| ▲ | ramraj07 5 days ago |
| A. Newer CT scan machines use lower radiation doses. B. If you're getting only one scan a year you're fine and within yearly limits of radiation dosage considered acceptable. Remember that you'll get comparable levels of radiation even if you commute through the grand central station every day. This paper is for lack of a better word, crap. It's becoming sensational for the conclusion it makes and I'm afraid it's now going to create more harm because of that. |
|
| ▲ | behnamoh 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > B. If you're getting only one scan a year you're fine and within yearly limits of radiation dosage considered acceptable. But doesn't it make a difference if that "acceptable yearly limit" is spread out throughout the year as opposed to a few minutes of CT scan session? |
| |
|
| ▲ | dwroberts 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I had a CT of my pelvis and abdomen recently and worked out it was equivalent to about 5 years worth of background radiation. The dose required is actually quite a lot higher than typical comparisons to eg chest X-rays and the like |
|
| ▲ | declan_roberts 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What about contrast? I've heard it's really hard on your thyroid. |
| |
|
| ▲ | uh_uh 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Remember that you'll get comparable levels of radiation even if you commute through the grand central station every day. Gemini says this: > A single typical CT scan delivers a dose that is roughly 1,000 to over 5,000 times higher than the dose you'd get from spending a few hours in Grand Central Terminal. Where did you get that from? |
| |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If the hallucination machine can cite a source, check and cite that for facts, but don't cite the hallucination machine. | | |
| ▲ | uh_uh 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Weird you don't have this requirement for the OP spewing his urban myths above. | | |
| ▲ | ssl-3 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Human hallucinations are natural. Machine hallucinations are avoidable. | | |
| ▲ | uh_uh 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Was it hallucinating here, or are the commenters hallucinating? What OP is saying is just not true. A CT scan and normal daily commute in Grand Central station are NOT comparable in terms of radiation received. Somehow this is controversial because an AI said it? | | |
| ▲ | ssl-3 5 days ago | parent [-] | | The machine appears to have hallucinated the incomparable comparison, instead of a human. (And I'm not picking on the machine at all here. I use it all the time. At first, I used to treat it like an idiot intern that shouldn't have been hired at all: Creative and full of spirit, but untrustworthy and all ideas need to be filtered. But lately, it's more like an decent apprentice who has a hangover and isn't thinking straight today. The machine has been getting better as time presses on, but it still goes rather aloof from time to time.) | | |
| ▲ | uh_uh a day ago | parent [-] | | I don't understand how was the machine hallucinating? |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Guvante 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Did you actually discredit someone or have you not properly considered your units in this response? Commute through the Grand Central station everyday is certainly not a few hours. And people don't tend to get a CT scan very frequently so the timeline here is massive. | | |
| ▲ | uh_uh 5 days ago | parent [-] | | In your opinion how many hours spent in Grand Central station equal the radiation received from a CT scan? | | |
| ▲ | itishappy 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Somewhere between 7 and 700 days. CT Scan: 10-1000 mrem Grand Central Station: 525 mrem / yr https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED297952.pdf | | |
| ▲ | uh_uh 5 days ago | parent [-] | | So OP's statement is true for people who live IN the station. | | |
| ▲ | itishappy 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's roughly 40 min per workday over a typical year. That's a bit high but not unreasonably so. | | |
| ▲ | uh_uh 5 days ago | parent [-] | | That would amount to 10 mrem of radiation per year. I don't believe this is a realistic estimate for a CT scan though. From epa.gov [1]: - Head CT: 2.0 mSv (200 mrem) - Chest CT: 8.0 mSv (800 mrem) - Abdomen CT: 10 mSv (1,000 mrem) - Pelvis CT: 10 mSv (1,000 mrem) So for a head CT, one would need to spend more than 13 hours per workday in the station. OP was off at least an order of magnitude. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/frequent-questions-radiation-m... | | |
| ▲ | riahi 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This data is from 2006. Over 20 years, there has been substantial progress in CT radiation reduction through model-based iterative reconstruction and now ML-assisted reconstruction, aside from iterative advances in detector sensitivity and now photon-counting CT. In clinical practice, those doses are about 2-3x what I see on the machine dose reports every day at my place of work. In thin patients who can hold still, I've done full-cycle cardiac CT and achieved a < 1 mSv dose. We are always trying to get the dose down while still being diagnostic. Source: Practicing radiologist. | |
| ▲ | itishappy 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Fair enough. That was the first number I pulled from Google, but I trust your source a good deal more. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ramraj07 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I used the word comparable. Given they are in the same ballpark of log scale i stand vindicated in my opinion. Also there's an apple store there. RIP all the geniuses there i suppose |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ramraj07 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | So if you pass through GCT every day it does become comparable to a CT scan? |
|
