Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation At Sea

Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation At Sea

Does this look correct and clear?

DSH
---------------------------------------------------

Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual
Background Radiation At Sea Level

Thallium Scan = Myoview -- 3 mCi -- 17.76 mSv or 1776 mrem Tl-201 Thallous
Chloride (with contaminants)

Sestamibi Scan = Cardiolite, Stress -- 30 mCi -- 8.769 mSv or 876.9 mrem
Tc-99m Sestamibi

Chest X-Ray PA -- .04 mSv or 4 mrem

Chest X-Ray PA + Lat -- .24 mSv or 24 mrem

Annual Background Radiation at Sea Level = 3 mSv or 300 mrem

< http :// www .ieo,it /Radar/RADARDoseRiskCalc.html>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

< http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiac_stress_test>

Another set of figures:

Stress tests using radiological agents confer low long-term risk of cancer,
but patients undergoing such examinations often receive little or inaccurate
information about these risks. A sestamibi scan is approximately 12 mSv. A
thallium scan is approximately 25 mSv.

(For comparison, the annual background radiation per annum a person receives
is approximately 3 mSv.) A thallium scan corresponds the dose of 250 chest
x rays, or an extra cancer risk of about 1 in 16000 exposed patients (A. de
González). The lifetime risk of fatal cancer development is 4%/Sv or
0.004%/mSv or about 0.1% for a thallium scan. Therefore, frequent usage of
these tests has to balance the benefits against the risks of radiation.

1 mSv [millisievert] = 100 mrem [millirems]

< http :// www .ieo,it /Radar/RADARDoseRiskCalc.html>

< http :// www .hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/occup-travail/radiation/dosim/res-centre/conversion/index_e.html>

< http :// www .radiation-scott.org/radsource/2-0.htm >

Re: Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation At

The question to ask yourself is what is the risk of not having the
study done. Any use of radiology in medicine should be based on a risk
vs benefits basis. You should also ask questions of the physician who
ordered the test to make sure he feels it really needs to be done.
There is nothing wrong with bringing up your questions about radiation.

Re: Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation A

Pete wrote:
> The question to ask yourself is what is the risk of not having the
> study done. Any use of radiology in medicine should be based on a risk
> vs benefits basis. You should also ask questions of the physician who
> ordered the test to make sure he feels it really needs to be done.
> There is nothing wrong with bringing up your questions about radiation.

I've already answered these questions for this guy. For some reason he
keeps asking them.

Andrew

Re: Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation A

Just confirming that my re-formulation of the facts is not erroneous or
misleading.

DSH

"Andrew Kerr" <apkerr@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:KaZTj.76514$dA2.33570@read2.cgocable,net ...

> Pete wrote:

>> The question to ask yourself is what is the risk of not having the
>> study done. Any use of radiology in medicine should be based on a risk
>> vs benefits basis. You should also ask questions of the physician who
>> ordered the test to make sure he feels it really needs to be done.
>> There is nothing wrong with bringing up your questions about radiation.
>
> I've already answered these questions for this guy. For some reason he
> keeps asking them.
>
> Andrew

Re: Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation A

Andrew Kerr wrote:
> Pete wrote:
>> The question to ask yourself is what is the risk of not having the
>> study done. Any use of radiology in medicine should be based on a risk
>> vs benefits basis. You should also ask questions of the physician who
>> ordered the test to make sure he feels it really needs to be done.
>> There is nothing wrong with bringing up your questions about radiation.
>
> I've already answered these questions for this guy. For some reason he
> keeps asking them.

It's like pulling teeth, isn't it?

Adam White

Re: Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation At

Yes I fully understand that.

Physicians don't know the details. One admitted to me he hadn't known them
since he took his boards and crammed them into his noodle.

How about asking the guy who actually runs the teat -- the nuclear medicine
technician?

DSH
---------------------------

"Pete" <pete.burger@3dvolumetrics,net > wrote in message
news:574aa8c1-e3dc-4cb5-94fe-36a65fa08205@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...

> The question to ask yourself is what is the risk of not having the
> study done. Any use of radiology in medicine should be based on a risk
> vs benefits basis. You should also ask questions of the physician who
> ordered the test to make sure he feels it really needs to be done.
> There is nothing wrong with bringing up your questions about radiation.

Re: Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation At

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Does this look correct and clear?
>
> DSH
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual
> Background Radiation At Sea Level
>
> Thallium Scan = Myoview -- 3 mCi -- 17.76 mSv or 1776 mrem Tl-201 Thallous
> Chloride (with contaminants)

No, Myoview is not the same as thallium. Myoview (tetrofosmin) is a
technetium-99m labeled product. Thallium-201 is a separate isotope.

Look up my previous post if you need too, I explained all this last time.

> Sestamibi Scan = Cardiolite, Stress -- 30 mCi -- 8.769 mSv or 876.9 mrem
> Tc-99m Sestamibi

Again, use google groups and look for my previous posts. I can't
remember off the top of my head if that value is correct, but it looks a
bit low. I'm not inclined to repeat the calculations.

> Chest X-Ray PA -- .04 mSv or 4 mrem
>
> Chest X-Ray PA + Lat -- .24 mSv or 24 mrem

I don't know what they're quoting for chest x-ray procedures these days.

> Annual Background Radiation at Sea Level = 3 mSv or 300 mrem

That looks about right.

You are going to get different values depending on your source. They
should all be in the same ballpark however.

I gave you a fairly exhaustive and detailed answer to these questions
the last time you asked them.

Andrew

Re: Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation At

Yes, I've factored in what you posted.

DSH

"Andrew Kerr" <apkerr@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:DS4Uj.76615$dA2.68033@read2.cgocable,net ...

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>> Does this look correct and clear?
>>
>> DSH
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual
>> Background Radiation At Sea Level
>>
>> Thallium Scan = Myoview -- 3 mCi -- 17.76 mSv or 1776 mrem Tl-201
>> Thallous
>> Chloride (with contaminants)
>
> No, Myoview is not the same as thallium. Myoview (tetrofosmin) is a
> technetium-99m labeled product. Thallium-201 is a separate isotope.
>
> Look up my previous post if you need too, I explained all this last time.
>
>> Sestamibi Scan = Cardiolite, Stress -- 30 mCi -- 8.769 mSv or 876.9 mrem
>> Tc-99m Sestamibi
>
> Again, use google groups and look for my previous posts. I can't remember
> off the top of my head if that value is correct, but it looks a bit low.
> I'm not inclined to repeat the calculations.
>
>> Chest X-Ray PA -- .04 mSv or 4 mrem
>>
>> Chest X-Ray PA + Lat -- .24 mSv or 24 mrem
>
> I don't know what they're quoting for chest x-ray procedures these days.
>
>> Annual Background Radiation at Sea Level = 3 mSv or 300 mrem
>
> That looks about right.
>
> You are going to get different values depending on your source. They
> should all be in the same ballpark however.
>
> I gave you a fairly exhaustive and detailed answer to these questions the
> last time you asked them.
>
> Andrew

Re: Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation At

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Does this look correct and clear?
>
> DSH
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And
> Annual Background Radiation At Sea Level
>
> Thallium Scan = Myoview -- 3 mCi -- 17.76 mSv or 1776 mrem Tl-201
> Thallous Chloride (with contaminants)
>
> Sestamibi Scan = Cardiolite, Stress -- 30 mCi -- 8.769 mSv or 876.9
> mrem Tc-99m Sestamibi
>

Thallium Scan is NOT done with Myoview (Tetrofosmin), which is labelled with
Tc-99m.

Re: Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation At

Thank you.

DSH

"JohnQuincyAdams (JQA)" <adams.j.q.at.gmail,com > wrote in message
news:48354977$0$5249$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting,com ...

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>> Does this look correct and clear?
>>
>> DSH
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And
>> Annual Background Radiation At Sea Level
>>
>> Thallium Scan = Myoview -- 3 mCi -- 17.76 mSv or 1776 mrem Tl-201
>> Thallous Chloride (with contaminants)
>>
>> Sestamibi Scan = Cardiolite, Stress -- 30 mCi -- 8.769 mSv or 876.9
>> mrem Tc-99m Sestamibi
>>
>
> Thallium Scan is NOT done with Myoview (Tetrofosmin), which is labelled
> with Tc-99m.