3 ms·

Okay, this sounds more serious than I thought. But then, why was someone able to walk into that room with metal around their neck if it was clearly so life-thre

Okay, this sounds more serious than I thought. But then, why was someone able to walk into that room with metal around their neck if it was clearly so life-threatening? Anyway, I’m complaining as someone who personally has turned down recommended medical procedures after checking radiation cancer risk numbers and realizing the radiation risk was being downplayed. When I saw the numbers, to me the cancer risk wasn’t worth it, so I went without a solution to my health problem. Had an MRI been an option, I would have more likely said yes.

jpgvm 1y ago
> But then, why was someone able to walk into that room with metal around their neck if it was clearly so life-threatening? Take a look at the Google Street View link someone posted. It's pretty clear this facility -shouldn't- have been able to acquire an MRI machine in the first place. It also elucidates how such an accident could happen, i.e they clearly don't have the trained staff and protocols necessary given the danger of an MRI machine. It's very likely the poor gentleman didn't understand the immense danger the machine poses. They are expensive and rare for a reason IMO. Yes it would be great to have more of them but the best place for more of them is within proper hospitals and leveraging economies of scale to share technicians across a fleet of them in a well run facility.
- baggy_trough 1y ago
  Can you explain why your assertions are clear from the Google Street View? They don't seem to follow for me.
andy99 1y ago
> But then, why was someone able to walk into that room with metal around their neck if it was clearly so life-threatening? They shouldn't have been, it's a major failure of access control.
ta20240528 1y ago
You got the MRI magnet dissipation-time completely wrong, but it hasn't influenced your opinion on the radiation risk in other similarly sophisticated equipment that could save your life? Astonishing.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- odyssey7 1y ago
  A hasty incorrect assumption that I revised on new information is obviously not the same as hard data on radiation doses and cancer implications considered over weeks. The “could save my life” odds were not very clear and the risk of cancer for that radiation dose had been long ago quantified by scientists, though without considering the immunosuppressants I was taking at the time that elevate cancer risks, making those rates more of a best-case scenario than something to count on. Above all else, the number known to the healthcare facility was the dollar amount to bill to my insurance, with the facility receiving nothing but money in exchange for taking those risks with patients’ lives. For reference, in exchange for 10 mSv of radiation, a moderate dosage for a CT scan, the cancer risk for a young adult is something like 1/1000 over the course of their life. This means that out of every 1000 young adults who receive a 10 mSv CT scan, 1 would go on to get cancer they otherwise would not have gotten, assuming those 1000 aren’t already at higher risk of dying sooner (this assumption is important to weigh but is not straightforward). Those odds sound low, but if there was a revolver with 1000 chambers and one bullet, would you play Russian roulette with that if your life wasn’t on the line? The risk of cancer for the same radiation dose is much higher for children. A technically clear answer to this is to use MRIs wherever practical, and to make MRIs more practical as much as we can. Why accept 10 mSv of radiation when you could just do an MRI instead? We should be making MRIs more and more practical. I’m concerned about the potential fear-mongering over times like this one when the facility fails to perform an MRI safely, where the impression people get could be that MRIs are dangerous, when the hazard was really the facility doing a bad job. By contrast, a perfectly performed CT scan will deliver a known radiation dose to the patient every time.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

jpgvm 1y ago

> But then, why was someone able to walk into that room with metal around their neck if it was clearly so life-threatening? Take a look at the Google Street View link someone posted. It's pretty clear this facility -shouldn't- have been able to acquire an MRI machine in the first place. It also elucidates how such an accident could happen, i.e they clearly don't have the trained staff and protocols necessary given the danger of an MRI machine. It's very likely the poor gentleman didn't understand the immense danger the machine poses. They are expensive and rare for a reason IMO. Yes it would be great to have more of them but the best place for more of them is within proper hospitals and leveraging economies of scale to share technicians across a fleet of them in a well run facility.

baggy_trough 1y ago
Can you explain why your assertions are clear from the Google Street View? They don't seem to follow for me.

andy99 1y ago

> But then, why was someone able to walk into that room with metal around their neck if it was clearly so life-threatening? They shouldn't have been, it's a major failure of access control.

ta20240528 1y ago

You got the MRI magnet dissipation-time completely wrong, but it hasn't influenced your opinion on the radiation risk in other similarly sophisticated equipment that could save your life? Astonishing.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
odyssey7 1y ago
A hasty incorrect assumption that I revised on new information is obviously not the same as hard data on radiation doses and cancer implications considered over weeks. The “could save my life” odds were not very clear and the risk of cancer for that radiation dose had been long ago quantified by scientists, though without considering the immunosuppressants I was taking at the time that elevate cancer risks, making those rates more of a best-case scenario than something to count on. Above all else, the number known to the healthcare facility was the dollar amount to bill to my insurance, with the facility receiving nothing but money in exchange for taking those risks with patients’ lives. For reference, in exchange for 10 mSv of radiation, a moderate dosage for a CT scan, the cancer risk for a young adult is something like 1/1000 over the course of their life. This means that out of every 1000 young adults who receive a 10 mSv CT scan, 1 would go on to get cancer they otherwise would not have gotten, assuming those 1000 aren’t already at higher risk of dying sooner (this assumption is important to weigh but is not straightforward). Those odds sound low, but if there was a revolver with 1000 chambers and one bullet, would you play Russian roulette with that if your life wasn’t on the line? The risk of cancer for the same radiation dose is much higher for children. A technically clear answer to this is to use MRIs wherever practical, and to make MRIs more practical as much as we can. Why accept 10 mSv of radiation when you could just do an MRI instead? We should be making MRIs more and more practical. I’m concerned about the potential fear-mongering over times like this one when the facility fails to perform an MRI safely, where the impression people get could be that MRIs are dangerous, when the hazard was really the facility doing a bad job. By contrast, a perfectly performed CT scan will deliver a known radiation dose to the patient every time.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]