3 ms·

I had a motion x-ray as recently as 2020. I don't know enough about the technology to know why this was different, but I have a copy of the video. Edit: This i

• ajb 2y ago
  That's cool. I wonder how they reduce the dose enough that it's safe. Presumably they were quite careful about how long the exposure was?
  • smeej 2y ago
    It took several minutes and a couple tries to get the exposure right on certain shots. They didn't seem overly concerned about the exposure. The person operating the machine didn't seem at all worried about it, so I didn't worry either. Can't rule out that I should have!
    • ajb 2y ago
      These days the machine itself should also warn if it's on too long, so perhaps the operator was relying on that. These days even UV treatment gets added to your record so that further treatments don't accumulate too much. Well, it does in the UK at least.
      • knodi123 2y ago
        > UV treatment gets added to your record so that further treatments don't accumulate too much Which also takes into account how much time you spend outside during daylight hours, right?? That seems like such a large confounding variable that it renders the hospital-side measurement kind of pointless...
  • toast0 2y ago
    Digital x-ray sensors require a much smaller exposure than film, and I'd guess a lot smaller exposure than a shoe sizer machine, too. For multiple exposures in motion, it will add up, but assuming there's a reasonable diagnostic benefit and the total exposure isn't too long, and the staff is well protected, it's a reasonable risk.