It's like they want to give everyone cancer, who invented this diabolical machine?

Yeah, just realized what kind of idiot iam by arguing about MR in a thread about CT. Please excuse me while i get my autism outta here.

Generally not having a CT scan when you may have a life-threatening injury is probably worse than the small chance of getting cancer from the radiation.

i like you because u're dragging radiology.. it deserves the shit out of it

>The type of radiation
Electromagnetic radiation is on a spectrum for a reason

>be me
>have mysterious vision loss of autoimmune origin
>doctor places me on powerful immunosuppressants that have warnings all over about being at a greatly elevated risk of getting cancer while on them
>I'm not even allowed to go in sunlight for fear of getting melanoma
>there's a chance the autoimmune reaction might be in response to a small tumor somewhere in my body
>doctor orders a chest, adbominal, and pelvic CT scan with radio-iodine contrast
>scan is tomorrow at 4:45
JUST

>adbominal
God, why does phoneposting have to be so shitty?

Because you touch yourself while posting.

I've had 3. On a scale from yes to yes, how jealous are you?
I'm expecting my super powers any day now.

>Changing the filter on my light from red to blue will "create" energy
Nice try, kid. I took physics in college (and I did well lmao) (STEM masterrace) and I have to say that you are wrong.

Oh shit, you're that girl from the stolen paper thread last week. Did you get the guy done for plagiarism?

Wtf? Are you sill blind now?

You have the right to refuse the CT scan by signing a waiver.

You're a moron if you expect your doctor to guess your diagnosis.

Please be shitposting.

oh boo hoo, you got the equivalent to one years background radiation

harden up faggot, thats nothing.

There is no statistical proof that CT imaging causes cancer. And especially considering this imaging modallity is often used to plan cancer treatment, the statistical probabillity to get cancer in the future because you already had it once completely dwarfs the one where mutations are caused by x-rays.

The doses, despite being relatively high, are just not high enough.

medicine has always operated on the principal that the treatment need only be less harmful than the disease.

Also, if you really want something from med engineering satan himself, you have to look at radiotherapy machines.
Those caused tremenderous amounts of suffering in their earlier days.

>When you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about but you keep talking about it.
Oh my fucking god you morons are dense. Please don't ever type anything ever again. Just chop off your hands so the rest of us dont have to put up with this idiocy.

Perhaps next time maybe even google the wikipedia page on that subject you're shitposting about.

You fucking faggots - a head CT is like the radiation dose that a reactor worker is allowed for a year. It's nothing. Full body is a bit more.

Even the no so early days - the infamous Therac was nuking people to death in the 1980s.

>Has multiple sclerosis.
>Doesn't realize he's probably going to become a vegetable before any of those other things happen.

Enjoy the time you have, bub. If a disease has multiple treatment options, that means none of them work.

Obviously Monsanto and Big Pharma in team with atheists.

>Perhaps next time maybe even google the wikipedia page on that subject you're shitposting about.
I am the wikipedia page you mongoloid
>talk shit
>make no argument

nice try faggot. That image has been posted on this board literally hundreds of times. Plus Purdue is a shit university for nuclear engineering.
You're factually wrong and have resorted to googling a fake deploma rather than resesrch why you're wrong.
t. PhD Nuclear Engineering from Michigan. Just graduated 3 years ago.

>Purdue is a shit university for nuclear engineering.
>top 10 nuclear program
lel
I literally work as a physicist in brachytherapy, so go ahead and name one "factually wrong" thing I posted about radiation

are you high? by what metric is it top 10? literally not a single one of the major college rankings has them top 10. nice try troll.
>Still using other peoples images to fake that you have a degree.
Fuck off and die. Quit trying to fake a degree you dont have cunt.
You clearly dont have any sort of higher education on the matter or else youd understand the fucking difference between NONIONIZING and IONIZING. Start by googling those and then maybe get back to me.

Atleast alter your next image so it isnt as easy to see through your lies. Get off this board you dumbshit highschooler.

>else youd understand the fucking difference between NONIONIZING and IONIZING
I hope you're not trying to tell me that x-rays are not ionizing radiation m8

>still lieing about having a degree to validate your idiocy
Xrays are ionizing but you dont understand how CT scans even use them. The ED from a CAT scan is next to nothing.

I never said CTs were dangerous.
You can't even follow conversations with linked responses and timestamps, but expect people to believe you have a phd lel
And showing that I've posted the same image before doesn't invalidate the fact that I took the images.
You should spend less time trying to find my old posts and more time coming up with an example of one of my purportedly "factually wrong" posts

Yeah im sure its totally you posting the images a dozen times on different websites.Fuck off with the trying to fake a degree. It's so easy to see through your lies.

You know this board is 18+ not to protect you from us but to shield us from your idiocy.

I linked 5 different posts so sorry for not guessing right on which moronic crap is yours. They're all incorrect on some level anyways.
Dont you have highschool finals to study for? Why are you even shitposting about topics you know nothing on.

I'll help you out a bit, since you can't seem to put the pieces together.
These are my posts:

Find one thing that is "factually wrong"

>how are you so retarded that you don't think that exposure has any effect, only whether the exposure is from ionizing radiation?
>read a book
This shit right here is what i was responding too. So i was right in which idiotic post was yours. Thats why im telling you to fucking google ionizing and nonionizing.
If you even do have a fucking degree then return it because you learned nothing. Or dont return it because purdue is a shit university for nuclear engineering anyways.

>chop off your hands
thank God for text to speech software :^)

it is the amount of exposure that matters, but obviously only in the case of ionizing radiation.
for some reason the guy either mistook CT with MRI or something else, or forgot that CTs use xrays which are ionizing.
he was arguing that the exposure from CTs is irrelevant, to which the obvious response was that it is the only relevance, besides the amount of time exposed, which can be treated as fixed, because you dont get a CT that lasts for hours
again, your inability to read and follow the conversation has left you mistaken

>you don't think that exposure has any effect, only whether the exposure is from ionizing radiation?
That's technically correct though, exposure is related to increased cancer risk, or radiation sickness in the case of high exposure rates. Exposure from nonionizing sources is irrelevant, which is why I made the point that exposure is important in determining health effects, rather than there being some anomalous effects from ionizing radiation regardless of exposure, which is what the user I was responding to sounded like he was suggesting.

This is all literally just strawman argument. Not even going to bother anoymore. Idk why i was arguing with someone who would try and fake an argument to authority.

wtf is this thread??? Why is anoyone arguing over this shit? Why is anyone faking having a degree??? Why???

CT scans give very high doses of ionizing radiation in seconds. of course they are dangerous. You couldn't possibly argue that the aren't

"very high" isnt a measurment. Most ct scans are equal to living a month or two and at worst they are equivalent to 7-8 years living. Not really that bad. Not something youd call dangerous

>very high doses
no.
the increase in risk of cancer-related death from a ct scan is not reliably measurable.
you get greater exposure from regular cigarette smoking

>doesn't know what a strawman actually is
>doesn't recognize purdue nuke guy
Is this your first day on Veeky Forums?

>A month or two

Are you fucking retarded the lowest dose REAL CT scan that you can get is equivalent to at least six months. Unless you want to include those bullshit Dental CTs.

Six months in 10 seconds is absolutely not safe.

smoking isn't more dangerous than CT scans. Dose rates are very important

lol ive been posting on this board since its inception and even i have never seen this samefagging dude before. Shitposting on Veeky Forums doesnt make you matter. Look now im "purdue nuke guy"
>stats dont count if i dont want them too lalalalalala!
Fuck off retard. go back to . CT scans are CT scans.

>Six months in 10 seconds is absolutely not safe.
What basis do you have to establish this lack of safety?
I work in rad areas with much higher dose rates than that.
The risk you perceive is not there

he said regular cigarete smoking in which he is correct. Polonium 210 and Lead 210 are radioactive and in cigs. Obviously smoking for 10 seconds isnt as high dose as 10 sec ct scan......
Who the fuck is "purdue nuke guy"? Wtf? He was still either wrong or conpeltly misread what the first guy said.

>Who the fuck is "purdue nuke guy"? Wtf? He was still either wrong or conpeltly misread what the first guy said.
>Do you have any sources claiming that changing nuclear spins or absorption of radio frequency radiation causes cancer?
>absorption of radio frequency radiation causes cancer?
That was what I initially responded to, because it's absolutely true. Dude didn't understand the OP or the tech used in CTs.
My response had nothing to do with the danger/safety of CTs, but the misinformation regarding radiation exposure, and how x-rays are "radio frequency radiation"

annual dose from regular smoking is greater than that allowed to rad workers by the NRC

I know. You're pulling the 36mSv figure that holds no weight anywhere. You're just wrong. Everyone that smokes would have several cancers within a decade if that was true. It just isn't.

>36mSv
no, it's more like 8000 mRem.
>Everyone that smokes would have several cancers within a decade if that was true.
1. it takes 10+ years for cancer to manifest itself at all, bare minimum, so your assertion is false. 2. the increased cancer risk is stochastic, not deterministic, so no, not everyone who smokes would get cancer, they are just increasing their lifetime risk of getting cancer.

Tell that to the radiotherapy patients that get cancer deterministically

>Six months in 10 seconds
CTs don't take 10 sec.
they take 15-60 min depending on the type/area of the body.
and whole body dose and dose to a single organ/tissue are different.
for example NRC limit for whole body dose for rad workers is 5 Rem, but dose limit to single organs is 10 times greater

My head CT scan took about 10 seconds

holy shit dude you dont understand what dose is. Smoking on average is 1 pack of 20= 1 uSv due to the 80+/-30 mBq from the polonium and lead in it. and with average smoking stats that comes out to be the .36 mSv. Not 36 mSv. Where did you get your bogus number from?
you dont understand the terms he is using. Google stochastic and nonstochastic.

where does the 8k mRem come from? all my books say its ~36 mRem +/- 8 mrem

Lamarsh, page 506
They don't provide a source for their reported measurements of Po activity, but I've seen other published values of ~60-100 mSv/year
depends how you define "regular smoking" though I often see it defined from 1-2 packs a day, most frequently defined as 1.5 packs/day

and obviously this is not whole body dose, but localized

Why are organ dose limits so much higher than whole body limits? After having my CT scan and researching the topic, not knowing much it freaked me out to think that I received what you would receive in 6 months to your entire body to your head in seconds. Obviously that's not actually the case and weighting factors tell me that might have actually received something like 0.0155 mSv from the scan and although that is what your head would receive in six months the actual dose seems insignificant. If I'm correct then I don't see how CT scans could ever cause cancer unless you are very young and therefore more radiosensitive and receive multiple scans in a short period of time.

it essentially boils down to the fact that organs arnt replicating too fast and thus wont be affected by the radiation as much. More reproduction=higher chance of being affected and developing cancer. The gonads/ colon/lungs are home to some of the fastest reproduction in cells while the brain has incredibly slow cell reproduction.

>very high doses of ionizing radiation in seconds.

We have plenty of human data, ranging from Hiroshima victims, to criticality incidents, to shit like the Demon Core, to document what "very high" actually is.
>Six months in 10 seconds is absolutely not safe.
Got some cites to back that the fuck up, or are you just another hyped up SJW luddite crusader?

That's excatly what i was arguing about. I idioticly mistook CT for NMR and so i argued from the point of view that radiation in this case is in radio frequency.

Of course exposure matters if we're talking about ionizing radiation and that's why i made this final statement

>all of these shills arguing that ionizing radiation is insignificant and won't give you cancer just because it's a low dose

Lmao what a joke. You idiots have absolutely no idea whether or not x-rays in ANY dose will cause double strand breaks. Why would you say it's nothing to worry about when you don't know at all what it did to a specific person? What if that person has predisposing factors like neurofibromatosis or retinocytoma? Fuck off with your idiotic claims.

>You idiots have absolutely no idea whether or not x-rays in ANY dose will cause double strand breaks
and you have absolutely no idea whether or double strand breaks in ANY quantity will necessarily lead to formation of cancerous tissue
two words for your ignorant mind: radiation hormesis

>Hormesis

A unsubstantiated idea with literally zero proof... Sounds like the LNT model too...

Kill yourself

...as opposed to no breaks? Lol what retard engineer logic is that

>...as opposed to no breaks?
false dichotomy.
what kind of retard fallacious NEET logic is that

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/

>a double strand break will necessarily always cause cancer
not even close

meant for

It had already been shown via the epi-ct studies and having any kind of predisposing Factor very greatly increases your risk after head CT scans but that otherwise risks are the same as the general population. If we consider predisposing factors, you're wrong but otherwise I don't think these scans cause cancer. The evidence points to an insignificant risk if one exists at all.

more like the only 10 nuclear engineering programmes. It's nothing if the sample size is like 10 and you're at 10.

you might have a point if that were the case, but it's not and you don't

Yes, it is the case. There are, I pretty sure less than 30 nuclear engineering programs in the entire USA.

so if that's your assertion, then you can assume only the best schools offer a nuke program, and purdue's nuke program is one of the best of the best.

CTs don't produce ionizing radiation you dim wit. How the fuck you think this shit gives you cancer?

>CTs don't produce ionizing radiation you dim wit
m8.. is this b8?

I'm not the original user you are arguing with. I don't go to school for nuclear engineering. I just remember there are few nuclear engineering programs and Purdue has a good one maybe. Purdue is good in all engineering, though

Too many shills ITT

do you not understand what shill means?
nobody is trying to convince you to go and get CT scans because they're so great and you may have some unknown disease. They're just fighting the spread of misinformation

yes they do... what do you think x rays are moron

Lol. Purdue's Nuke program isnt top ten ranked by anyone in terms of quality of education. Stop trying to shill for your shit degree. GIT,Mit,Berkley,Michigan are top teir. Middle tier are A&m,Wisconson,Penn State. crap tier is purdue,Tennesee, and everyone else. Quit being butthurt that your degree isn't respected.

Not as dumb as user but similar experience, afterwards I had a head ache for at least a week. Taking a shower helped for some reason.

What happened? This was 5 years ago and I'm clearly fine, but I did for real feel side effects. The more I showered the more the head aches went away. Is it possibly that my hair got so dry that my roots were agitating my scalp or something?

>crap tier is purdue,Tennesee, and everyone else.
lel
>penn state over purdue
>ga tech over wisconsin
>no mention at all of NC state
you don't know what you're talking about

Penn state is far better in nuclear engineering. Specially for grad school.
GIT is easily a step ahead of wisconson lol. Just look at the geaduates.
Nc is same as a&m and wisconson.
Sorry i didnt mention every program in the entire country.
Face facts dipshit. Purdonts nuclesr engineering is as worthless as 0hios

>being this butthurt over your shit school being called out.
Wew lad. Not smart enough to go to a top program and not smart enough to see no ine cares about your shit school.

Purdue is a great engr school, and there nuke program is no exception. They're not the best, but they are pretty great. They used to be ranked #4, and have fallen since then, but they're still recognized as a top program.
Lel I never went to Purdue with intentions to study nuclear engineering. I switched out of mechanical engr because it was boring as fuck, but didn't want to do physics because muh engr job prospects. Nuke offered the best blend of both worlds. If I knew from the start I wanted to do nuclear, I would have gone to Michigan, but then eyed be in dept to my eyes because I would have been paying out of state tuition.

It's not like I'm trying to argue that Purdue is as good as UMich, but it's a good school and I'm not gonna have a bunch of NEETs talk shit about my alma mater tbhfam

purdont is a DECENT engineering program and a mediocre nuclear one lol.

>NEET engqueer meme degree from a boring and average school
>hurr durr youre all the retards!!! REEE
what did he mean by this?

Purdue is a top 10 US engineering school.

usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/engineering-doctorate

Idk why Veeky Forums is so bent on shitting on Purdue, it's really a pretty great, well recognized and well respected school, at least for engineering, and agriculture.

It's kinda boring, but the bars are pretty good. And it's got a huge greek life if you're a tool and into that stuff.
It's certainly not an average school.
You foreigners for whatever reason hold Purdue in very high regard. Idk why, it's certainly no ivy, but the chinese and japs especially seem to love Purdue.