Go to dentist

It's to increase profits and pay for the equipment. As a child I had many, many dental x-rays. Even now, they continue to scale back their frequency, in some locations. It's clearly moronic, the window for hormesis is finite and varies by individual. Digital xrays lessen exposure, but are still significant. In other locations however, they've come to fancy them new fangled cone beam CT machines. And by the jimminy geez I just gotta have one and once I got one well... I ought to use it, that wasn't cheap! Good thing insurance will pay...

And that's the racket. Least a part of it. The mere notion of doing ct scans on a child's head and thyroid region is obviously asinine. Xrays don't move in a straight line either, they like to scatter everywhere internally. Which is why the dentist / radiologist leaves the room; they'd be getting many times the dose of an individual patient per day.

Also, it's not comparable to a plane ride. Getting hit wit cosmic rays and muons isn't the same as a concentrated dose on a very precise region, all at once. Let's just stop the bullshit before it even begins.

Also, let's bear in mind in the 50's there were xray machines used for shoe fitting. Just sitting around the store. Kids would have fun playing in them, of course.

>but are still significant
in the levels that people receive them during dental visits throughout the years, they really aren't significant. We can't even show that CT scans are significant.
>Getting hit wit cosmic rays and muons isn't the same as a concentrated dose on a very precise region
also not true or important. "concentrated dose" doesn't mean anything.

>they really aren't significant.
During critical developmental windows, yes, it is.

>"concentrated dose" doesn't mean anything.
Someone who doesn't think about things on a physical level isn't worth talking to. You might as well be saying clear cutting a chunk of forest will yield the same macro effect over time, as cutting down a few trees here and there. That's not how cellular machinery works. It's not magic.

>During critical developmental windows, yes, it is.
well, sure but I suppose I'm speaking for myself and other 20 somethings.
the dose you receive to the area when given an x-ray is extremely low. lets say you're getting what OP has gotten done, a full mouth series. ~18 digital x-rays can come out to as high as 0.01 mSv. That's the equivalent full body dose. That is very low and not to be concerning over. To your head, that is 0.0001 mSv that it received. How is this something to be concerned about, exactly? It's equivalent of just existing for a few weeks. Acute doses are not significant at such low levels.

>dental hygienists are prone to getting thyroid cancer after like 20-30

My mom has been a dental hygienists for 20 years. Why did you have to tell me this?

Thyroid cancer isn't a big deal, don't worry. There are forums basically for dentists/dental hygienists that talk about specifically that. It's not like all of them get it, but it seems like a lot do.

>>Getting hit wit cosmic rays and muons isn't the same as a concentrated dose on a very precise region
>also not true or important. "concentrated dose" doesn't mean anything.
It makes a difference whether an amount of radiation is spread out over your entire body, or the same amount gets shot right at your thyroid gland.

>It makes a difference whether an amount of radiation is spread out over your entire body, or the same amount gets shot right at your thyroid gland.
Fuck, you really don't know what you're talking about.

The 3 mSv you receive per year from background radiation... this is your full body dose.

This is what the "Sievert" unit is. The 0.01 mSv you receive from a full mouth series is the full body dose. You aren't actually receiving 0.01 mSv to your head. You receive the weighted dose, and to your head, that is about 0.0001 mSv, totally insignificant.

Do you fly, ever? At 36,000 feet, you are receiving doses in the same range.

You really don't know what you're talking about, and don't hide behind "i'm talking about very young children during their critical development window" because fucking nobody ITT is other than you.

>It makes a difference whether an amount of radiation is spread out over your entire body, or the same amount gets shot right at your thyroid gland.
"concentrated dose" isn't a term, and has no definition in radiology or anything related to imaging physics. you're on Veeky Forums so you may be talking to people actually in the field.

Yeah the dose might be small, but its the repeats what's dangerous
Also that they seem so careless and random
And that they don't hesitate, and that they do it to everyone

That post wasn't me. I stopped bothering to respond because I take a the low level mechanistic approach, weigh how it can be expected to intertwine with real world variations, and how it maps to real world outcomes. We're not going to get along, and I'm not going to get anything out of it.

>i reply emotionally and don't know what i'm talking about
ok
>mechanistic
lol literally the opposite of what you're doing

the fact that you use terms like "concentrated dose" which isn't a thing, shows that you are just uneducated and like playing pretend on Veeky Forums.

>I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I still feel the need to spout my ignorant bullshit. However, somebody who actually knows what they're talking about showed up and told me I'm wrong. Instead of learning from this I'm going to run away and just keep thinking I'm right because my special snowflake philosophy which doesn't need "evidence" or "data" or "accurate information"

I'll respond with questions instead of answers:
-Is there a possible state wherein an object is not receiving ionizing radiation? If so, can it be said presence of ionizing photons, also, has a magnitude? ie, it is, quantized, and has a quantity?
-Is there a window of time in which the quantity is elevated, and then it and its effects slowly normalize relative to the greater system? Could it be said that the region where this is occurring, has received, a dose?
-Is precision, accuracy, and resolution of the ultimate image a thing? Can you have a high resolution, yet inaccurate image, and the inverse? Can you get a full image with just one photon? Computationally, how much must be emitted over a given space to control for scattering and still reconstruct an accurate view? Or can you just emit one and hope the probability of it even interacting with the intended region is high enough?

The point is that the speed at which you get the radiation doesn't make a difference. If you get X amount of extra radiation (more than your average) in 1 nanosecond, it is no different than getting that same X amount of extra radiation over the course of a month or a year. The reason people are saying you are stupid for referencing "concentration" of radiation isn't because they don't think you can't have more or less ionized radiation at one time; it's retarded because you were implying that the greater concentration makes any kind of difference.

>The point is that the speed at which you get the radiation doesn't make a difference.
We're back to the beginning. My perspective is from a mechanical and biochemical standpoint. I'm thinking pathology and molecular biology, you're thinking quantitative statistics and broader epidemiology.

Like I said, we're not going to get along. It's a shame it tends to shake out that way in some topics, but it just does.

what is the relation of these questions to this thread

The inverse question is more relevant.

>Can you have a high resolution, yet inaccurate image, and the inverse?
no to both. high resolution is critical.

if we use too low of a dose and image comes to the radiologist and it is unusable, another x-ray will have to be taken. there are models for what doses are appropriate. high doses are great as the resolution is very high and preferable, but we juggle the dose vs. the resolution necessary.

like CPU processors, we make them more efficient only to lower power/dose required to achieve the same result. modern CT scanners are very efficient.

>get hit by a car
>arm is broken
>technician hides inside pic related while the machine is on
>I'm just laying there seminaked with the cancer ray pointed directly at me
Seriously, what the fuck?! Is nobody working on a better way to do this?

are you seriously bitching about a fucking arm x-ray

The point of getting dental radiographs taken consistently throughout your life is because you can actually see caries on said radiographs. Allowing for preventative care before it becomes a bigger problem.

the technician has to take hundreds of xrays every day, where as you had a one off dose of about 10

of course he needs more shielding you dipshit

Mate, you got 9 normal days worth of radiation in a day. You're perfectly fine.

Lemme guess...you're in America.

take a look at your bank account balance.