Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Re: Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation At
Re: Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation At
O.K.
So this is the bottom line and the cat's meow when it comes to telling
patients what they REALLY need to know about Nuclear Stress Tests and
Radiation.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------------
Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual
Background Radiation at Sea Level
Thallium Scan = 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
< * w w w .ieo . it /Radar/RADARDoseRiskCalc.html>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
< * 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]
< * w w w .ieo . it /Radar/RADARDoseRiskCalc.html>
< * w w w .hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/occup-travail/radiation/dosim/res-centre/conversion/index_e.html>
< * w w w .radiation-scott.org/radsource/2-0.htm>
O.K.
So this is the bottom line and the cat's meow when it comes to telling
patients what they REALLY need to know about Nuclear Stress Tests and
Radiation.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
-------------------------------------------------
Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual
Background Radiation at Sea Level
Thallium Scan = 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
< * w w w .ieo . it /Radar/RADARDoseRiskCalc.html>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
< * 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]
< * w w w .ieo . it /Radar/RADARDoseRiskCalc.html>
< * w w w .hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/occup-travail/radiation/dosim/res-centre/conversion/index_e.html>
< * w w w .radiation-scott.org/radsource/2-0.htm>
Re: Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation At
On May 7, 4:32 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior . com > wrote:
> O.K.
>
> So this is the bottom line and the cat's meow when it comes to telling
> patients what they REALLY need to know about Nuclear Stress Tests and
> Radiation.
>
> DSH
I'd say the numbers look like they're pretty reasonable for your
average patient. Doses for larger patients will be lower (by as much
as a factor of 2 depending on size).
I've never been a fan of using chest x-rays as a benchmark for
comparing radiation doses though.
my experience has been that patients and physicians don't really care
about the numbers. They're mostly interested in the last bit about
cancer risk.
Eugene
On May 7, 4:32 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior . com > wrote:
> O.K.
>
> So this is the bottom line and the cat's meow when it comes to telling
> patients what they REALLY need to know about Nuclear Stress Tests and
> Radiation.
>
> DSH
I'd say the numbers look like they're pretty reasonable for your
average patient. Doses for larger patients will be lower (by as much
as a factor of 2 depending on size).
I've never been a fan of using chest x-rays as a benchmark for
comparing radiation doses though.
my experience has been that patients and physicians don't really care
about the numbers. They're mostly interested in the last bit about
cancer risk.
Eugene
Re: Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation At
"Imabug" <eugenemah@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:b38911ce-54f4-4561-8db0-cf59926a676d@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups . com ...
> On May 7, 4:32 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior . com > wrote:
>> O.K.
>>
>> So this is the bottom line and the cat's meow when it comes to telling
>> patients what they REALLY need to know about Nuclear Stress Tests and
>> Radiation.
>>
>> DSH
>
> I'd say the numbers look like they're pretty reasonable for your
> average patient. Doses for larger patients will be lower (by as much
> as a factor of 2 depending on size).
Very interesting.
Why will the doses be lower for larger patients? That seems
counterintuitive.
> I've never been a fan of using chest x-rays as a benchmark for
> comparing radiation doses though.
How come? It's something a patient has some familiarity with.
> my experience has been that patients and physicians don't really care
> about the numbers. They're mostly interested in the last bit about
> cancer risk.
>
> Eugene
True. For MOST patients. But those who are more technically inclined may
want some hard data of this sort with numbers.
DSH
"Imabug" <eugenemah@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:b38911ce-54f4-4561-8db0-cf59926a676d@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups . com ...
> On May 7, 4:32 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior . com > wrote:
>> O.K.
>>
>> So this is the bottom line and the cat's meow when it comes to telling
>> patients what they REALLY need to know about Nuclear Stress Tests and
>> Radiation.
>>
>> DSH
>
> I'd say the numbers look like they're pretty reasonable for your
> average patient. Doses for larger patients will be lower (by as much
> as a factor of 2 depending on size).
Very interesting.
Why will the doses be lower for larger patients? That seems
counterintuitive.
> I've never been a fan of using chest x-rays as a benchmark for
> comparing radiation doses though.
How come? It's something a patient has some familiarity with.
> my experience has been that patients and physicians don't really care
> about the numbers. They're mostly interested in the last bit about
> cancer risk.
>
> Eugene
True. For MOST patients. But those who are more technically inclined may
want some hard data of this sort with numbers.
DSH
Re: Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation At
On May 8, 12:36 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior . com > wrote:
> "Imabug" <eugene...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:b38911ce-54f4-4561-8db0-cf59926a676d@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups . com ...
>
> > On May 7, 4:32 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior . com > wrote:
> >> O.K.
>
> >> So this is the bottom line and the cat's meow when it comes to telling
> >> patients what they REALLY need to know about Nuclear Stress Tests and
> >> Radiation.
>
> >> DSH
>
> > I'd say the numbers look like they're pretty reasonable for your
> > average patient. Doses for larger patients will be lower (by as much
> > as a factor of 2 depending on size).
>
> Very interesting.
>
> Why will the doses be lower for larger patients? That seems
> counterintuitive.
>
> > I've never been a fan of using chest x-rays as a benchmark for
> > comparing radiation doses though.
>
> How come? It's something a patient has some familiarity with.
>
> > my experience has been that patients and physicians don't really care
> > about the numbers. They're mostly interested in the last bit about
> > cancer risk.
>
> > Eugene
>
> True. For MOST patients. But those who are more technically inclined=
may
> want some hard data of this sort with numbers.
>
> DSH
The thing is.. for each patient and for each dose it will be
different. The only way to tell would be to meter the test
individually. There is no way to judge or guess what a test will do
with any degree of accuracy. This is why you are having trouble
getting an answer. That leaves only the risk vs benefit argument. The
one to contact for sure is the radiation physicist.. not a
physician... this may help * w w w .rtstudents . com /Radiology Radiation P=
hysics.htm
On May 8, 12:36 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior . com > wrote:
> "Imabug" <eugene...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:b38911ce-54f4-4561-8db0-cf59926a676d@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups . com ...
>
> > On May 7, 4:32 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior . com > wrote:
> >> O.K.
>
> >> So this is the bottom line and the cat's meow when it comes to telling
> >> patients what they REALLY need to know about Nuclear Stress Tests and
> >> Radiation.
>
> >> DSH
>
> > I'd say the numbers look like they're pretty reasonable for your
> > average patient. Doses for larger patients will be lower (by as much
> > as a factor of 2 depending on size).
>
> Very interesting.
>
> Why will the doses be lower for larger patients? That seems
> counterintuitive.
>
> > I've never been a fan of using chest x-rays as a benchmark for
> > comparing radiation doses though.
>
> How come? It's something a patient has some familiarity with.
>
> > my experience has been that patients and physicians don't really care
> > about the numbers. They're mostly interested in the last bit about
> > cancer risk.
>
> > Eugene
>
> True. For MOST patients. But those who are more technically inclined=
may
> want some hard data of this sort with numbers.
>
> DSH
The thing is.. for each patient and for each dose it will be
different. The only way to tell would be to meter the test
individually. There is no way to judge or guess what a test will do
with any degree of accuracy. This is why you are having trouble
getting an answer. That leaves only the risk vs benefit argument. The
one to contact for sure is the radiation physicist.. not a
physician... this may help * w w w .rtstudents . com /Radiology Radiation P=
hysics.htm
Re: Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation At
Thank you!
DSH
"Pete" <pete.burger@3dvolumetrics . net > wrote in message
news:834a04a6-a56f-4e0d-b735-6c173518c460@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups . com ...
On May 8, 12:36 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior . com > wrote:
> "Imabug" <eugene...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:b38911ce-54f4-4561-8db0-cf59926a676d@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups . com ...
>
> > On May 7, 4:32 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior . com > wrote:
> >> O.K.
>
> >> So this is the bottom line and the cat's meow when it comes to telling
> >> patients what they REALLY need to know about Nuclear Stress Tests and
> >> Radiation.
>
> >> DSH
>
> > I'd say the numbers look like they're pretty reasonable for your
> > average patient. Doses for larger patients will be lower (by as much
> > as a factor of 2 depending on size).
>
> Very interesting.
>
> Why will the doses be lower for larger patients? That seems
> counterintuitive.
>
> > I've never been a fan of using chest x-rays as a benchmark for
> > comparing radiation doses though.
>
> How come? It's something a patient has some familiarity with.
>
> > my experience has been that patients and physicians don't really care
> > about the numbers. They're mostly interested in the last bit about
> > cancer risk.
>
> > Eugene
>
> True. For MOST patients. But those who are more technically inclined may
> want some hard data of this sort with numbers.
>
> DSH
The thing is.. for each patient and for each dose it will be
different. The only way to tell would be to meter the test
individually. There is no way to judge or guess what a test will do
with any degree of accuracy. This is why you are having trouble
getting an answer. That leaves only the risk vs benefit argument. The
one to contact for sure is the radiation physicist.. not a
physician... this may help
* w w w .rtstudents . com /Radiology_Radiation_Physics.htm
Thank you!
DSH
"Pete" <pete.burger@3dvolumetrics . net > wrote in message
news:834a04a6-a56f-4e0d-b735-6c173518c460@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups . com ...
On May 8, 12:36 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior . com > wrote:
> "Imabug" <eugene...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:b38911ce-54f4-4561-8db0-cf59926a676d@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups . com ...
>
> > On May 7, 4:32 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior . com > wrote:
> >> O.K.
>
> >> So this is the bottom line and the cat's meow when it comes to telling
> >> patients what they REALLY need to know about Nuclear Stress Tests and
> >> Radiation.
>
> >> DSH
>
> > I'd say the numbers look like they're pretty reasonable for your
> > average patient. Doses for larger patients will be lower (by as much
> > as a factor of 2 depending on size).
>
> Very interesting.
>
> Why will the doses be lower for larger patients? That seems
> counterintuitive.
>
> > I've never been a fan of using chest x-rays as a benchmark for
> > comparing radiation doses though.
>
> How come? It's something a patient has some familiarity with.
>
> > my experience has been that patients and physicians don't really care
> > about the numbers. They're mostly interested in the last bit about
> > cancer risk.
>
> > Eugene
>
> True. For MOST patients. But those who are more technically inclined may
> want some hard data of this sort with numbers.
>
> DSH
The thing is.. for each patient and for each dose it will be
different. The only way to tell would be to meter the test
individually. There is no way to judge or guess what a test will do
with any degree of accuracy. This is why you are having trouble
getting an answer. That leaves only the risk vs benefit argument. The
one to contact for sure is the radiation physicist.. not a
physician... this may help
* w w w .rtstudents . com /Radiology_Radiation_Physics.htm
Re: Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation At
On May 8, 12:36 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior . com > wrote:
> "Imabug" <eugene...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:b38911ce-54f4-4561-8db0-cf59926a676d@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups . com ...
>
> > I'd say the numbers look like they're pretty reasonable for your
> > average patient. Doses for larger patients will be lower (by as much
> > as a factor of 2 depending on size).
>
> Very interesting.
>
> Why will the doses be lower for larger patients? That seems
> counterintuitive.
>
The units of dose are absorbed energy per unit mass. More mass
exposed -> less dose
On May 8, 12:36 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior . com > wrote:
> "Imabug" <eugene...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:b38911ce-54f4-4561-8db0-cf59926a676d@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups . com ...
>
> > I'd say the numbers look like they're pretty reasonable for your
> > average patient. Doses for larger patients will be lower (by as much
> > as a factor of 2 depending on size).
>
> Very interesting.
>
> Why will the doses be lower for larger patients? That seems
> counterintuitive.
>
The units of dose are absorbed energy per unit mass. More mass
exposed -> less dose
Re: Radiation From Nuclear Stress Test Compared With Chest X-Rays And Annual Background Radiation At
O.K.
Thanks.
DSH
"Imabug" <eugenemah@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:e6f972be-4846-4ad8-a98f-f0d8e86d605b@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups . com ...
> On May 8, 12:36 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior . com > wrote:
>> "Imabug" <eugene...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>>
>> news:b38911ce-54f4-4561-8db0-cf59926a676d@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups . com ...
>>
>
>> > I'd say the numbers look like they're pretty reasonable for your
>> > average patient. Doses for larger patients will be lower (by as much
>> > as a factor of 2 depending on size).
>>
>> Very interesting.
>>
>> Why will the doses be lower for larger patients? That seems
>> counterintuitive.
>>
> The units of dose are absorbed energy per unit mass. More mass
> exposed -> less dose
O.K.
Thanks.
DSH
"Imabug" <eugenemah@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:e6f972be-4846-4ad8-a98f-f0d8e86d605b@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups . com ...
> On May 8, 12:36 am, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior . com > wrote:
>> "Imabug" <eugene...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>>
>> news:b38911ce-54f4-4561-8db0-cf59926a676d@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups . com ...
>>
>
>> > I'd say the numbers look like they're pretty reasonable for your
>> > average patient. Doses for larger patients will be lower (by as much
>> > as a factor of 2 depending on size).
>>
>> Very interesting.
>>
>> Why will the doses be lower for larger patients? That seems
>> counterintuitive.
>>
> The units of dose are absorbed energy per unit mass. More mass
> exposed -> less dose
Next: Why So Few Posts Here?
Previous: Pharmacy The Science of Medicine. Background · Hist ory · Pha...
