Radiation Exposure

Some of those figures for medical doses are wrong. For example, whole body CT scan appears to give the same dose as and abdomen/pelvis scan, despite including more body in it.

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 24, 2012, 12:01:52 PM

Some of those figures for medical doses are wrong. For example, whole body CT scan appears to give the same dose as and abdomen/pelvis scan, despite including more body in it.

Just a little bit

How am I wrong to claim that the dose from having a whole body CT scan is more than the dose for just an abdomen/pelvis CT scan? Please do tell me, I'd love to hear your excuses.

Quote from: Tausami on March 24, 2012, 05:15:31 PM

Just a little bit

How am I wrong to claim that the dose from having a whole body CT scan is more than the dose for just an abdomen/pelvis CT scan? Please do tell me, I'd love to hear your excuses.

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 24, 2012, 05:17:57 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 24, 2012, 05:15:31 PM

Just a little bit

How am I wrong to claim that the dose from having a whole body CT scan is more than the dose for just an abdomen/pelvis CT scan? Please do tell me, I'd love to hear your excuses.

I just educated myself on the subject and found out why you're wrong.

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/ionizing.html#_1_4

That helps explain much.

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 24, 2012, 05:17:57 PM

How am I wrong to claim that the dose from having a whole body CT scan is more than the dose for just an abdomen/pelvis CT scan? Please do tell me, I'd love to hear your excuses.

From experience I can say that other people telling you what is right isn't going to work, so here is what is going to happen. I'm going to just say this:

What you said is horrendously incorrect.

After that, I'm just going to let it settle in for a while. I'm sure after a reasonable amount of time you might actually place effort into learning something and search for the truth on Google, use a library for the first time in your life, or ask a radiologist at you're nearest hospital. Now we can just sit back, watch, and enjoy the show. Begin!

Quote from: Lorddave on March 24, 2012, 09:18:53 PM

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 24, 2012, 05:17:57 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 24, 2012, 05:15:31 PM

Just a little bit

How am I wrong to claim that the dose from having a whole body CT scan is more than the dose for just an abdomen/pelvis CT scan? Please do tell me, I'd love to hear your excuses.

I just educated myself on the subject and found out why you're wrong.

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/ionizing.html#_1_4

That helps explain much.

Your link says nothing that disagrees with my statement that a whole body CT scan gives you more radiation dose than an abdomen/pelvis scan. See if you can keep failing like that and you'll go far here.

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 25, 2012, 04:04:40 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on March 24, 2012, 09:18:53 PM

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 24, 2012, 05:17:57 PM

Quote from: Tausami on March 24, 2012, 05:15:31 PM

Just a little bit

How am I wrong to claim that the dose from having a whole body CT scan is more than the dose for just an abdomen/pelvis CT scan? Please do tell me, I'd love to hear your excuses.

I just educated myself on the subject and found out why you're wrong.

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/ionizing.html#_1_4

That helps explain much.

Your link says nothing that disagrees with my statement that a whole body CT scan gives you more radiation dose than an abdomen/pelvis scan. See if you can keep failing like that and you'll go far here.

Because it's about how much energy is required to penetrate the area and not the volume of the area.

http://hps.org/physicians/documents/Doses_from_Medical_X-Ray_Procedures.pdf

Here's some more figures.
Note how the effective dosage changes not based on what part of the body you're scanning (or X-Raying) but what direction you're scanning.  That changes the required amount of radiation to penetrate the tissue.  If it were based on area, it wouldn't matter.

Now since a CT scan is essentially X-Rays from multiple angles, the angle become irrelevant.

So effective dosage is based on how much radiation is required to view whatever you're trying to view and not the area being viewed.

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2012, 07:04:03 AM

http://hps.org/physicians/documents/Doses_from_Medical_X-Ray_Procedures.pdf

Here's some more figures.
Note how the effective dosage changes not based on what part of the body you're scanning (or X-Raying) but what direction you're scanning.  That changes the required amount of radiation to penetrate the tissue.  If it were based on area, it wouldn't matter.

Now since a CT scan is essentially X-Rays from multiple angles, the angle become irrelevant.

So effective dosage is based on how much radiation is required to view whatever you're trying to view and not the area being viewed.

As I already said, if the radiation dosage needed to view the abdo/pelvis is X, and the radiation dosage needed to view the chest is Y, then the radiation dosage needed to view the whole body is X+Y. Going by the chart you provided, X=2000 and Y=800, so total dose would be 2800. That's more than 2000.
You can either be labelled a pinhead or a troll, I don't care which. Do you want to choose, or shall I?
Oh and btw I suspect the figures given are based on single slice scanner data due to the age of the references, rather than the multi slice scanners used these days, in which the dose figures are different but the same principles apply.

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 25, 2012, 07:20:55 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2012, 07:04:03 AM

http://hps.org/physicians/documents/Doses_from_Medical_X-Ray_Procedures.pdf

Here's some more figures.
Note how the effective dosage changes not based on what part of the body you're scanning (or X-Raying) but what direction you're scanning.  That changes the required amount of radiation to penetrate the tissue.  If it were based on area, it wouldn't matter.

Now since a CT scan is essentially X-Rays from multiple angles, the angle become irrelevant.

So effective dosage is based on how much radiation is required to view whatever you're trying to view and not the area being viewed.

As I already said, if the radiation dosage needed to view the abdo/pelvis is X, and the radiation dosage needed to view the chest is Y, then the radiation dosage needed to view the whole body is X+Y. Going by the chart you provided, X=2000 and Y=800, so total dose would be 2800. That's more than 2000.
You can either be labelled a pinhead or a troll, I don't care which. Do you want to choose, or shall I?
Oh and btw I suspect the figures given are based on single slice scanner data due to the age of the references, rather than the multi slice scanners used these days, in which the dose figures are different but the same principles apply.

Try using Google. I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong.

From experience I can say that other people telling you what is right isn't going to work

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2012, 07:04:03 AM

http://hps.org/physicians/documents/Doses_from_Medical_X-Ray_Procedures.pdf

Here's some more figures.
Note how the effective dosage changes not based on what part of the body you're scanning (or X-Raying) but what direction you're scanning.  That changes the required amount of radiation to penetrate the tissue.  If it were based on area, it wouldn't matter.

Now since a CT scan is essentially X-Rays from multiple angles, the angle become irrelevant.

So effective dosage is based on how much radiation is required to view whatever you're trying to view and not the area being viewed.

As I already said, if the radiation dosage needed to view the abdo/pelvis is X, and the radiation dosage needed to view the chest is Y, then the radiation dosage needed to view the whole body is X+Y. Going by the chart you provided, X=2000 and Y=800, so total dose would be 2800. That's more than 2000.
You can either be labelled a pinhead or a troll, I don't care which. Do you want to choose, or shall I?
Oh and btw I suspect the figures given are based on single slice scanner data due to the age of the references, rather than the multi slice scanners used these days, in which the dose figures are different but the same principles apply.

Wait....

Wouldn't any dose of radiation to any part of your body essentially spread to your other cells anyway regardless of where it was initially concentrated?

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 25, 2012, 07:20:55 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2012, 07:04:03 AM

http://hps.org/physicians/documents/Doses_from_Medical_X-Ray_Procedures.pdf

Here's some more figures.
Note how the effective dosage changes not based on what part of the body you're scanning (or X-Raying) but what direction you're scanning.  That changes the required amount of radiation to penetrate the tissue.  If it were based on area, it wouldn't matter.

Now since a CT scan is essentially X-Rays from multiple angles, the angle become irrelevant.

So effective dosage is based on how much radiation is required to view whatever you're trying to view and not the area being viewed.

As I already said, if the radiation dosage needed to view the abdo/pelvis is X, and the radiation dosage needed to view the chest is Y, then the radiation dosage needed to view the whole body is X+Y. Going by the chart you provided, X=2000 and Y=800, so total dose would be 2800. That's more than 2000.
You can either be labelled a pinhead or a troll, I don't care which. Do you want to choose, or shall I?
Oh and btw I suspect the figures given are based on single slice scanner data due to the age of the references, rather than the multi slice scanners used these days, in which the dose figures are different but the same principles apply.

Ummm... No.

If the radiation needed to view the Chest is X and the radiation needed to view the arm is Y and X>Y then if you use X then you get both.

It's like voltage.  If I need 60 volts to run something and 20 volts to run a connected item, then all I need to do is run 60 volts through the system.  The two items will both be run.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1208-measure-radiation-exposure.html
Look at that.
No where does it say "the area exposed".

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2012, 10:41:35 AM

Wait....

Wouldn't any dose of radiation to any part of your body essentially spread to your other cells anyway regardless of where it was initially concentrated?

Ehh, I don't think so. I don't know anyone that has gotten liver cancer for being out in the Sun for too long.

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2012, 10:30:27 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 25, 2012, 07:20:55 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2012, 07:04:03 AM

http://hps.org/physicians/documents/Doses_from_Medical_X-Ray_Procedures.pdf

Here's some more figures.
Note how the effective dosage changes not based on what part of the body you're scanning (or X-Raying) but what direction you're scanning.  That changes the required amount of radiation to penetrate the tissue.  If it were based on area, it wouldn't matter.

Now since a CT scan is essentially X-Rays from multiple angles, the angle become irrelevant.

So effective dosage is based on how much radiation is required to view whatever you're trying to view and not the area being viewed.

As I already said, if the radiation dosage needed to view the abdo/pelvis is X, and the radiation dosage needed to view the chest is Y, then the radiation dosage needed to view the whole body is X+Y. Going by the chart you provided, X=2000 and Y=800, so total dose would be 2800. That's more than 2000.
You can either be labelled a pinhead or a troll, I don't care which. Do you want to choose, or shall I?
Oh and btw I suspect the figures given are based on single slice scanner data due to the age of the references, rather than the multi slice scanners used these days, in which the dose figures are different but the same principles apply.

Ummm... No.

If the radiation needed to view the Chest is X and the radiation needed to view the arm is Y and X>Y then if you use X then you get both.

It's like voltage.  If I need 60 volts to run something and 20 volts to run a connected item, then all I need to do is run 60 volts through the system.  The two items will both be run.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1208-measure-radiation-exposure.html
Look at that.
No where does it say "the area exposed".

You don't understand how CT scanners actually work, do you? That is very, very clear from what you just posted. Do some research and then come back and act contrite.

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 25, 2012, 11:04:34 AM

You don't understand how CT scanners actually work, do you? That is very, very clear from what you just posted. Do some research and then come back and act contrite.

By taking X-Rays at short bursts across several angles and using several intensities to get variety of exposures which reveal various depths in the body, thus creating a 3 dimensional scan as opposed to a single angle and single exposure 2 Dimensional image.

Wait....

Wouldn't any dose of radiation to any part of your body essentially spread to your other cells anyway regardless of where it was initially concentrated?

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2012, 11:07:25 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 25, 2012, 11:04:34 AM

You don't understand how CT scanners actually work, do you? That is very, very clear from what you just posted. Do some research and then come back and act contrite.

By taking X-Rays at short bursts across several angles and using several intensities to get variety of exposures which reveal various depths in the body, thus creating a 3 dimensional scan as opposed to a single angle and single exposure 2 Dimensional image.

Well, if you've done enough research then you'll now understand why I'm correct that a whole body scan gives more dose than an abdo/pelvis scan, won't you? Do I get an apology for your accusations that I was wrong?

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 25, 2012, 11:16:53 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2012, 11:07:25 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 25, 2012, 11:04:34 AM

You don't understand how CT scanners actually work, do you? That is very, very clear from what you just posted. Do some research and then come back and act contrite.

By taking X-Rays at short bursts across several angles and using several intensities to get variety of exposures which reveal various depths in the body, thus creating a 3 dimensional scan as opposed to a single angle and single exposure 2 Dimensional image.

Well, if you've done enough research then you'll now understand why I'm correct that a whole body scan gives more dose than an abdo/pelvis scan, won't you? Do I get an apology for your accusations that I was wrong?

Nope.  All you've said is all charts of are wrong because there's more area to scan.  All my research has shown that area exposed is irrelevant.

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2012, 11:21:21 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 25, 2012, 11:16:53 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on March 25, 2012, 11:07:25 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 25, 2012, 11:04:34 AM

You don't understand how CT scanners actually work, do you? That is very, very clear from what you just posted. Do some research and then come back and act contrite.

By taking X-Rays at short bursts across several angles and using several intensities to get variety of exposures which reveal various depths in the body, thus creating a 3 dimensional scan as opposed to a single angle and single exposure 2 Dimensional image.

Well, if you've done enough research then you'll now understand why I'm correct that a whole body scan gives more dose than an abdo/pelvis scan, won't you? Do I get an apology for your accusations that I was wrong?

Nope.  All you've said is all charts of are wrong because there's more area to scan.  All my research has shown that area exposed is irrelevant.

Then you haven't really done the right research. Read up on how the machine itself actually works. Then you'll understand. Report back here when this task is completed.