How much raditation from an x-ray taken in the developing world?
July 9, 2008 5:38 AM Subscribe
HypochondriacFilter: I got a chest x-ray taken while travelling in Africa. No protective garmets used. Any potential for damage done to myself or potential future kids?
I'm a small female, 22-years-old. I stood on this movable platform while the x-rays were taken. They took, I believe, three of them.
Apparently a typical chest x-ray gives a dose of around 80 microSv (equivalent to 10 days background radiation exposure). That sounds like small potatoes. Any guesstimate for what that might have gone up to? I'm really looking for reassurance, or advice for what to do if I'm faced with the chest x-ray option again.
I'm a small female, 22-years-old. I stood on this movable platform while the x-rays were taken. They took, I believe, three of them.
Apparently a typical chest x-ray gives a dose of around 80 microSv (equivalent to 10 days background radiation exposure). That sounds like small potatoes. Any guesstimate for what that might have gone up to? I'm really looking for reassurance, or advice for what to do if I'm faced with the chest x-ray option again.
I've never been given any protective garments during the chest X-Rays I have received in the UK and Europe. No need, since the radiation is negligible for the patient. Obviously the nurses and staff need protection from regular exposure.
posted by fire&wings at 6:14 AM on July 9, 2008
posted by fire&wings at 6:14 AM on July 9, 2008
I've spent a lot of time on the ground in Africa, and twice have been unfortunate enough to (urgently) require medical treatment there. Conditions vary wildly across the continent, in the same country and even in the same city.
So what country, what city and where (e.g., hospital, private clinic, one of those traveling clinics) did you receive your x-ray? Also, from whom? There is a lot of stuff we'd consider crazy going on down there - do you know if you were screened by a trained technician? And under what circumstances did you receive your x-ray? I was comatose one time down there, so while I don't have much of an idea what they did to me, I was in good hands. How did you come about to receive this x-ray?
Finally, if you are still in touch with the folks that administered the x-ray, you're going to get a lot more comfort by pitching this query to them rather than random internet strangers.
posted by Mutant at 6:17 AM on July 9, 2008
So what country, what city and where (e.g., hospital, private clinic, one of those traveling clinics) did you receive your x-ray? Also, from whom? There is a lot of stuff we'd consider crazy going on down there - do you know if you were screened by a trained technician? And under what circumstances did you receive your x-ray? I was comatose one time down there, so while I don't have much of an idea what they did to me, I was in good hands. How did you come about to receive this x-ray?
Finally, if you are still in touch with the folks that administered the x-ray, you're going to get a lot more comfort by pitching this query to them rather than random internet strangers.
posted by Mutant at 6:17 AM on July 9, 2008
Speaking as a random internet stranger, you're fine! It's always good advice is to avoid unneccessary X-rays (especially un-needed CT scans), but a few extra chest X-rays will not have done any harm.
As they were presumably using film, if the exposure was significantly higher than they were expecting the film would have been over exposed, so by that logic the equipment was giving out roughly the right level of X-rays.
Have a look here for how much more you would have gotten from a CT scan (800 millirem = 8000 microsieverts).
Another page on the same site talks about how neccessary shielding the patient is (it's not, but it makes them feel better seems to be the general consensus).
posted by samj at 6:22 AM on July 9, 2008
As they were presumably using film, if the exposure was significantly higher than they were expecting the film would have been over exposed, so by that logic the equipment was giving out roughly the right level of X-rays.
Have a look here for how much more you would have gotten from a CT scan (800 millirem = 8000 microsieverts).
Another page on the same site talks about how neccessary shielding the patient is (it's not, but it makes them feel better seems to be the general consensus).
posted by samj at 6:22 AM on July 9, 2008
Almost none- I think you got more xray exposure on the plane ride over there.
posted by gjc at 6:48 AM on July 9, 2008
posted by gjc at 6:48 AM on July 9, 2008
That sounds exactly like the chest X-ray I got at Columbia Presbyterian in Manhattan. Additionally, it turned out (despite the negative pregnancy test) that I was very newly pregnant, and not only did I NOT miscarry, but I also gave birth to a totally healthy kid nine months later. One data point, of course, but hopefully one that will put your mind at ease.
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 6:52 AM on July 9, 2008
posted by chesty_a_arthur at 6:52 AM on July 9, 2008
I spend my working life x-raying womens' pelvices.
I am not particularly expert in calculating the effect of radiation doses, but for the test we do, the estimated risk of cancer and/or a hereditary defect in the offspring of the patient is less than 1 in 10,000.
Once in a while we accidentally x-ray someone during the first few days of pregnancy, and the consensus advice is that there are still no ill effects.
So you can stop worrying about any risk from a chest x-ray.
posted by roofus at 7:09 AM on July 9, 2008
I am not particularly expert in calculating the effect of radiation doses, but for the test we do, the estimated risk of cancer and/or a hereditary defect in the offspring of the patient is less than 1 in 10,000.
Once in a while we accidentally x-ray someone during the first few days of pregnancy, and the consensus advice is that there are still no ill effects.
So you can stop worrying about any risk from a chest x-ray.
posted by roofus at 7:09 AM on July 9, 2008
The flight to/from Africa gave you a similar dose as the chest x-ray.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:18 AM on July 9, 2008
posted by Pollomacho at 8:18 AM on July 9, 2008
I just had two chest x-rays done at a reputable US teaching hospital. No protection.
posted by drinkcoffee at 8:45 AM on July 9, 2008
posted by drinkcoffee at 8:45 AM on July 9, 2008
samj writes "Another page on the same site talks about how neccessary shielding the patient is (it's not, but it makes them feel better seems to be the general consensus)."
I needed to get my jaw x-rayed last year (total of 4 x-rays) and they had me wear a what I assumed was a lead lined smock that covered my pelvis. Which wasn't reassuring at all considering apparently my sperm a metre away needed protection but my brain a decimetre away was a-ok.
posted by Mitheral at 10:46 AM on July 9, 2008
I needed to get my jaw x-rayed last year (total of 4 x-rays) and they had me wear a what I assumed was a lead lined smock that covered my pelvis. Which wasn't reassuring at all considering apparently my sperm a metre away needed protection but my brain a decimetre away was a-ok.
posted by Mitheral at 10:46 AM on July 9, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
But in the end, we do know it carries some degree of risk, and your question should be "should I be getting x-rays for ____?". If you are at risk for cancer or some other medical issue, the pros far outweight the cons, particularly if other diagnosis methods aren't as accurate. If this is not the case, x-ray shouldn't be on the table at all.
posted by neblina_matinal at 6:08 AM on July 9, 2008