ByRaya2708
Hello everyone,
We're currently discussing the medical use of radioactive radiation. I find this topic very interesting and would like to hear your opinion on it.
(X-ray, CT, MRI, radiotherapy (cancer))
(4 votes)
Loading...We had to do this problem in physics. Is my answer correct?
Hello, I would be interested to know whether the Chernobyl accident caused more radiation in Germany or in Austria?
If the entire assembly is placed on a scale, does the upper, suspended bar magnet also weigh on the scale? If so, why? If not, why not?
I'm really desperate. I haven't been to physics for the last few hours and now we have to hand in a project soon and I don't understand this text with all the gaps. I've already tried to fill in the blanks. Is that right and what should go in the other gaps? Can anyone help…
Hey, when I was 6 or 7, I remember my mom soaking my penis in a violet/purple liquid. What was that, was it medication or something?
I had two fractures in the right shoulder 16 years after an accident. I was grateful to see exactly what’s broken. I had MRI on my knee, but that’s not an ionizing radiation. And emergency medicine without a trauma? Modern diagnostics depends to a considerable extent on the imaging methods. Radioiod therapy and other radiation treatments are also important. The early radiologists got a kind of “sunburn” through the X-rays. They thought it wasn’t bad. But the modern atomic model has not yet been developed. Under an “ionizing” effect, nothing could have been imagined. I myself worked with X-rays (but not in medicine) and think that you can weigh good benefits and risks against each other.
I find their contribution very interesting, maybe they can tell me something about them when you were often roasted and had CT and pet?
In medicine, radioactive preparations are rarely used. However, there are also ionizing rays which occur in other ways and have a potential for danger. The following is intended to clarify the corresponding magnitudes.
After the Federal Office for Radiation Protection in 2018 thenatural exposure to radiation about 2.1 mSv/a. However, it can be between 1 mSV/a and 10 mSv/a. More than 50% of this radiation exposure results from the noble gas Radon, that emerges from the ground. Through daily morning ventilation, this load can be significantly reduced especially in cellars and stone buildings. This type of radiation exposure is also strongly dependent on the respective region. In mountains with granite background, the load is particularly high.
The radiation exposure due to X-ray diagnostics was about 1.5 mSv/a in 2018. In this case, the roasting tests without CT are in number in the majority, but contribute only to about 15% of the radiation exposure. Most of the medical radiation exposure is due to CT scans. In these, the dilemma exists in the very high radiation exposure of the patient on the one hand and, on the other hand, due to the hope of a safe diagnosis.
Further artificial sources increase the total radiation exposure to slightly above 4 mSv/a.
You can find information on the development of radiation damage under https://www.dropbox.com/home/Gemeinfrei_pdf/Physik_Concepts_u_Versuche/Ph_KONZEPTE_pdf-files?preview=Strahlensch%C3%A4den_.pdf
In other places on the Internet, some other numerical values are called. The figures of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection seemed most reliable to me. I was a radiation protection officer of my school.
There are many applications. What’s wrong with that? As with any powerful tool, you need to know when and how to use it.
The first cases you have called have all to do with seeing what it looks like in the body without opening it. That’s a good thing first.
By the way, MRT falls out because it’s about normal radiation, it’s about wavelengths of one meter.
— Ionizing rays (which are NOT radioactive!!)
here:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionising_radiation
… often very important, as, for example, by X-ray examinations (including CT) many diseases or Changes in the body can be well examined or detected.
— MRT works completely without radiation, so fall out here 🙂
— in nuclear medicine, however, radioactive substances are used for examination (e.g. scintigraphy), but also for treatment (e.g. radiojod therapy). And only in this case “radiates” the patient – at least for a short time.
—- in radiation therapy in turn (almost) nothing, without ionizing radiation, since this is used, for example, for the destruction of cancer tissue, but also for so-called “reizbestrahlung” in benign diseases:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strahlentherapie_bei_gutlike_Erkranken
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/radiation therapy
—-
And please: If possible, please avoid the misunderstanding (and usually false) expression of the “radioactive radiation” – almost always means: ionizing radiation (for (e.g.) X-rays IST not radioactive)
Helps very much in diagnostics, so invasive methods are often unnecessary, or can be used more specifically.
Not to be underestimated in use as a drug. I am not a medical practitioner, but I have been successfully treated twice with appropriate medicines due to my arthritis (Radiosynoviorthesis).
Of course, it is always necessary to weigh very accurately whether the use of a treatment or diagnostic method is more useful than a harm, but in general I am positive.
MRT is not radiation, it’s magnetic resonance. In my opinion, it is technically superior to the CT.
CT and X-ray must be used temperately, especially in CT the radiation exposure is quite high. It is not ideal and I hope that alternative solutions will come to the market. Under certain circumstances, MRT is becoming faster and cheaper just as it is, as massive advances are made with AI and new hardware that can reduce the duration of MRTs by about 80 percent. MRTs have to become routine investigations.
blut. Whether the use of penicillin, cortisone, dental drills or scalpels in medicine is “good” depends on what the patient lacks.