| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Dentistry Forum » Radiation in X-Rays?
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:06 am |
|
|
|
|
On Jun 1, 12:16 am, The Webby <tmjiatroepide...@cox.net> wrote:
If you want "precise", you should look up the chapter in radiation
biology in Oral Radiology, written by White. The book explains how the
environment of a cell and xray techniques affects irradiation
outcomes.
But one particular dental school in the US had its radiologist teach
his students to use the sunlight/flight example for their lay
patients. It's not my job to convince anyone on usenet and, hence,
never prepared any specific references. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| The Webby |
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1180674398.435218.262970@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
seagate1556@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote: On Jun 1, 12:16 am, The Webby <tmjiatroepide...@cox.net> wrote:
Maybe "these guys" might have a more "precise" idea... ;-)
http://www.aaomr.org/omfr_career.php
Webby-
If you want "precise", you should look up the chapter in radiation
biology in Oral Radiology, written by White. The book explains how the
environment of a cell and xray techniques affects irradiation
outcomes.
But one particular dental school in the US had its radiologist teach
his students to use the sunlight/flight example for their lay
patients. It's not my job to convince anyone on usenet and, hence,
never prepared any specific references.
I've heard the explanation many times. I've read the explanation many
times here in smd over the years. However, it isn't often that you
actually know of someone or meet someone who is actually "at high risk
of developing radiation caused illness" because of exposure to
diagnostic radiation related to oral maxillofacial iatrogenic
illness/injury.
I am one of those rare people in that rare predicament. And the
university-people were the ones to make the determination.
.... for what it's worth,
Webby |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steven Fawks |
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
For example someone with a sun-tan is far less likely to suffer
Quote: further radiation damage from the Sun.
Less likely to get a burn, but that doesn't mean there is
such a thing as a 'healthy tan'.
;-)
Steve |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Newbie |
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:15:01 -0700, Simplicio <clintonz@prodigy.net> wrote:
Quote: On May 31, 11:53 am, seagate1...@hotmail.com wrote:
On May 29, 3:28 pm, Captain Infinity <Infin...@captaininfinity.us
wrote:
By now, of course, my teeth are glowing from all the radiation she's
pumped into me and my hair is falling out. I noticed that she stepped
outside the room each time she flipped the switch, so she's safe, but I
wonder just how long do I have before I die of brain cancer?
Rule of thumb :
Exposure to 19 dental xrays = 12 hours from being under the sun
Exposure to 1 panoramic xray = ~ 3 hrs from being under the sun
If you really think about, and realizing the analogy between sun
radiation
and x-rays getting a little dental radiation could actually prevent
harm. For example someone with a sun-tan is far less likely to suffer
further radiation damage from the Sun.
Ridiculous.
Newsflash, our star emits X-ray radiation.
Someone who regularly sun-tans is at a greater risk for skin
problems including skin cancer.
Radiation dosage is cumulative throughout life. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Newbie |
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:06:38 -0700, seagate1556@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote: On Jun 1, 12:16 am, The Webby <tmjiatroepide...@cox.net> wrote:
Maybe "these guys" might have a more "precise" idea... ;-)
http://www.aaomr.org/omfr_career.php
Webby-
If you want "precise", you should look up the chapter in radiation
biology in Oral Radiology, written by White. The book explains how the
environment of a cell and xray techniques affects irradiation
outcomes.
But one particular dental school in the US had its radiologist teach
his students to use the sunlight/flight example for their lay
patients. It's not my job to convince anyone on usenet and, hence,
never prepared any specific references.
But...
In SMD this is not considered good form.
Us regs like to have something a little more solid
to go on than analogy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steven Bornfeld |
| Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Newbie wrote:
Quote: On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:06:38 -0700, seagate1556@hotmail.com wrote:
On Jun 1, 12:16 am, The Webby <tmjiatroepide...@cox.net> wrote:
Maybe "these guys" might have a more "precise" idea... ;-)
http://www.aaomr.org/omfr_career.php
Webby-
If you want "precise", you should look up the chapter in radiation
biology in Oral Radiology, written by White. The book explains how the
environment of a cell and xray techniques affects irradiation
outcomes.
But one particular dental school in the US had its radiologist teach
his students to use the sunlight/flight example for their lay
patients. It's not my job to convince anyone on usenet and, hence,
never prepared any specific references.
But...
In SMD this is not considered good form.
Us regs like to have something a little more solid
to go on than analogy.
I found radiation hygiene to actually be a surprisingly fascinating
field for literature study. I did a literature review for this during
my residency. Unfortunately, lost all the monographs from an agency
that published widely on specific issues.
Even photoemulsion films are responsible for a much lower dose than
they were. Not only are they faster, but the old low kV machines have
been outlawed. I'm old enough to have had one of those old black
Phillips Oralix machines with the pointy cone. It was a 40 kV
machine--obviously no longer acceptable. It was a workhorse though.
Many of those old comparisons between diagnostic radiation and
background radiation I believe were liberally inferred from data
collected from where most of it was collected in the postwar
years--survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Problem is we don't have
uniform body doses, and some phenomena of radiation effects are tough to
translate. For example, there are threshold and non-threshold effects.
IIRC, cataract formation is a threshold effect; it requires single or
multiple exposures individually above a certain dose. Leukemogenesis is
believed to be a NON-threshold effect--there is no "safe dose" as
such--the higher the dose, the higher the risk.
This is analogous to actinic radiation and skin cancer, where basal
cell and squamous cell cancers tend to correlate with chronic
overexposure to the sun; melanomas in some studies correlate to single
very severe burns.
Steve |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vaughn Simon |
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltwinmung@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Tt%7i.21324$3P3.609@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Quote: Problem is we don't have uniform body doses, and some phenomena of radiation
effects are tough to translate.
Exactly true. Older dental x-ray equipment can deliver a rather high local
dose (>1 REM as I recall). Any attempt to translate a local dose into an
"equivalent" whole-body dose has always seemed silly to me because the exposure
(and the potential damage) are concentrated in a relatively small part of the
body and have little to do with the unexposed part of the body. For example:
Try explaining to the accident victim who had a tooth knocked out that "on a
whole body basis" the blow he took was actually negligible and he needn't be
concerned.
Additionally, attempts to translate the radiation dose away from actual
units and into something like "Sunshine Units" is simply substituting public
relations for science. In my opinion, that is always a terrible trade.
Vaughn |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| JimSocal |
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Interesting discussion - I hope you all agree that the xray technician
or dentist taking the xrays should be careful and not make mistakes so
that xrays have to be re-done, exposing the patient to more xrays than
should be necessary. Yes, of course, mistakes will happen, and it's
not always easy to get the correct angle, etc..
But I've just noticed dentists making mistakes on these routinely, as
if it doesn't matter, and that is what irks me.
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:45:20 GMT, Newbie <nox@bix.nex> wrote:
Quote: On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:15:01 -0700, Simplicio <clintonz@prodigy.net> wrote:
On May 31, 11:53 am, seagate1...@hotmail.com wrote:
On May 29, 3:28 pm, Captain Infinity <Infin...@captaininfinity.us
wrote:
By now, of course, my teeth are glowing from all the radiation she's
pumped into me and my hair is falling out. I noticed that she stepped
outside the room each time she flipped the switch, so she's safe, but I
wonder just how long do I have before I die of brain cancer?
Rule of thumb :
Exposure to 19 dental xrays = 12 hours from being under the sun
Exposure to 1 panoramic xray = ~ 3 hrs from being under the sun
If you really think about, and realizing the analogy between sun
radiation
and x-rays getting a little dental radiation could actually prevent
harm. For example someone with a sun-tan is far less likely to suffer
further radiation damage from the Sun.
Ridiculous.
Newsflash, our star emits X-ray radiation.
Someone who regularly sun-tans is at a greater risk for skin
problems including skin cancer.
Radiation dosage is cumulative throughout life.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:40 pm
|
|