5 ms·
I was going off the list http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_computed_tomography http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_computed_tomography and in haste I stoppe
by DenisM 13y ago
I was going off the list http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_computed_tomography http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_computed_tomography and in haste I stopped after head and chest. You are right, I should have gone further down to the full-body as well. Thanks for that.
Incidentally, this is exactly why I included the numbers - so you can check them, and why I don't like the headline article - no numbers and no references, so there is nothing to check, only vaguely scary claims.
- rdl 13y agoNewer machines are at least reducing the radiation. This is due to better compute power and to better sensors (essentially a mineral which converts x-rays into flashes of light which then get captured by a photodiode). It's been huge in dental x-rays, going from film to CR/DR (although dental isn't huge, it's routine, and involves a large patient population including kids.) We probably will be <5 mSv for whole-body pretty soon. Ultimately there's no reason it can't be well under 1 mSv. Fluoroscopy on the other hand is easily 50 mSv/min and multi-hour procedures (!!!). People get acute effects from that.