# X-Ray Exposure



## miamicuse (Nov 13, 2011)

I went to the dentist and they did X-Ray every 3-5 years.

They took 18 X-Rays around the inside of my mouth, actually 20 because two they had to redo.

They put a shield from my neck down during the X-Ray to protect me from exposure.

Why does my body from the neck down need protection when they zapped close to my head 20 times? Shouldn't I worry more about my eyes nose ears and brain?


----------



## de-nagorg (Feb 23, 2014)

miamicuse said:


> I went to the dentist and they did X-Ray every 3-5 years.
> 
> They took 18 X-Rays around the inside of my mouth, actually 20 because two they had to redo.
> 
> ...


I don't know for sure, but at one time they were worried about causing Birth defects, in possible future children.

I had a full body X-ray daily in 1978 for 2 weeks every day, looking for any new developments in recovery. 

I was comatose, and could not answer any questions. 

So, I do wonder how they really know the dangers of these machines.


ED


----------



## Nealtw (Jun 22, 2017)

The fear is that it could cause cancer. I think the lead shield is more about better safe than sorry.


----------



## Oso954 (Jun 23, 2012)

The shielding requirements are a hang over from the 50s-60s technology. The actual dose of X-rays and scatter have been cut up to 96% today from those previously used.

My medical provider has eliminated the use of shielding for most X-rays. Dentists in CA still use them because they are still required by the state code for dentistry.


----------



## miamicuse (Nov 13, 2011)

Nealtw said:


> The fear is that it could cause cancer. I think the lead shield is more about better safe than sorry.


so it's better to get brain cancer but not nipple cancer LOL?


----------



## bfrabel (Oct 22, 2017)

Oso954 said:


> The shielding requirements are a hang over from the 50s-60s technology. The actual dose of X-rays and scatter have been cut up to 96% today from those previously used.
> 
> My medical provider has eliminated the use of shielding for most X-rays. Dentists in CA still use them because they are still required by the state code for dentistry.


Yeah, but doesn't the shield itself also cause cancer in the state of California?


----------



## smitty10101 (Jan 27, 2019)

the lead shield is to protect your soft/sensitive organs from exposure. Either caused by direct exposure (in the beam) & from scatter (when the x-ray bounces off something hard and goes in a different direction than where it was aimed).

Soft organs in the neck would be your lymph nodes & thyroid gland etc.

regardless of where, when & how the x-ray is "shot" the ASRT (the governing body for x-ray techs) calls for shielding.
Both for the patient & the medical staff. 
IIRC it's "time, distance, shielding"
Shorter exposure time, distance from the ray, and a barrier.


----------



## stick\shift (Mar 23, 2015)

Oso gave a pretty good answer. Keep in mind that x-rays are considered to carry some risk with them so the taking of them includes the notion that the information gained is worth the risk. Shielding is then often used to keep other areas from being exposed since there is no benefit gained from the risk.


----------



## Nik333 (Mar 1, 2015)

Oso954 said:


> The shielding requirements are a hang over from the 50s-60s technology. The actual dose of X-rays and scatter have been cut up to 96% today from those previously used.
> 
> My medical provider has eliminated the use of shielding for most X-rays. Dentists in CA still use them because they are still required by the state code for dentistry.


It might be your age, too.


----------



## skragglepuss (Mar 5, 2013)

Dose makes the poison. Reducing exposure reduces dose. Reduced dose lowers occurrence of disease. 

New xrays and CT scanning equipment require much less radiation than the instrumentation of the past. That said, any reduction of the dose is beneficial.


----------



## J. V. (Jun 1, 2007)

My doctor goes out of his way to prevent me from being exposed to radiation. Last time he sent me for an ultrasound instead, citing radiation concerns.


----------



## stick\shift (Mar 23, 2015)

Ultrasound and X-ray show different things; one cannot always reasonably replace the other.


----------



## de-nagorg (Feb 23, 2014)

stick\shift said:


> Ultrasound and X-ray show different things; one cannot always reasonably replace the other.



Exactly, ultrasound cannot penetrate dense muscle tissue well. 

ED


----------



## J. V. (Jun 1, 2007)

Must be why he finally did call for a CT scan after my symptoms did not improve. So another $250 co-pay.


----------

