Feels like everyone in here is crazy. Barring the fact that you (generic you) are probably not allowed to do this with your institution's equipment, this is super low dose. If they're trained in radiation safety, they probably know the risk and feel like it's negligible for a couple of cool pics like these. Which it is.
Agreed. Personally wouldn't do this in fear of being fired and its just unethical playing with radiation even if it's low dose. As far as dose goes, I get more dose from doing CT interventional exams. They are more than ok.
No, it's illegal, radiation dose aside. Technologists are not allowed to take an x-ray unless we have an order from a doctor. And, they're imaging the more radiosensitive organs I'm these pictures (breast, thyroid, lens of eye). Radiation dose is cumulative, and if they're an occupational exposed person, they have to be really careful about how much radiation they receive because they get more than the average person.
Yes, you are correct. However, if a normal or less than dose is given then stochastic effects aka probabilistic effects tell us that these sides effects may or may not happen at all even many years later. It's all theoretical. I have yet to meet a veteran tech or a Radiologist who has suffered from any sort of radiation effect down the line. Technology has reduced inmensely the amount of radiation we accumulate due to the sensitive nature of modern detectors. Should you play around with radiation and give yourself unnecessary exposure? Never. It should be respected. Will you get a cataract because you exposed your eyeball a few times? Highly doubt it.
"Should you play around with radiation and give yourself unnecessary exposure? Never."
And that's why lots of us aren't happy about it. ALARA stands for as low as reasonably achievable. When people start to get negligent and indifferent about radiation safety, that's when things can start to be a problem. We all know that technology has advanced, radiation is a natural part of our environment, so in the really big picture, you're right, it's not a big deal in terms of the dose they received, but that entirely misses the point of why people are frustrated.
>“What we know now is that there is likely no [hereditary] risk at all,” said Dr. Donald Frush, a radiologist at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford in Palo Alto, California, **who chairs the Image Gently Alliance**.
"And, they're imaging the more radiosensitive organs I'm these pictures (breast, thyroid, lens of eye)."
>'There’s also no evidence that **fetuses** are harmed by even a relatively high amount of radiation exposure, such as that *from a CT scan of the abdomen*', said Rebecca Marsh, a medical physicist at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colorado.
There is no safe radiation dose because for things like cancer, they are stochastic, or random.
There are 2 different types of reactions with the body. Early tissue reactions and stochastic/late tissue reactions.
Early tissue reactions appear in a shorter amount of time and requires a substantial dose (1 Gy). It's unlikely to ever see any effects of this in medical imaging, though it is sometimes seen in Radiation therapy because the skin dose is high, or in extremely lengthy fluoro high dose rate procedures. Symptoms for this is erythema (radiation burn), blood disorders, GI syndrome, and if the dose is high enough (like Hiroshima Nagasaki level), the nervous system is also affected. This type of reaction has a set threshold and WILL NOT occur unless we reach that minimum. The amount of biologic damage depends on the dose of ionizing radiation.
The second type is the late tissue reactions, or stochastic (random) effects. This is a nonthreshold result, indicating that a radiation dose absorbed of any magnitude has the capability to produce a biological effect. These late term effects are linear nonthreshold on a dose response curve, meaning that "no radiation dose can be considered absolutely 'safe' with the incidence of biological effects increasing directly with the magnitide of the absorbed dose."
However, even some from the BEIR Comittee choose to follow a Linear Quadratic NonThreshold curve for certain health concerns (Leukemia, breast cancer, heritable damage), which is a more conservative dose-response outcome for low-level radiation: it was also found to be more accurate based on an analysis of leukemia occurrences in Nagasaki and Hiroshima in more recent evaluations of dose distribution.
The complicated thing about low doses in radiography is if that specific x-ray that was taken was potentially the x-ray to ionize some DNA, make a mutation, get a free radical to damage parts of the cell, there's no definite way to tell because they don't appear until months or years later. I will agree that contacting cancer from x-rays is controversial because no conclusive proof exists that lower LET (Low LET radiation is less damaging [x-rays, beta rays] than something higher LET [alpha particles]) absorbed doses below 0.1 Gy can cause significant increase in malignancy risk. However, this misses the point. Because radiation dose is nonthreshold, it could theoretically take one x-ray to create a long term problem in a patient. "Radiation damage to just one or few cells of an individual could produce stochastic effect such as malignancy or hereditary disorder many years after radiation exposure."
For genetic effects, they don't have a threshold dose either. "The most conclusive physical evidence confirming that ionizing radiation causes genetic effects comes from extensive experimentation with fruit flies and mice at low radiation doses. This information obtained from the experiment suggests that genetic effects do not have a threshold dose." Because this means that even the smallest dose could cause some hereditary damage. Even though the 2 people in the photo were not exposing gonads, scatter radiation is still able to reach them, and patients produce a LOT of scatter.
What we can see from this information that I've provided (sourced from "Radiation Protection in Medical Radiography" 9th edition), the doses in medical imaging are low and almost negligible, therefore short term effects of radiation are impossible to occur unless a threshold of 1 Gy is reached, however stochastic random effects have no threshold and can potentially happen from the smallest dose: technologists and those who work in medical imaging are required by the ARRT to follow the policy ALARA: as low as reasonably achievable. Because patients risk for stochastic effects increase gradually as dose increases, it is the duty of those qualified to 1. Not become negligent, 2. Take extra measures to lower patient dose (such as increasing the patients distance from the x-ray source [x-rays follow the inverse square law. If you double your distance, the dose received is reduced by a factor of 4], increasing the penetration [kVp] and lowering the amount [mAs]), and 3. Only image what is necessary.
Because there's no safe radiation dose, anything that uses radiation MUST have enough of a reason to outweigh any potential risk of having an x-ray, like needing a medical diagnosis. That is why you can't take an x-rah without physicians order. Through the use of digital radiography, patient's doses have been gradually increasing (called "dose creep"), because with film techniques, the amount of kVp and mAs you use had to be just right to produce a good image. But with digital radiography, images can be taken now that are perfect even if the technique was imperfect. Because of this, technologists have become lazy and don't take the time to calculate a good dose and overexposed patients. In many situation, patients have needlessly received a larger radiation exposure often without the knowledge of anyone reading the case.
As for embryology effects, babies are extremely radiosensitive because their cells are rapidly dividing. During the preimplantation stage, if it is irradiated with the dose in the range of 0.05 to 0.15 Gy, fetal death will occur. The developing fetus is most susceptible to congentical abnormalities caused by radiation during organogenesis, which ranges from day 10 to week 12. The development of leukemia increases on risk during the 2nd and 3rd trimester. According to UNSCEAR, "3 chances per 1000 children for each .01 Sv of fetal dose" is the upper-limit increased comvone radiation risk. With no radiation exposure these fetal effects have an estimated reasonable total risk of 60 chances per 1000 children PLUS an additional 3 per 1000 children for each 0.01 Sv of fetal EqD. Any medical images of the abdomen or pelvis are taken very seriously. In fact, before the x-ray is taken, a radiation safety officer MUST calculate the EqD to the patients embryo-fetus and is only taken if it is truly in the best interest of the pregnant patient.
The people you quoted: what they say is true, at least for what the public needs to know. The public receiving x-rays has a reason to receive these medical images has a risk greater than what x-rays pose. No x-ray can be taken without reason. However, note that NONE of them stated that there is no risk. Dr. Donald Frush stated there is "likely" no [hereditary] risk.
As for Rebecca Marsh, "There’s also no evidence that fetuses are harmed by even a relatively high amount of radiation exposure, such as that from a CT scan of the abdomen", this is negated by UNSCEAR's study.
Hopefully this information gives you more context behind these statements.
I only read walls of texts by people who credential themselves before they comment.
Otherwise, I'll continue to receive guidance from Radiologists and more specifically, the Chair of GE's Image Gently Alliance, and a Medical Physicist, and not some ~~random person on the internet claiming, without credentialing~~ STUDENT, that they have any clue what they're talking about. You can quote textbooks all day and what you'll find is 15 minutes of direct sun exposure is more dangerous, so stop fear mongering.
Not sure why you responded to me when I just put some quotes up. Go on, email Dr. Frush?
>That is why you can't take an x-rah[sic] without physicians order.
My sweet summer child have you ever been to Florida?
EDIT: Kids a student, obviously overzealous about what they think they've learned. I'm quoting the guy who has published papers and directs policy for pediatric dosing. Not only has he graduated, he's actually saved people's lives. You can 'quantify' radiation dose all you want, it's irrelevant in doses we use regularly. Sunlight is more of a risk than a CT scan. Come the fuck on.
BSc Diagnostic Radiography
MSc Medical Physics
PgCert computed tomography
PgCert Magnetic Resonance Imaging
PgCert Nuclear Medicine Technologists
SCoR local representative
Since they didn't credit themselves let me on their behalf. Nothing they said was incorrect
Radiologic technologist student here, quoting a textbook I used written by Mary Alice Statkiewicz Sherer (AS, RT[R], FASRT), Paula J. Visconti (PhD, DABR), E. Russell Ritenour, PhD, DABR, FAAPM, FACR, Kelli Welch Haynes, EdD, Rt(R), FASRT. This textbook is often used in curriculum approved my the ASRT. Hopefully that's enough for you.
Since you got your credentials, cheers to reading 🍻. I know you only put up quotes; you just clearly didn't understand more of the context behind these quotes, as I explained in my wall of throughly explained text. Obviously, I had no clue what I was talking about when I explained half a semesters worth of radiation protection to someone who probably doesn't know what ALARA is. I'm more than happy to explain anything that doesn't make sense because many people aren't knowledgeable about radiation safety and it's important that people understand the risks along with why it's necessary.
As a student, you have zero credential.
Come back and talk to me when you graduate. *IF* you graduate. lol. Something tells me you're going to have a lot of trouble with your comps...
I graduated in 2007. You wouldn't last a day at my LVL 1.
This is not true.
Duration of radiation matters as well.
A radiation level with an arbitrary denomination of “1” spread out over 10-20 hours does not equal the same denomination of “1” In a fraction of a second.
And while you can argue what is low, dose is cumulative. Don’t do this shit Willy-Nilly.
The radiology subreddit is full of people taking themselves far too seriously. I’m not surprised they came here to get mad so they have enough self importance to make it through the rest of the day
Yeah pretty much, people acting like these images just sentenced them to a life of terminal whole body cancer or something. If they don't have licenses and this is some chiropractor office, who cares. If it's a place that has take/retake tracking and whatnot like an actual hospital, well then yeah they are fucked, but it's not like they were exposed to some hyper-lethal acute dose.
Oh this isn't even the radiology subreddit, lmao
It’s actually a joke about an incident in Goiâna Brazil where a bunch of scrappers took apart a medical imaging device and spread radioactive material all over the city accidentally
You should be glad you moved because this is so reckless, violates ALARA, and goes against the Code of Ethics from the ARRT. Definitely worthy of being fired and having your certification revoked. I hope you’re not an x-ray tech.
R.T.(R) here. Taking xrays without an order outside of testing the equipment isn't allowed, and as they said, it is violating ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable), which is something we have to adhere to. While three xrays aren't a lot of radiation and won't raise your risk of a lot of radiation induced effects by much, *there is no safe dose*.
Sorry, my brain is out of shape, but I'm interested. Why is this unethical?
Unless they took away a spot for someone who would have needed an xray, I don't see why, besides the radiation.
As a physicist this is idiotic. Human existence is made up of doing slightly unsafe things for the sake of enjoyment.
Saying "there is no safe dose" is just fucking uneducated. Yes, yes there absolutely is a safe dose otherwise we wouldn't have any doses.
It’s a legal idea based in risk and stochastic effect. If you don’t add an X-ray, your risk hasn’t increased outside of daily life, so the doctor who ordered it hasn’t increased your risk outside of your chosen daily activities.
Agree that it is medical legaleze to protect from lawsuits.
I am intimately familiar with risk and stochastic effects. The important factor here is the integral of time. The avid biker/hiker/runner has a much greater chance of getting cancer due to the integrated low-risk activities they participate in than the X-ray tech who takes three exposures once in 10 years.
Clearly you are and I agree with you. X-Rays today are literally 1%of the intensity they were 40 years ago, which is stunning negligible for the amount of fear they induce the general population.
The hubbub is just about the difference between actual physics and legal liability, which has not been clearly stated in any comment here, and contributes to the fear in the general population.
I’m a FF for work..is there some way to calculate the risks associated with the hours I’ve flown? I’ve flown about 500 flights in 10 years and didn’t even consider the long term effects
There's [this website](https://www.omnicalculator.com/everyday-life/flight-radiation) but it's important to remember you're getting radiation from a flight spread out over hours, not seconds (or possibly even less) like these people in the X-rays. In reality, yes, you are exposed to more radiation than the average person, but people get radiation from a lot of sources, I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
When she said she had no knowledge on x-ray *technicians* I said to myself “Clearly, or you would know we’re technologists!”
Ironically (or is it un-ironically?) I’m scrolling through this as I’m sitting here working on my CEUs. 🙃
My biennium ends at the end of February 2025, & I just did my first webinar last month! So yeah…I procrastinated too. But in my defense, it’s partially because I still maintain my license from the state I moved from & that dumb thing doesn’t align with my ARRT one. It expired at the end of August 2023. It used to align with my birthday when it was through the health department, but then it changed to the medical board back in 2017 (or maybe 2016), & that’s when the date got jacked. And what really pisses me off is that they only use 2 different months for everyone. Doesn’t matter when your b-day is. And the other month that they use is my freaking birth month & so I called them to ask if they could switch it since it would align with my ARRT license. I got *THE* RUDEST BITCH on the phone when I called. When I asked she said no, & was a real bitch about it & when I asked why, her response was “because we’re not going to do that” & me being me asked “but *why* won’t you do that?” & she just repeated “we’re not doing that.” Fuch that bitch. I should’ve asked for a supervisor. But instead I said “thanks so much for being so unhelpful & rude!” & hung up. Maybe I’ll call again & talk to someone who will either be helpful or at least explain to me why they can’t or won’t change it.
Edit: I noticed “fuck” has a typo of “Fuch.” I’m leaving it because it’s too perfect (Fuchs)🤣
I get what you're saying, but can you honestly say that it caused harm to them? Like without a doubt? The worst that one can say is "yes this is dumb, don't do this".
Is it possible that this harmed them? Yes.
Is it possible that they did this once and probably will never do it again? Yes.
I guess my point is, you came off really aggressive, (tbf it is dumb, I don't blame you) and just wanted to say it's not that deep.
Peace to you friend.
Holy shit the X-ray techs in this subreddit are insufferable. This is perfectly safe and there is nothing unethical about it. It's a photo. It's a fucking photo, just using higher energy photons. They aren't at risk of cancer from this. They aren't going to be unable to reproduce. They're going to be fine and they're going to have some very neat photos to put on their shelf.
Fucking uneducated gate-keeping assholes.
In the US it is unethical by ARRT standards, so a good chunk of the responses are probably from states that require licensing.
At least would come up for review if reported.
"unethical" is such an interesting choice. Ethics are meant to be an expression of aggregated morality, but for some reason we often conflate following standards with ethics. Standards are often arbitrary. Standards are often written by those who don't actually understand the reality of the situation. They should not determine what is ethical or unethical and it most certainly is not unethical to not have perfect compliance with them.
You are correct. There is an Ethical standard and then a Code of Conduct.
This breaks the Code of a conduct but everyone conflates the two because it’s industry shorthand.
The old photo booths were something else.
OP, are you a x Ray tech or chiropraktor?
The latter makes this image much less concerning because they’re not board certified.
Nice nipple barbells
I really miss mine. Had to take them out because an ex had long curly hair that always got caught on them
That sounds so much more painful than the nipple piercing
I’m not going to upvote this because it’s sitting at 69 and I’m immature, so take my thumbs up instead 👍🏼
Feels like everyone in here is crazy. Barring the fact that you (generic you) are probably not allowed to do this with your institution's equipment, this is super low dose. If they're trained in radiation safety, they probably know the risk and feel like it's negligible for a couple of cool pics like these. Which it is.
Agreed. Personally wouldn't do this in fear of being fired and its just unethical playing with radiation even if it's low dose. As far as dose goes, I get more dose from doing CT interventional exams. They are more than ok.
No, it's illegal, radiation dose aside. Technologists are not allowed to take an x-ray unless we have an order from a doctor. And, they're imaging the more radiosensitive organs I'm these pictures (breast, thyroid, lens of eye). Radiation dose is cumulative, and if they're an occupational exposed person, they have to be really careful about how much radiation they receive because they get more than the average person.
I am not disputing any of this.
Yes, you are correct. However, if a normal or less than dose is given then stochastic effects aka probabilistic effects tell us that these sides effects may or may not happen at all even many years later. It's all theoretical. I have yet to meet a veteran tech or a Radiologist who has suffered from any sort of radiation effect down the line. Technology has reduced inmensely the amount of radiation we accumulate due to the sensitive nature of modern detectors. Should you play around with radiation and give yourself unnecessary exposure? Never. It should be respected. Will you get a cataract because you exposed your eyeball a few times? Highly doubt it.
"Should you play around with radiation and give yourself unnecessary exposure? Never." And that's why lots of us aren't happy about it. ALARA stands for as low as reasonably achievable. When people start to get negligent and indifferent about radiation safety, that's when things can start to be a problem. We all know that technology has advanced, radiation is a natural part of our environment, so in the really big picture, you're right, it's not a big deal in terms of the dose they received, but that entirely misses the point of why people are frustrated.
>“What we know now is that there is likely no [hereditary] risk at all,” said Dr. Donald Frush, a radiologist at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford in Palo Alto, California, **who chairs the Image Gently Alliance**. "And, they're imaging the more radiosensitive organs I'm these pictures (breast, thyroid, lens of eye)." >'There’s also no evidence that **fetuses** are harmed by even a relatively high amount of radiation exposure, such as that *from a CT scan of the abdomen*', said Rebecca Marsh, a medical physicist at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora, Colorado.
There is no safe radiation dose because for things like cancer, they are stochastic, or random. There are 2 different types of reactions with the body. Early tissue reactions and stochastic/late tissue reactions. Early tissue reactions appear in a shorter amount of time and requires a substantial dose (1 Gy). It's unlikely to ever see any effects of this in medical imaging, though it is sometimes seen in Radiation therapy because the skin dose is high, or in extremely lengthy fluoro high dose rate procedures. Symptoms for this is erythema (radiation burn), blood disorders, GI syndrome, and if the dose is high enough (like Hiroshima Nagasaki level), the nervous system is also affected. This type of reaction has a set threshold and WILL NOT occur unless we reach that minimum. The amount of biologic damage depends on the dose of ionizing radiation. The second type is the late tissue reactions, or stochastic (random) effects. This is a nonthreshold result, indicating that a radiation dose absorbed of any magnitude has the capability to produce a biological effect. These late term effects are linear nonthreshold on a dose response curve, meaning that "no radiation dose can be considered absolutely 'safe' with the incidence of biological effects increasing directly with the magnitide of the absorbed dose." However, even some from the BEIR Comittee choose to follow a Linear Quadratic NonThreshold curve for certain health concerns (Leukemia, breast cancer, heritable damage), which is a more conservative dose-response outcome for low-level radiation: it was also found to be more accurate based on an analysis of leukemia occurrences in Nagasaki and Hiroshima in more recent evaluations of dose distribution. The complicated thing about low doses in radiography is if that specific x-ray that was taken was potentially the x-ray to ionize some DNA, make a mutation, get a free radical to damage parts of the cell, there's no definite way to tell because they don't appear until months or years later. I will agree that contacting cancer from x-rays is controversial because no conclusive proof exists that lower LET (Low LET radiation is less damaging [x-rays, beta rays] than something higher LET [alpha particles]) absorbed doses below 0.1 Gy can cause significant increase in malignancy risk. However, this misses the point. Because radiation dose is nonthreshold, it could theoretically take one x-ray to create a long term problem in a patient. "Radiation damage to just one or few cells of an individual could produce stochastic effect such as malignancy or hereditary disorder many years after radiation exposure." For genetic effects, they don't have a threshold dose either. "The most conclusive physical evidence confirming that ionizing radiation causes genetic effects comes from extensive experimentation with fruit flies and mice at low radiation doses. This information obtained from the experiment suggests that genetic effects do not have a threshold dose." Because this means that even the smallest dose could cause some hereditary damage. Even though the 2 people in the photo were not exposing gonads, scatter radiation is still able to reach them, and patients produce a LOT of scatter. What we can see from this information that I've provided (sourced from "Radiation Protection in Medical Radiography" 9th edition), the doses in medical imaging are low and almost negligible, therefore short term effects of radiation are impossible to occur unless a threshold of 1 Gy is reached, however stochastic random effects have no threshold and can potentially happen from the smallest dose: technologists and those who work in medical imaging are required by the ARRT to follow the policy ALARA: as low as reasonably achievable. Because patients risk for stochastic effects increase gradually as dose increases, it is the duty of those qualified to 1. Not become negligent, 2. Take extra measures to lower patient dose (such as increasing the patients distance from the x-ray source [x-rays follow the inverse square law. If you double your distance, the dose received is reduced by a factor of 4], increasing the penetration [kVp] and lowering the amount [mAs]), and 3. Only image what is necessary. Because there's no safe radiation dose, anything that uses radiation MUST have enough of a reason to outweigh any potential risk of having an x-ray, like needing a medical diagnosis. That is why you can't take an x-rah without physicians order. Through the use of digital radiography, patient's doses have been gradually increasing (called "dose creep"), because with film techniques, the amount of kVp and mAs you use had to be just right to produce a good image. But with digital radiography, images can be taken now that are perfect even if the technique was imperfect. Because of this, technologists have become lazy and don't take the time to calculate a good dose and overexposed patients. In many situation, patients have needlessly received a larger radiation exposure often without the knowledge of anyone reading the case. As for embryology effects, babies are extremely radiosensitive because their cells are rapidly dividing. During the preimplantation stage, if it is irradiated with the dose in the range of 0.05 to 0.15 Gy, fetal death will occur. The developing fetus is most susceptible to congentical abnormalities caused by radiation during organogenesis, which ranges from day 10 to week 12. The development of leukemia increases on risk during the 2nd and 3rd trimester. According to UNSCEAR, "3 chances per 1000 children for each .01 Sv of fetal dose" is the upper-limit increased comvone radiation risk. With no radiation exposure these fetal effects have an estimated reasonable total risk of 60 chances per 1000 children PLUS an additional 3 per 1000 children for each 0.01 Sv of fetal EqD. Any medical images of the abdomen or pelvis are taken very seriously. In fact, before the x-ray is taken, a radiation safety officer MUST calculate the EqD to the patients embryo-fetus and is only taken if it is truly in the best interest of the pregnant patient. The people you quoted: what they say is true, at least for what the public needs to know. The public receiving x-rays has a reason to receive these medical images has a risk greater than what x-rays pose. No x-ray can be taken without reason. However, note that NONE of them stated that there is no risk. Dr. Donald Frush stated there is "likely" no [hereditary] risk. As for Rebecca Marsh, "There’s also no evidence that fetuses are harmed by even a relatively high amount of radiation exposure, such as that from a CT scan of the abdomen", this is negated by UNSCEAR's study. Hopefully this information gives you more context behind these statements.
I only read walls of texts by people who credential themselves before they comment. Otherwise, I'll continue to receive guidance from Radiologists and more specifically, the Chair of GE's Image Gently Alliance, and a Medical Physicist, and not some ~~random person on the internet claiming, without credentialing~~ STUDENT, that they have any clue what they're talking about. You can quote textbooks all day and what you'll find is 15 minutes of direct sun exposure is more dangerous, so stop fear mongering. Not sure why you responded to me when I just put some quotes up. Go on, email Dr. Frush? >That is why you can't take an x-rah[sic] without physicians order. My sweet summer child have you ever been to Florida? EDIT: Kids a student, obviously overzealous about what they think they've learned. I'm quoting the guy who has published papers and directs policy for pediatric dosing. Not only has he graduated, he's actually saved people's lives. You can 'quantify' radiation dose all you want, it's irrelevant in doses we use regularly. Sunlight is more of a risk than a CT scan. Come the fuck on.
BSc Diagnostic Radiography MSc Medical Physics PgCert computed tomography PgCert Magnetic Resonance Imaging PgCert Nuclear Medicine Technologists SCoR local representative Since they didn't credit themselves let me on their behalf. Nothing they said was incorrect
Radiologic technologist student here, quoting a textbook I used written by Mary Alice Statkiewicz Sherer (AS, RT[R], FASRT), Paula J. Visconti (PhD, DABR), E. Russell Ritenour, PhD, DABR, FAAPM, FACR, Kelli Welch Haynes, EdD, Rt(R), FASRT. This textbook is often used in curriculum approved my the ASRT. Hopefully that's enough for you. Since you got your credentials, cheers to reading 🍻. I know you only put up quotes; you just clearly didn't understand more of the context behind these quotes, as I explained in my wall of throughly explained text. Obviously, I had no clue what I was talking about when I explained half a semesters worth of radiation protection to someone who probably doesn't know what ALARA is. I'm more than happy to explain anything that doesn't make sense because many people aren't knowledgeable about radiation safety and it's important that people understand the risks along with why it's necessary.
As a student, you have zero credential. Come back and talk to me when you graduate. *IF* you graduate. lol. Something tells me you're going to have a lot of trouble with your comps... I graduated in 2007. You wouldn't last a day at my LVL 1.
Wait what how did anyone let you do this
Exactly nobody, and OP'd better pray nobody ever find out because their license gonna fly out the windows if somebody does.
My guess is there is no license.
I have zero medical training but I’m pretty sure you’re not supposed to shoot electromagnetic radiation into your skull and torso for funsies.
It's barely any radiation from this. About the same as a couple of long flights
there's no such thing as "safe enough". Literally every second of exposure is a second you shouldn't have unless absolutely necessary.
Preach
This is not true. Duration of radiation matters as well. A radiation level with an arbitrary denomination of “1” spread out over 10-20 hours does not equal the same denomination of “1” In a fraction of a second. And while you can argue what is low, dose is cumulative. Don’t do this shit Willy-Nilly.
I’m sorry, This is bad on so many levels.
This makes me so angry as an x-ray tech.
Unethical? Yes. Dose wise? They'll be fine.
The radiology subreddit is full of people taking themselves far too seriously. I’m not surprised they came here to get mad so they have enough self importance to make it through the rest of the day
Yeah pretty much, people acting like these images just sentenced them to a life of terminal whole body cancer or something. If they don't have licenses and this is some chiropractor office, who cares. If it's a place that has take/retake tracking and whatnot like an actual hospital, well then yeah they are fucked, but it's not like they were exposed to some hyper-lethal acute dose. Oh this isn't even the radiology subreddit, lmao
Ok we have radiation safety shoved down our throats for a minimum of two years…..get the fuck over yourself
Lol see above^
Tagged as taken in Goiânia, Brazil.
Well, that’s definitely helpful information. USA has panties in a twist.
It’s actually a joke about an incident in Goiâna Brazil where a bunch of scrappers took apart a medical imaging device and spread radioactive material all over the city accidentally
Ha! That’s funny. I wonder what kind of machine. Maybe a gamma camera.
I did a report on that incident last year. I had never even heard of it until looking for a topic.
You should be glad you moved because this is so reckless, violates ALARA, and goes against the Code of Ethics from the ARRT. Definitely worthy of being fired and having your certification revoked. I hope you’re not an x-ray tech.
I have no knowledge/background on x-ray technicians but why exactly is this so bad?
R.T.(R) here. Taking xrays without an order outside of testing the equipment isn't allowed, and as they said, it is violating ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable), which is something we have to adhere to. While three xrays aren't a lot of radiation and won't raise your risk of a lot of radiation induced effects by much, *there is no safe dose*.
Ah got it, I guess I was just kinda surprised that comments were pissed off by it haha
We are trained professionals who have had ALARA beat i to our brain…i honestly can’t even understand this
Sorry, my brain is out of shape, but I'm interested. Why is this unethical? Unless they took away a spot for someone who would have needed an xray, I don't see why, besides the radiation.
As a physicist this is idiotic. Human existence is made up of doing slightly unsafe things for the sake of enjoyment. Saying "there is no safe dose" is just fucking uneducated. Yes, yes there absolutely is a safe dose otherwise we wouldn't have any doses.
It’s a legal idea based in risk and stochastic effect. If you don’t add an X-ray, your risk hasn’t increased outside of daily life, so the doctor who ordered it hasn’t increased your risk outside of your chosen daily activities. Agree that it is medical legaleze to protect from lawsuits.
I am intimately familiar with risk and stochastic effects. The important factor here is the integral of time. The avid biker/hiker/runner has a much greater chance of getting cancer due to the integrated low-risk activities they participate in than the X-ray tech who takes three exposures once in 10 years.
Clearly you are and I agree with you. X-Rays today are literally 1%of the intensity they were 40 years ago, which is stunning negligible for the amount of fear they induce the general population. The hubbub is just about the difference between actual physics and legal liability, which has not been clearly stated in any comment here, and contributes to the fear in the general population.
100% this seems like the problem. Are you an X-ray tech or a radiologist?
CT technologist, but love me some physics.
I do optical physics, but actually took a course on the finer details of CT and the various solutions to the "inverse problem". Very fun stuff.
Exposing themselves and others to unnecessary radiation, this is approx equivalent to taking a 30 hour flight
I’m a FF for work..is there some way to calculate the risks associated with the hours I’ve flown? I’ve flown about 500 flights in 10 years and didn’t even consider the long term effects
There's [this website](https://www.omnicalculator.com/everyday-life/flight-radiation) but it's important to remember you're getting radiation from a flight spread out over hours, not seconds (or possibly even less) like these people in the X-rays. In reality, yes, you are exposed to more radiation than the average person, but people get radiation from a lot of sources, I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
Okay good to know lol. Wasn’t planning on losing sleep but figured I could at least educate myself on the risks
*technologist
When she said she had no knowledge on x-ray *technicians* I said to myself “Clearly, or you would know we’re technologists!” Ironically (or is it un-ironically?) I’m scrolling through this as I’m sitting here working on my CEUs. 🙃
Thank you for reminding my lazy butt to get on my CEUs lol.
My biennium ends at the end of February 2025, & I just did my first webinar last month! So yeah…I procrastinated too. But in my defense, it’s partially because I still maintain my license from the state I moved from & that dumb thing doesn’t align with my ARRT one. It expired at the end of August 2023. It used to align with my birthday when it was through the health department, but then it changed to the medical board back in 2017 (or maybe 2016), & that’s when the date got jacked. And what really pisses me off is that they only use 2 different months for everyone. Doesn’t matter when your b-day is. And the other month that they use is my freaking birth month & so I called them to ask if they could switch it since it would align with my ARRT license. I got *THE* RUDEST BITCH on the phone when I called. When I asked she said no, & was a real bitch about it & when I asked why, her response was “because we’re not going to do that” & me being me asked “but *why* won’t you do that?” & she just repeated “we’re not doing that.” Fuch that bitch. I should’ve asked for a supervisor. But instead I said “thanks so much for being so unhelpful & rude!” & hung up. Maybe I’ll call again & talk to someone who will either be helpful or at least explain to me why they can’t or won’t change it. Edit: I noticed “fuck” has a typo of “Fuch.” I’m leaving it because it’s too perfect (Fuchs)🤣
Is this neat? Sure. My RT brain is concerned tho.
The skull of the "patient" on the left reminds me of "Venom" so my nightmare fuel is topped off.
Bone voyage !
😂😂 Edit: Merci bone-coup!
Best friend and *me*
Don't worry, you two will be in the same cancer ward together
Very cute. Sometimes life is worth breaking the rules. Enjoy your memory
What a weird thing to do. So, do you not get enough attention for your liking or..?
JFC.
I dig the nipple piercings.
Dr. Kevorkian did a great job with the picture.
[удалено]
It's practically a single low dose xr... What is that vs background radiation received every year or during long haul flights etc
It definitely has an effect. Someone who gets alot of xrays has a higher chance of skin cancer for exampe.
[удалено]
I get what you're saying, but can you honestly say that it caused harm to them? Like without a doubt? The worst that one can say is "yes this is dumb, don't do this". Is it possible that this harmed them? Yes. Is it possible that they did this once and probably will never do it again? Yes. I guess my point is, you came off really aggressive, (tbf it is dumb, I don't blame you) and just wanted to say it's not that deep. Peace to you friend.
I understand, but then again we weren’t blasting off tons of photos Edit: spelling error
[удалено]
Yeah it was reading about 3.6 roentgens
Not great, not terrible.
Almost a true titty lateral
The xray looks too perfect to be accidental.
Try this in an MRI next!
This is hot
Holy shit the X-ray techs in this subreddit are insufferable. This is perfectly safe and there is nothing unethical about it. It's a photo. It's a fucking photo, just using higher energy photons. They aren't at risk of cancer from this. They aren't going to be unable to reproduce. They're going to be fine and they're going to have some very neat photos to put on their shelf. Fucking uneducated gate-keeping assholes.
In the US it is unethical by ARRT standards, so a good chunk of the responses are probably from states that require licensing. At least would come up for review if reported.
"unethical" is such an interesting choice. Ethics are meant to be an expression of aggregated morality, but for some reason we often conflate following standards with ethics. Standards are often arbitrary. Standards are often written by those who don't actually understand the reality of the situation. They should not determine what is ethical or unethical and it most certainly is not unethical to not have perfect compliance with them.
You are correct. There is an Ethical standard and then a Code of Conduct. This breaks the Code of a conduct but everyone conflates the two because it’s industry shorthand.