Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to groupPost Subject:
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.
DSH
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.
DSH
