You can't be this paranoid and dumb
I would like to have a balloon sinuplasty done...
Noah Barnes
Jordan Lopez
Many head CT scans produce even more than 44 mGy.
Where are you getting 0.0023?
Juan Hall
Nice argument you have there.
Liam Hernandez
...
Alexander Howard
Did you read the response to that post in your picture?
Thomas Gomez
Yes, and sievert is a weasel word, they admit it themselves in the response. With sievert/mSv,
>organs and tissues have been assigned a tissue weighting factor based on their radiation risk (similar to the radiation weighting factor). When the equivalent [real] dose is multiplied by the tissue weighting factor we get effective [fake] dose.
The multiplicative weighting factors are completely made up. They also define risk based on probability of cancer only. They have total disregard for any of the other side effects of heavily damaged DNA.
Sievert = pseudoscience
James Hill
My mistake, should be 2.3mSv/mGy. CTDIvol is an average phantom dose (homogenous acrylic). Due to human anatomy, effective dose is orders of magnitude less. Specifically, this depends on age, BMI, tissue density, and technical characteristics of the scanner being used. Techs and scanning software all incorporate ALARA and 'Image Gently'. I think your fear of cancer is not justified. Good luck finding an ENT that will diagnose you without diagnostic CT's.
Kayden Wilson
I'm not looking for a formal diagnosis, though; I just want a harmless procedure performed.
Michael Jackson and Joan Rivers can tell you that doctors are happy to put a patient's life at risk for harmful procedures that have no health benefit. Why can't I get a COMPLETELY HARMLESS balloon sinuplasty on request, with a potential health benefit?
Background radiation is 1 mGy per year, head is 7.3% the mass of the body, head therefore gets 0.073 mGy per year. A head CT scan is 44 mGy, so I'd get 594 years worth of background radiation to the head concentrated in a 5 minute blast from a CT scan. No combination of words strung together will persuade me to do it.
Liam Cruz
No no no, that is not how radiation dose works at all. You need to address tissue weighting factors, it's not just as simple as saying TBD*0.073. You're really no better than the anti-vaxxers in terms of broad brush stroke medical physics. Exposure =/= stochastic effect.
Parker Rodriguez
He already addressed that in one of his previous comments.
>>organs and tissues have been assigned a tissue weighting factor based on their radiation risk (similar to the radiation weighting factor). When the equivalent [real] dose is multiplied by the tissue weighting factor we get effective [fake] dose.
>The multiplicative weighting factors are completely made up. They also define risk based on probability of cancer only. They have total disregard for any of the other side effects of heavily damaged DNA.