This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.
Can someone verify the numbers for radiation exposure? I have heard that PET is much safer than CT but the numbers here don't show that... cbm 03:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I presume the cost given for a scanner ($1.3 million) is in US Dollars? I'd add it myself but don't want to include incorrect information. --Roisterer 04:22, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Radiation doses from PET and CT cover a wide range depending on the exact type of investigation being conducted but, in the UK at least, are roughly the same. Both investigations give doses several times greater than a conventional planar x-ray.
- If you were planning to put this into the article, this didn't work out :-(. Do you have some more hard data (e.g. radiation exposure in Sv for every CT)? Apparently 1/1000 patients who have a CT will develop a lymphoma as a result ???? JFW | T@lk 14:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was trying to put in a comment, I'm new to this. The data is available in several publications or by calculation. The important thing is that the dose from PET ranges from 10-20mSv while CT gives from approximately 5-20mSv. These numbers depend on the exact type of investigation. 2-10mSv is approximately one years background radiation in the UK(from cosmic rays, granite, etc). Papers such as the one you quote have a role, but are often mis-interpereted by the media. The lifetime risk of cancer in the UK is approximately 1 in 3-4. Determining whether a lymphoma, or any cancer, is caused by radiation exposure is a very difficult business when the natural incidence is so high and is usually the result of a statistical study rather than any particular "radiation tag" attached to the disease. In all cases involving ionising radiation, the benefit of having the investigation should be weighed against the possible detriment of not having it. I know for a fact that if I had a a suspected serious complaint, I would not be worrying about the radiation dose from a CT scan.
- Some numbers - for deterministic effects - are available in the article Radiosensitivity. Otherwise, the background radiation is typically 2-3 mSv. The numbers were assessed by UNSCEAR and ICRP. --Eleassar777 18:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Electron beam
I don't know why electron-beam CT is given a whole photograph. These scanners are very rare and one could easily remove all reference to it. Otherwise, why not talk about all the other forms of CT?
The term "CAT" has not been used by professionals for 20 years: it is called "CT"
body section roentgenography
Be careful with this term. There is a very old film-based (non-digital) method for making tomographic images and the term "body section roentgenography" may refer to this.
dose decrease?
"overall radiation dose has decreased"
Actually, I believe the overall dose has increased. This is a result of using very thin slices on the multislice (volume) CT scanners.
People, sign yourself. Three or four tildes ~~~~. Thanks very much. --Eleassar777 18:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Requested move
- I suggest moving the article to a new heading, computed tomography, currently a redirect here. Computed tomography means the same, but is a much more used and more simple term.
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
- Support --Eleassar777 18:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- Support. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. The terms are not identical. There are plenty of uses of "computed tomography" in geology and materials science which are not axial. This article appears to be solely discussing the axially oriented medical technology, and I don't see any reason to block the more general term, which could at some future date develop into a general article on computed tomographic techniques. Dragons flight 21:16, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Discussion
- Add any additional comments