Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (341047)	1/2/2010 4:38:22 PM
From: skinowski	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

I can't argue about this, LB. I'm looking at the cardiology issue of an ACP publication which came out some time last August or September. Looking at their bibliography, I see that the studies on which they base their tables were published between 2005 and 2007. Maybe things improved since then. Wiki still lists fairly high exposures (note that a Chest Xray here is "10"): ""Typical scan doses Examination Typical effective dose (mSv) (milli rem) Chest X-ray 0.1 10 Head CT 1.5[18] 150 Screening mammography 3[10] 300 Abdomen CT 5.3[18] 530 Chest CT 5.8[18] 580 Chest, Abdomen and Pelvis CT 9.9[18] 990 CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy) 3.6–8.8 360–880 Cardiac CT angiogram 6.7-13[19] 670–1300 Barium enema 15[10] 1500 Neonatal abdominal CT 20[10] 2000 "" They also mention ways to reduce exposure: "New software technology can significantly reduce the radiation dose. The software works as a filter that reduces random noise and enhances structures. In this way, it is possible to get high-quality images and at the same time lower the dose by as much as 30 to 70 percent." en.wikipedia.org