BATHO
|
| posted on 21/1/12 at 06:09 PM |
|
|
CT SCANS
Hello, I know a little of topic and without boring you all with why im asking i would like to ask peoples views on these types of scans. 
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
liam.mccaffrey
|
| posted on 21/1/12 at 06:20 PM |
|
|
I've had over 40 in the last 5 years, and I wouldn't be here without them so I guess they're good. Or at very least better than the
alternative that Lymphoma offers
I know folk have reservations about radiation and x rays but for me I didn't have a choice.
Feel free to U2U if you want to know any more.
I've also had PET scans too btw
[Edited on 21/1/12 by liam.mccaffrey]
Build Blog
Build Photo Album
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 21/1/12 at 06:50 PM |
|
|
Noisy but nice! Never had one but watched hundreds!
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 21/1/12 at 06:51 PM |
|
|
+1
I (and my wife) would rather have the/A CT scan. Without them my wife would possibly not be here now as the (28.4mm) lump would probably NOT have
shown up on an X-ray.
Edit bit
Oh and the medico boys on the front line in you know where, are, after doing it them selves, trying to get medical practise changed in the UK so that
anyone who presents at a hospital with possible trauma or other medical conditions gets a CAT scan first, as this has speeded up ALL susequent
diagnosis of complaints. Its more expensive but cheaper and more cost effective in the long term than messing around with Xrays.
[Edited on 21/1/12 by jollygreengiant]
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
rusty nuts
|
| posted on 21/1/12 at 07:12 PM |
|
|
Also goes for my younger brother!
|
|
|
robinj66
|
| posted on 21/1/12 at 07:40 PM |
|
|
Both my wife and I had one at New Year after an RTA. Very quick - possibly a little disconcerting if you don't like enclosed spaces but ours
were over pretty quickly. The results were available very quickly. Having seen the results later the images are extremely clear and capable of
magnification to a high degree. The images are in electronic format (as opposed to X-rays etc) so are easily transferable - my wife's images
were sent from Kent to a London hospital for a specialist to view before her neck brace etc could be taken off - was very quick in the circs.
HTH
Robin
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 21/1/12 at 09:20 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jollygreengiant
Oh and the medico boys on the front line in you know where, are, after doing it them selves, trying to get medical practise changed in the UK so that
anyone who presents at a hospital with possible trauma or other medical conditions gets a CAT scan first, as this has speeded up ALL susequent
diagnosis of complaints. Its more expensive but cheaper and more cost effective in the long term than messing around with Xrays.
A CT scan uses Xrays, and a rather high dose at that. Obviously it's an invaluable tool for detecting some problems, but I certainly
wouldn't have one unless absolutely necessary.
[Edited on 21/1/12 by MikeRJ]
|
|
|
ashg
|
| posted on 21/1/12 at 09:33 PM |
|
|
i work for a company that makes radiotherapy machines (linear Particle Accelerators). all our new machines have built in ct scanners, we use them to
verify that the patient is in the correct position before we radiate the tumor. the kind of radiation we use for ct is fractionally worse than what
you would be exposed to at the dentist when they do an xray of your head.
just to put it into perspective to take a ct image you need about 100-120 thousand volts. To create the kind of radiation that can kill/damage cells
you need about 6 millionvolts
this is one of our machines up at the National Physics Laboratory near hampton court. this machine is capable of producing from 6 to 25million volts
of radiation energy out of the top part where as the ct scanner tube (far right at 3pm) will max out at around 130kilovolts
lucky cancer patients will get a ct scan every day they have treatment to verify they are in the correct position before treatment, meaning most have
a ct every day for 2-4weeks. even still all of those scans added together isnt even a fraction of one radiation treatment they receive to kill of
their cancer.
so if you want an opinion of someone that works with radiation every day.............. dont even worry about it the dose is very very minimal and the
benefit of the resulting images outstrips the risk by a million fold.
My toys. 7tonne comes in kit form believe it or not 
the table in the picture is an engineering version not a normal patient table. its accurate to 0.001mm that took a bit of doing, built all in the
aim of holding a device that can measure gray in absolute. one measurement can take several weeks to complete.
Anything With Tits or Wheels Will cost you MONEY!!
Haynes Roadster (Finished)
Exocet (Finished & Sold)
New Project (Started)
|
|
|
foskid
|
| posted on 21/1/12 at 10:42 PM |
|
|
Wow , that's going to cost a bit more than £250
He knows nothing and thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.
George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
ChrisL
|
| posted on 21/1/12 at 10:58 PM |
|
|
@ashg awesome pics. Love seeing the things that you'd never normally see!
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 21/1/12 at 11:03 PM |
|
|
I've have a few, though nowhere near 40, for similar if less serious reasons to Liam.
Not as noisy or claustrophobic as an MRI machine (just like being pushed through the hole of a really big donut.
The contrast squash you get given tastes horrible (orange is the least worst).
If you need to have the high contrast injection (don't look at the automatic syringe as it's huge) it feels like you've p*ss*d
yourself for a few seconds, but it otherwise nothing to be worried about.
Saved my life so I'm not complaining.
Hope everything turns out ok.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
ashg
|
| posted on 22/1/12 at 12:03 AM |
|
|
2 million euros if you want one with all the toys on, then there is the cost of the bunker with over 1m thick concrete walls. if you go for a high
power 25mv version you need to cover the walls in 15mm thick boron impregnated nylon to stop free neutrons getting through. those little beggers are
nasty as they are the same little bleeders that are used to start nuclear chain reactions in power plants.
if you like i can try and stick a few more pictures up. i have to be a bit careful what i put on the net as i work in r&d and our competitors
would love to see what we are up to behind closed doors
Anything With Tits or Wheels Will cost you MONEY!!
Haynes Roadster (Finished)
Exocet (Finished & Sold)
New Project (Started)
|
|
|
BATHO
|
| posted on 22/1/12 at 11:41 AM |
|
|
Thank you for your replys
I understand that they are life savers in certain situation. But for doctors to use them as a risk assessment tool? with the higter radiation dose
involved.
Take the cardiac ct scan will have a radiation dose of 10msv or higher and they have to scan the patient before that to find where things are, yes at
a lower dose but it all adds up.
Natural background radiation is about 2.4msv a year higher in some places, so a cadiac cta will give you about five years worth in 3-4minutes.
What do you think? please tell me if you think i wrong.
ashg, great pictures, do you get tested for radiation?
thanks
[Edited on 22/1/12 by BATHO]
[Edited on 22/1/12 by BATHO]
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 22/1/12 at 02:16 PM |
|
|
I recently went to hospital for chest pains, and the doctor told me that a CT scan was the last option in terms of diagnosis. Apparently the stats
suggest that about 1 in 1000 people develop cancer as a result of a CT scan so the risk isn't huge, but neither is it negligible.
|
|
|
ashg
|
| posted on 23/1/12 at 12:20 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BATHO
Thank you for your replys
I understand that they are life savers in certain situation. But for doctors to use them as a risk assessment tool? with the higter radiation dose
involved.
Take the cardiac ct scan will have a radiation dose of 10msv or higher and they have to scan the patient before that to find where things are, yes at
a lower dose but it all adds up.
Natural background radiation is about 2.4msv a year higher in some places, so a cadiac cta will give you about five years worth in 3-4minutes.
What do you think? please tell me if you think i wrong.
ashg, great pictures, do you get tested for radiation?
thanks
[Edited on 22/1/12 by BATHO]
[Edited on 22/1/12 by BATHO]
i have to wear a radiation badge at all times whilst working. theoretically as a so called radiation worker i can receive up to 20mSv per year without
cause for concern. in reality if anything whatsoever shows up on my badge a formal investigation would be launched by our radiation safety officer,
to prevent further unnecessary exposure.
realistically if you keep to under 50mSv over a period of 5 years which is what we are recommended to do then its a non issue.
the whole aim of the game in my business is to deliver as little dose as possible, but get the maximum result from it. ten years ago most linacs were
around 10-15-18mv for cancer treatment, these days the technology is so effective new machines are going out with 4-6-10mv
if you want to see what i have been working on for the last couple of years have a look at this you tube video from one of our press releases, due to
be released in the next month or so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI4YCJsNgyM&feature=related
this is what we are currently offering
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxBEdMJfxRo&feature=related
the ability we now have to pinpoint radiation to exactly where we want it is quite simply staggering combined with state of the art image guided
positioning systems its exceptionally hard to treat the wrong area of a patient, we can shape a radiation beam to anything we like ad fire it from any
axis/dimension we like.
I can honestly say i love my job, plus my colleagues (myself included) really do believe in our company moto "we care for life"
Back onto the topic of your ct scan. doctors are fully aware of they effects of radiation exposure and have to be and are fully accountable for every
scan they authorise, there really is a lot more regulation than the general public are aware of.
i shouldn't really say this as it could possibly scare you more. most of the time when a good doctor sends somebody for a scan its because they
are expecting to see what they already know they are going to see and only need the scan to confirm their suspicions. think of it this way. a
doctor wouldn't send you for an xray of your arm if he/she didn't think it was broken.
at the end of the day your doctor may be suspicious that there is something wrong with you, they wont speculate as to what they think it might be as
there is no point making someone unnecessarily worried, personally i would trust their decision go for the scan and get to the bottom of it.
last year i had a lump on my back i asked my doctor for a ct to find out what it was. he suspected it was a lipoma and insisted i had an ultrasound
first as if it wasn's a lipoma it would likely show up some form of vascularity. this shows that if there is an alternative way to diagnose
without the use of ionising radiation then a good doctor will always go for it.
Anything With Tits or Wheels Will cost you MONEY!!
Haynes Roadster (Finished)
Exocet (Finished & Sold)
New Project (Started)
|
|
|
BATHO
|
| posted on 24/1/12 at 06:06 PM |
|
|
Ashg, that was very well said and i here what your saying
Boy what a job you have  
|
|
|
.jpg)
