View Single Post
Old 03-29-2023, 01:19 PM   #1177 (permalink)
redpoint5
Human Environmentalist
 
redpoint5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,885

Acura TSX - '06 Acura TSX
90 day: 24.19 mpg (US)

Lafawnda - '01 Honda CBR600 F4i
90 day: 47.32 mpg (US)

Big Yeller - '98 Dodge Ram 2500 base
90 day: 21.82 mpg (US)

Prius Plug-in - '12 Toyota Prius Plug-in
90 day: 57.64 mpg (US)

Mazda CX-5 - '17 Mazda CX-5 Touring
90 day: 21.74 mpg (US)

Chevy ZR-2 - '03 Chevrolet S10 ZR2
90 day: 17.14 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,994
Thanked 4,266 Times in 3,252 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xist View Post
I needed to search very specifically to find results about the therapists having side effects, not the patients, but I found a list stating that astronauts were exposed to the most radiation, then flight attendants, radiation therapists, baggage screeners, military servicemembers maintaining nuclear reactors, mine workers, nuclear power plant workers, and pilots.

"Radiology technicians who were working before 1950 have an increased cancer risk[…] Since then, the risks have been greatly reduced. Thanks to improved work-related health standards, most regulations now cap the annual radiation exposure at 5 REM, about 10 times the average background radiation that we all receive annually."
We know 3 women in their thirties and forties with cancer, so arguably risks are excessively high for the general population.
It is like this was written by someone promoting radiation therapy and they specified 1950 to distract us from the rest. https://www.everydayhealth.com/pictu...-cancer-risks/
Why are you researching your way out of not doing it?

The first people who started fooling around with ionizing radiation (Marie Curie) took no precautions because they didn't know they needed to. Practically every injury type was more common in the 1950s because they knew less then, and didn't have the safety culture of today's standards.

In the future, they will look back to the standards of today and think we were savages. Shooting ionizing radiation into someone as a therapy; that will look like bloodletting to them.

We wear dosimeters to track cumulative exposure and have access to the results. The therapists work outside of the treatment vault, and it is sealed by a several ton concrete door (the rest of the vault is thick concrete too). The gun is aimed laterally from the therapists, so they are never even in line with directed radiation.

The "10x background radiation" limit is simply that, the limit they decided was the threshold for safety. It doesn't mean therapists are all receiving the limit. I'd be surprised if they hit even 2x background on average.

While you're in research mode, look up "electron trees".
__________________
Gas and Electric Vehicle Cost of Ownership Calculator







Give me absolute safety, or give me death!

Last edited by redpoint5; 03-29-2023 at 01:29 PM..
  Reply With Quote