Hi..
im radiographer.
will i consider as health care
Calling all LYN Healthcare Professionals, and people who are sick...
Calling all LYN Healthcare Professionals, and people who are sick...
|
|
Apr 1 2012, 05:18 PM
Return to original view | Post
#1
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,853 posts Joined: Feb 2010 |
Hi..
im radiographer. will i consider as health care |
|
|
Apr 3 2012, 03:49 PM
Return to original view | Post
#2
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,853 posts Joined: Feb 2010 |
QUOTE(Tham @ Apr 2 2012, 08:16 PM) X-rays are part of healthcare as a diagnostic tool. Almost everyone 100kv 2mAshas had an x-ray at some point in their lives. This "tidakapa" young female radiographer, Jessica, in Tung Shin Hospital last week was practically "screwed" left and right by me in front of the whole department, when she didn't bother to listen to my request to lower the power to the minimum dose possible, and just fired away. I told her that she was playing around with my life, as even a single exposure of gamma rays puts one at risk of lung cancer, and if I were to contract small cell lung cancer, even suing her would be pointless since that carries a prognosis of one month without treatment, or 10 months with chemo. The reason is I have to have a chest x-ray every two to three months as part of the doctor's monitoring of my TB treatment, for a total of 6 exposures. That's a lot of radiation, at about 10 millirads an exposure. I found out later from another more responsible radiographer there, Mubarak, who had shot the last film for me two months ago, that she had shot at 100 kv for 2 milliseconds. Isn't that high ? I remember my father's chest x-ray done at the same hospital over a decade ago was done at only 40 kv. is pretty good to me.. they are practicing high kV technique thus they can lower the time of exposure to the patient if you work to any government xray department ; for normal exposure for chest xray , is around 64kVp 4mAs 1 more thing , normal xray examination will not / very very low posibilities to cause any harm. |
|
|
Apr 4 2012, 12:17 AM
Return to original view | Post
#3
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,853 posts Joined: Feb 2010 |
QUOTE(Blofeld @ Apr 3 2012, 11:35 PM) I'm not a doctor but I agree with queenc. but if you use Dr or Cr = digital radiography , the radiographer might use higher dose and long exposure because they can edit the pic (contrast and brightness ) like photoshop.I remember being told by my doctor that the higher the radiation dose, the clearer the x-ray image will be. Can't remember if I hear that correctly. Correct me if I'm wrong, I remember reading somewhere that taking one chest x-ray is equivalent to being exposed to background radiation for one month. In fact, we are being exposed to radiation every single day. The more dangerous thing is the CT scan. Instead, the chest x-ray doesn't really pose any harm at all. There was once I took a digital chest x-ray (that's the term that I was told, which contain a lower radiation dose) at a private hospital. As a result, my doctor was having some hard time reading and comparing the x-ray because it was not as clear as another earlier x-ray which I took at a government hospital which has a much clearer image. normal chest xray = 3day enviroment exposure. ct-scan and fluoroscopy more dangerous |
| Change to: | 0.0220sec
0.09
7 queries
GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 2nd December 2025 - 03:01 AM |