Since January 2002 I have had the following x-rays: 5 chest, 6 of the left shoulder, two of the hands and one CT scan of the chest plus a bone mineral density test.
A chest x-ray was recently ordered for me, and after hearing the amount of exposures I have had, the technician suggested further radiation exposure, at this time, is not an altogether good thing. The recent chest x-ray was to determine if I was developing a lung infection.
I am a 58 year old male and have had pneumonia and a rotator cuff tear over the above described time.
"Fifty Hertz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Any input would be appreciated.
According to dermatologists, UV rays, which are ionizing radiation, cause permanent damage to skin.
X rays, which are ionizing radiation, would cause permanent damage to tissues also. Am I correct?
X rays can reach neurons. I yet ignore how neurons react to ionization damage, since, unlike skin cells which reproduce, neurons are often irreplaceable.
"Fifty Hertz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]- .com>...
Quoted message said:
Any input would be appreciated.
According to dermatologists, UV rays, which are ionizing radiation, cause permanent damage to skin.
X rays, which are ionizing radiation, would cause permanent damage to tissues also. Am I correct?
X rays can reach neurons. I yet ignore how neurons react to ionization damage, since, unlike skin cells which reproduce, neurons are often irreplaceable.
X-rays of course can damage living tissue. However, unlike UV which is mostly absorbed by the skin, modern diagnostic x-rays are little absorbed by soft tissue. Furthermore, modern x-ray photoemulsions are so sensitive that the actual radiation dose from diagnostic x-rays is very low. Intensifying screens and new digital technology lower actual radiation doses further Some tissues are more sensitive than others to damage from x-rays--eg. lymphatic tissues, gonads, thyroid would be expected to be more sensitive than most other tissues. X-rays should only be used when the anticipated benefit outweighs the perceived risk. Given that the actual risk from x-rays is very low, if the x-rays are useful in the given application they should usually be used. Sometimes the calculation of risk/benefit becomes almost philosophical, as in use of x-rays as a screening rather than a purely diagnostic tool. This accounts for the changing recommendations for age at which women should begin getting and frequency of mammograms. But if these tests are used mindfully and where appropriate, I don't think the patient has anything to worry about.
