government in Canada, it's totally the opposite story. It is harder and long wait. I hope both care about me either protecting me from unnecessary radiation exposure or diagnosing me properly before it gets worse.
The thumbnail scared me. I thought she made her hair curly again.
It's X-ray technologists not X-ray technicians
Radiologic technologist
Friendly notice Julia, there is no such thing as a radiologic 'technician', we are called radiologic technologists. Technicians are those that actually work on machines, while we are the ones who have gone to intense schooling to understand the machines and how to operate them. ;)
You know your pun was bad when Trace is sarcastically laughing at it.
straight hair Julia is best Julia
Okay. Here in Texas, we found out that State Police were traveling around in vans, and performing x-ray scans of homes in neighborhoods everywhere. They started doing this about 6 or 7 years ago, and we don't know how many passes the average home has been dosed. How dangerous is this?
It's pretty impossible to perform x-ray scans of homes. The x-rays would need to travel a lot of feet and x-rays don't have that great a reach, check out Inverse-square law. Also, the machines to generate x-rays aren't exactly small and you need a detector to 'catch' the x-rays coming out of the other side of the house. I'm sure people would have noticed way earlier if there were huge devices inside their front and backyards. Lastly, as mentioned in the video, x-rays have a hard time passing through bones. In a house there are a lot more things x-rays wouldn't be able to pass through. Like a fridge, stove and even a spoon.
So you asked how dangerous is was. The answer: it's not dangerous at all, because it never happened.
*****
Are you sure? I'm thinking of the 2008 arrest of Barry Cooper's reverse sting in Odessa, Texas. Fake Drug House.
LordUkkepulk
The Reverse sting by Barry Cooper of Odessa Texas police involved X-ray vans used in 2008. Maybe they can use radar now, and not irradiate the population like they use to.
"xray vans" with the operator sitting inside the van with the equipment are being radiated too. There is no way xray technology is used in a van. The dose to operator is prohibitive, and police can not apply radiation to humans unless they went to school to learn radiologic technology and got a state license to practice in that state. Lots of unhealthy law breaking described in your scenario.
Like somebody here before said you need a detector (the sice of the house) to catch the rays and the dose is just impossibel because of the distance and material it is needed to go threw (and reducing noise). And a vary important thing about an x ray machine is it generator especially to generate enough for a house.
I think the used thermals rather than x rays
Im 20 years old i got 3 chest xrays before and im wondering if im going to be alright in the future
Are u still alive
You will be okay
There was a video on Dnews explaining why aluminium deodrant may make you smell worse than deodrant without, but is it true, that it could also cause breast-Cancer or cancer in general?
1 lumbar spine X ray = 15 chest x-rays = 1500 hand or foot x-rays. So it matters what part of the body gets the x-ray. Stem cells that turn into immune cells and red blood cells reside in the spinal column bone marrow and that's the part you don't want to mutate too much. Also the distance your spine is from the machine matters hugely (Google "the inverse square law") So consider how many spinal x-rays you absolutely need to get. Sometimes they don't tell you how many x-rays they will take, (seems there is lacking a inform the-patient-beforehand-law regarding the dosage and amount of picture you received) so in this day and age you gotta ask up front how many photos they want to take, and if there are other options or if they can do with less. Best of luck.
i did 3 x-rays in the past 30 days, 2 ankle(broken ankle) and one back(had terrible back pain and wanted to be sure if it had some underlying issue from gym heavy lifting or bad posture). should i be concerned at all? got rid of back pain and ankle is in rehabilitation(broken veins is still an issue)
No it's totally fine
I have X-Ray vision, guess what i use it for??!!!
to look through people's skin and see thier bones.
To look at peoples buttholes
Sex Offender to look at women's ribs and hip bones
Sex Offender to give yourself another bone? er...
to have cancer
We're called Xray Technologist, we haven't officially been called technicians since the sixties.
+DNews I got my x-Ray at my dentist's. It was a cool image of my teeth!
I got one for my orthodontist, I have very sharp cuspids that almost look demonic with my skull.
I like Julia more everyday, she's definitely my favorite host nowadays
I'm here for the science, and don't like comments about the looks of moderators. So please Julia, consider not looking better each time you make a new video. For science.
That laugh in the beginning was funnier than the joke lol
The so called basic x ray make me sick. I get a flu like sick for two to three days of up-chucking, runs, cramps, fever. nausea. Every time I take x-rays.
"X-rays are higher energy and a little longer than gamma rays" What? No, that is not true. X-rays have GENERALLY LOWER energy than gamma rays. Furthermore, X-rays and gamma rays are not defined by their length or energy, they are defined by their emission source. X-rays are emitted by electrons whereas gamma rays are emitted by atomic nuclei.
Is it ironic that I'm watching this video in a hospital while waiting to get an x-ray?
Please in the future refer to the imaging professional as a X-ray Technologist or a radiographer. The technician is the person who fixes the machine.
2:45 Isnt that a MRI scan?
Albacko on the right, yep it is :) sharp eye
Somehow they always fck that up huh xD
*****
It could be a CT scan. I've had two and total there were 73 X-rays taken to get the results. You can scroll through the scans in 2D. The CT scans didn't cause my brain legions. MRI scans look very similar and I would assume the image on the right could be an MRI do to the color but in truth they are so similar I thought I was getting an MRI as I requested until I checked the radiation profiles in my area during the time the CT scanner was being used for my scan. MRI radiation is colored blue spikes in the WREM profiler for some reason, while X-rays are shown as red profile spikes - the system automatically chose the colors for each. MRI radiation is overwhelmingly bright it can be compensated for pretty easily, but if an MRI machine was being used in my local area at the same time I had my CT scan I would have seen the spike. Any way I had to look up the difference between a CT scan and MRI on the internet to find out why the profile didn't provide the right results. And that only took place after I found out the hospital provided me with the wrong type of scan...
I requested a CT scan to find out if I'm having minor bleeding or even mild seizures presenting as extremely intense headaches (significantly worse than a migraine) caused by heavy blood flow to part of my brain
VariantAEC
you are confusing too many things...
2:26 on the right is an MRI image. Period. I can make MRIs and CTs.
The key difference between a CT and MRI is the method of imaging.
CT uses x-rays, which check for density. The brain is pretty uniform in density, so you will see the folds of the brain's surface, and the dark patches in the middle which are filled with fluids. The rest is all grey. A tumor, generally has a very large blood supply, making it less dense than the brain, appearing darker grey/black ish.
The MRI uses magnetism and radiowaves to alter proton (H as in H2O) spin. It essentially measures concentration of fluids in tissue. If you scan the brain you would notice clear difference between white and grey matter of the brain. You see that in this image: a bright outer band of the brain and darker inside of the brain. Tumors, since they have good blood flow, light up like a light bulb. Which is the case here....
VariantAEC
as far as what you are talking about... WREM profiler...
you are going to have to clarify and show links to what you mean...
The difference between MRI and CT for a patient is easy:
- CT: you lay down, go in and out a few times through a small donut shaped device, it buzzes and its quiet. Exam goes kinds fast, you are generally done between 10-15min
- MRI: you lay down and go through a narrow tube and you lay in there, you have to remain very still. the device is noisy! You often get headphones. and makes a ton of rythmic sounds. exams can lasts 15min-60min.
A note to your doctor/technician... You should ask questions what the exams are for and what the thing does. What risks are ect.
As a patient you have the right to know answers to those questions, and they should inform you on exactly what they do.
*****
Having gone through two CT exams I can tell you a whole body scan would take less than five minutes. WREM profile tools and hardware are ideas that function with computer hardware unintentionally. Mostly just getting it to work seems to be a fluke of engineering. I don't even understand how the SSL (solid state [opaque] lens) assemblies will work yet or what the benefits of a newer idea of a not yet tested or even created array of SSLs will be.
In fact no SSLs have even been created yet basically in the past I used naked copper wires to detect signals thought to be cast off of pretty much all types of electronic devices. These aren't just random signals or standard radio waves they are directly influenced by the flow of electrons through metals, certain invisible light-waves from the Sun or other sources extra terrestrial objects like planets gamma ray bursts ect. and living animals plants don't show in scans and the Earth only shows if powerful radiation is present only if the shoddy tools are working to begin with.
I plan on going back to school for engineering to learn how I can turn this tech into something more reliable sometime in my life (which is looking kinda short right now).
As of Dec 2014 after losing my only job I cleared house of all the crap I couldn't really use. I didn't sell anything off I just threw it away.
Nikola Tesla discovered the X-Rays, someone stole his Idea, but he could NOT recreate Tesla's science and humanity. YOU GUYS ARE SO UNGRATEFUL. I suggest learning more about Nikola Tesla.
That laugh in the background made me laugh. So creative it was, it was like breaking all of the known rules of video production yet marrying different aspects of comedy all at the same time.
I'm sure you guys didn't put as much thought when you thought of adding that bit on 0:03. But like a scientist that stumbled across a magnificent discovery, that bit you guys did worked out brilliantly.
Normally everyone out of the shot is supposed to stay quiet with a few exceptions, of course unless it's comedy, which usually has a laugh track or mention of a live audience, but a laugh man? A single one man laughing?
This changes things in so many levels.
Usually when a joke sucks you have your classic crickets, or sometimes to add insult to injury, they literally add insults(some "anonymous" heckler) but no, this time, out of the blue, there is a laugh man: A single one man(sounds like trace which takes away the anonymity of a heckler) live audience, out of screen, anti-heckler, plowing through what could've been an awkward silence with disengaged crickets in the background chirping the temperature or calling for sex with instead a very engaged laugh.
This bit was, as I like my steak, well done.
I hope you guys stumble across other great discoveries.
Who am I talking to here? Discovery news, of course you guys will!
Now that I've finished expressing this thought, I'm going to resume this video from 0:04, as I came here because I was legitimately curious of the dangers of x-rays.
this comment is so random yet so wholesome
wow
lol
Julia looks so much better with straight hair
@Jose Ryan Gonzaga yes its safe. WiFi routers don't produce enough energy to hurt you. Some people apparently have an RF sensitivity, and their is a town completely void of any type of radio frequency.... Like WiFi and cell phones
In kuwait, these dentists will spam you with X rays to ensure their insurance claims are paid off. I literally had 4 bite wings x rays in a period of 2 months in addition to a panoramic. now my ortho requires another panoramic which I have decided to postpone for a while.
Today I had a X-ray without the apron and my doctor said to me that it’s not manual anymore.
I'm going to Spain on a plain in a month and according to my pedants the X ray they do at the airport can damege my phone, us this true, and if so how much damege can it do?
02:47 your researcher dropped the ball, as that image on the right is an MRI.
Looks like a CT scan which is a form of X Ray
I just finished getting two pictures for scoliosis
I have a question about a mystery: What happened to Julia's curly hair? Curly hair was so good on her.
Everytime I get an x-ray at the dentist, They say holy crap you have some serious hardware in there. I have two metal plates in my face,
uhm i got an X-ray a few weeks agofor my shoulder but i didnt had to wear any lead.
The lead blocks the x ray so if you wore it the doc would see jackshit so you don't wear it so the doc can see your bones pretty sure the effects only appear after being exposed after a long time or frequently
bertjedekat the leadvest would block your shoulder so the image would be unusable.
ah makes a lot of sence, i would have prefered if they blocked the most of my body though.
bertjedekat Speaking as a radiotechnician: A radiation vest is also rather heavy. Which is why they dont make them into belts or other things that dont hang over your shoulders. The thing would fall off. Not surprising, since it contains led.
So realistically there is no way to hang things things on you for your protection.
But lets ask another question, if you are so concerned about radiation exposure...
Do you smoke / drink? Both increase your risk of cancer more than a simple x-ray.
Do you take the airplane sometimes? The dose you receive on those x-rays is about the same as a 6h flight (thanks to more cosmic radiation exposure at that altitude).
Throughout the whole year you get exposed to some radiation, called background radiation. This amount of radiation is extremely low. Your shoulder image is getting about a weekend's worth of background radiation in a second to take that image.
So really, you should consider the risk in perspective. A simple x-ray with the modern , digital techniques has become very safe.
You should rather worry about CT exams, which can give you 0.5 a year to 4 years worth of background radiation in one exam.
Its why we would much rather take an x-ray image, than put you through the scanner. But if your issue doesnt show up on x-rays, we have no other option.
Well... you could operate and look in some case... Ill have the radiation dose over a scar.
So now you know :)
Alright thanks :) i guess x-rays are not that bad. I would think it's saying something that you have to wear lead to block the radiation though.
I do not smoke, i do drink, although
evidence of alcohol increasing cancer is not clear in my opionion, from research people that drink alcohol get more cancer but people that drink also eat and live less healthy in general.
and CT scans Yikes not doing that.
My grammer problably isn't that good but i'm from the the Netherlands :D.
I went to the dentist but i noticed they did not put on the led jacket on my when they did x rays, is there anything wrong here???
Depend on the location need to be scan
i'm one year into this local rad tech program and I hope I can make it through. pray for me y'all
I'm a 5years Radiologic technologist I know you'll pass ☺️✌️☢️ remember the creed
You living?
@@ZytraOfTheZombieVariety alive and well babyy
I was thinking of taking an X-ray for what my everyday breathing problems are. I have shortness of breath all the time. I though I had Asthma but took an inhaler and almost passed out. It feels more like I have less breath but my doctor does not know me. I was just trying to look how expensive they would be.
ARE U OBESE
Your lungs is not okay
@0:36 x-rays are lower in energy and a little longer than gamma rays.
Good Evening
Am I safe for 3 chest x-rays in 1 year?.
I resigned to my work cause I applied to another company. I had 2 chest xrays in 1 year Already. and tommorow is another Chest X-ray.. "This picture is my previous X-Ray May 2015.
Is it safe if I tried again? Doctors and pedias here in the Philippines always says. 1 per year of chest xray is enough and should not be done again. I wanna know what is truth.
Xray protection vests are only one millimeter thick, 1mm. . . That is sufficient to protect you from daily xray use, the high levels of xrays are filtered through an even thinner sheet of aluminium, that is enough to shield you from them
@@thichchuianti for more information, reread
your hair looks amazing julia!!!
she laughed @ 02.48 when she saw the balls in the x-ray !
Thanks for an ace documentary.
Yep, this confirms I'm not going to the dentist/doctor for a LONG time.
Your thumbnail was a lie. It promised the return of frizzy hair, but the video did not deliver. Sad face. :P
Straight hair > frizzy hair.
Alkoholwioslaidziwki I agree to disagree with you.
Alkoholwioslaidziwki we all agree
3:03 now you tell me...
She so gorgeous it hurts
You're so ugly it hurts
Says the 13yr old with the username "cool guy"
Says the 14 year old with the name "mighty loaf"
Esteban Arias *Almighty Loaf
Cool Guy buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurn
I have to get 4 x rays done tomorrow.
Kinda nervous, as I don't want cancer lol..
I have to get a chest x ray, lower back x ray, shoulder x ray and left arm x ray.
GodsLastGift dont worry,these are really small doses you get,only ls spine is higher in order to penetrate dense bones ( lets say compared to 2-3 weeks of background exposure ) .
For your info,one catscan of brain is equal to around 300-400 chest xray if you compare doses.
Hope I helped.
I got a chest and back X-ray and I'm fine... I think...?
*Collapses
You may need to get xrays on 4 body parts, but each body part requires a certain number of poses so that all the parts of the bone are seen well. Like the mug shots in the post office, you know a lot more about who you are looking at if you have multiple views of that person...same goes for bones. So for 4 body parts you may actually need at LEAST 8 poses (projections we call them) to adequately see the anatomy enough to make a diagnosis.
I'm in love with Julia 😂
We are technologists, not technicians!
The shorter the wave, the higher the energy level. So x-ray has a lower energy level than gamma rays.
Nooo you straitened your glorious curls... Cries...
I saw some of the old x-ray tools in a museum. They looked like hand held hair dryers.
Pharmacy vs radiography which course is best for me because I'm confused pls reply
Ab ap kiya kr rahy ho???
Pharmacy
Ive gotten X rays only once and those things that are like x rays but they have to put gel on you it can work well ive gotten 2 of them
X-rays are not accumulative. They pass through your body the same as light passes through glass. But the odds of getting a mutation from blasting the cells of your body is accumulative. The more x-rays one gets, the chances of a mutation is greater. So, it is the odds that are accumulative.
+turbojer1 So the odds of a mutation are accumulative. Even though X-ray Technician check their radiation accumulation of their body in regular basis, there is no point doing that. X-ray passed through their body having that much radiation left to be checked. but actually their chances to get a mutation in Thyroid or reproductive system or something would be accumulating. Is that what you are saying??? I don't know anything about X-rays. I am just asking you and thank you for your helpful comment. If someone know about this, please enlighten me :)
+wmwvic The tags or badges that they wear do not show accumulated x-rays, they show how much exposure they have been subjected to. If they showed accumulated radiation in their body, wouldn't a new badge show
that accumulation? It doesn't. It starts all over again showing exposure with the new badge. X-rays are part of the light spectrum, just a bit more on the potent side. Thanks for the comment.
Your thinking is great,
What’s ur thinking on vaccines
I am an X-ray Tech, we're not called "technicians" we are Technologists. Technicians fix equipment, we operate it.......just pointing it out.
Gamma-rays are a threat to earth.
Great information
"T E C H N O L O G I S T S"
Hi...can x ray show h pylori or not...plz reply asap
OMG, can't belive that they actually put a fake image of the first XRay hand image...
?
I like that your only example is DR/CR x ray and you don't include CT ( witch give better pictures but also give a hell lot more 2nd x ray to the body ) or MRI ( witch have unknown side effects but are more expensive but makes the greatest pictures).@_@.-
Oh by the way where do you got your numbers from? ( I want to know because it is around 1 ~ 1400 that gets cancer from CT x ray in the European union )
StefanTranemann
Haha, actually they wrongfully included an MRI image (2:46).
Lets compare it to the average radiation dose we just get from the natural environment: 5mSv. You dont really need to know how much that is, just remember 5.
Looked up the radiation dose for some images. A lung image (thorax, DR x ray) gives 0.005mSv and a hand gives 0.035mSv.
CT scans vary much more, so these are averages: Head gives 1.2mSv, lungs is 5.5mSv, stomach is 11.0mSv.
(Numbers from the Ministery of Health, Netherlands, 2012)
Dose goes up in older equipment, plus in the USA they are more afraid of lawsuits. They scan a larger area and they check for more than just whats wrong with you. If your doctor misses something, they get sued... So they tend to run more CT scans than x-rays. And as you can see, the difference in dose is significant.
I also have to mention that CT isnt nessesarily better than DR xrays. CT requires computer calculation, which has a margin of error and generally an resolution much lower than DR x-rays. When looking for tiny fractures, x-rays are better for the job. When assassing complex fractures, CT scans are better because they give better 3D information.
On x-rays you can only see high contrast objects. Air vs soft tissue. Bones vs soft tissue. Such things. Some organs in the stomach also show up a little. If you want a better look at those organs, CT is your way to go.
MRI is a whole other story. Based on magnets and radiowaves, it doesnt do DNA damage like x-rays. But there are also safety issues: you cant have surgical metal (pins from old fractions, artificial hips, pacemakers, metal dentistry), and if you work in the metal industry metal splinters in your eye can react to the magnet and damage your eyes, at worst case causing blindness. The opening for MRI is also fairly narrow so there are some patients who cant go in because of claustrophobia, or they dont fit because of obesity.
The issue with MRI is that scanning goes very slowly. In the CT the x-ray head and imager spin fast as you move through it. In MRI the magnet aligns the signal in your body, and radiowaves flip the signal. The signal gets echoed back and the radio antennas listen to a certain frequency, which becomes 1 image line...
The higher your image resolution (the more lines), the longer the scan time... So a total exam (20 images or so) from start to finish may take 20-60min... If you moved, that image is useless and we will have to start over with that image, adding 5-10min to the exam time easily...
So for one 30min MRI scan i can image 15 hands with x-rays.
So in conclusion, each methods has risks and benefits.
Yeah. xD
Oh now I got some numbers from the Danish medicin / heath side > "Sundhed.dk (læge håndbogen ( witch means Healh.dk the doctorhandbook) it says "The risk to get cancer from x ray by CT is 1:1.000 ( witch is 0,1 % ) if you get a CT of the Abdome or Thorax ( witch got the highest risk of x ray by cancer )" and from CR / DR x-ray it is 1:10.000 for abdome and 1:300.000 if it is thorax.
I can get you the numbers from Sweden and Norway tomorrow
( I don't have time to look it up now because I got an German-Latin anatomy and physiology exam tomorrow ~ ( by the way I also got a cold (Just call me Bad luck Brian.
Oh I had just seen that you had written some more ( could only see the two first lines. xD )
StefanTranemann
^^ interesting figures... The abdomen uses very different x-ray settings than thorax. Thorax uses much harder x-rays, meaning less get absorbed by the patient. Since abdomen uses weaker x-rays, more gets absorbed.
Lets do a back of the envelope calculation... 0.005mSv to 0.035mSv is a factor 7, and your figures show a 1 in 300.000 to 10.000 increase, a factor 30.
(1/10000-1/300000)/(0.035-0.005)=0.00322
So for every mSv you receive your chance of getting cancer increases with 0.32% ....
So if you go in for a stomach CT scan (11mSv) you would get a cancer increase chance of 3.22%
Not sure how i feel about that - though of course this kind of calculation is ridiculous. I work in radiotherapy (and im able to make x ray images, scans and so on). Damage to DNA does not increase linearly with radiation dose.
And honestly... the smaller the dose the sketchier the %... Since its extremely difficult to measure low dose exposure to increased cancer risks.
That said, in Holland we allow radiation doses to patients regardless of the dose. We use the ALARA principle: As Low As Reasonably Achievable.
Non patients however, are only allowed to accumulate 1mSv of radiation from medical devices. This literally means that if you were to sit in the x-ray waiting room for the entire year, you would only receive 1mSv.... (so 0.32% seems acceptable to the government)
Technicians though... depending on the type you may either receive 20mSv or 5mSv a year, and we carry radiation badges recording that.
In a job where we were allowed 5, i received only 1-2mSv yearly (so 0.32 to 0.64%)
Still 5 to 20... is 1.61 to 6.44% ... thats quite something...
Disclaimer: Mind you, all back of the envelope calculations. It doesnt actually work that way! xD
Lets make just one more... horrible bit of information. So all people are legally protected to receive only so much radiation... Where else besides the hospital can you receive a higher dose than usual?
If you guessed in the airplane, you are correct!
Cosmic radiation is one of the strongest sources of background radiation, and the atmosphere and (some other mechanisms above that) shield us against these hard cosmic rays.
As you flight in your airplane, the atmosphere shields you less, and you receive more radiation...
First in comparison, whats the normal dose rate of background radiation on the ground? 5mSv a year, makes 0.57uSv/h (from milisievert a to microsiever, 1000x less).
Depending on your altitude and measuring device, you receive on average 6.0-3.0uSv/h which is over 10-5 times the normal...
Of course you dont spend your entire life at that altitude, and for passengers its not that big of a deal.
But what about the pilots and the cabinet crew? Dutch law makes an exception for these flyers. They are exempt and may receive more, and are not checked on which dose they actually get...
Grabbing some estimated numbers from various sites show that a pilot flying form USA to Europe 10x a month for 12 months receives 4.2mSv extra dose... So that about doubles their background dose...
@Jonah Bodnovits right?
this hair looks so much better on her
Like your new hair style, suits you! :)
Can cavernosography cause penile endothelial Injury due to diy material?
2:46 As usual you guys fck up... X-ray Technician speaking here!
In those 3 images, one does not belong~ The right one is MRI which uses magnets and radio antennas - it doesnt use x-rays.
Is it okay to have a twice xray in 1 month?
I hope you notice my message
dat mysterious laugh tho
Yes , We are called Technologist, not Technician. The explanation for "X" was skipped. "X" stands for UNKNOWN.
Who else just got X-rayed at the dentist?
I had an X-Ray at my Dentists recently. As soon as the Doc took the shot from across the room, I grabbed my jaw, screaming writhing in pain. Never seen anybody jump so high in my life.
Haha. I'm pure evil.
Nah
Oh my god she's beautiful. I'm in love
Wait so, I'm not _supposed_ to have another arm after my X-Ray?
That laugh at the start has to be from Trace.
question . Why do we use x-rays if theres other ways of looking trought humans like ultrasound ?
Great question- some body parts SHOULD be examined by ultrasound (US), as that is the modality which will demonstrate certain organs best. But certain conditions are not well demonstrated on US, and CT, angiography or MRI are more helpful. It is up to the physician to determine the best test for what they are trying to determine. Unfortunately, not a lot of time in med school is spent on that...for more information go to www.acr.org and look for "appropriateness" charts.
Thank you Soo much it's very informative ...I am from Pakistan....
That joke at the start…. Really corny, though I still laughed at it
thermal imaging is supposed to be more effective and safer.
Nice way to start my day (:!!
How does a MRI or CAT scan work?
...I have lower back pain. ....and doctors recommended me for x ray ....is it safe to do so .
NO GET MRI
Yes
This host is painfully attractive
That intro xD