O
oxala
I want to share this because it makes us think a little about XRAY exams
"
The Science of the Immediate Experience
This may also be termed intuitive science, which is our innate processing of immediate cause and effect. When we took chemistry in high school and university and performed experiments in labs, we mixed 2 chemicals together, and then the product changed color, or heated up, or smoked, or maybe even exploded; however, in any event, the reaction happened more or less right away. Our brains are attuned to the science of the immediate experience, which probably relates back to survival in its basic form.
This science is basically primordial and based on what we actually see - "seeing is believing - hic Rhodos, hic salte - etc."
When we as radiologists perform a CT scan on a patient, the patient lies down on the table, undergoes the scan, gets up and is perfectly fine (unless there has been a contrast reaction or subcutaneous contrast misinjection), and then leaves and waits to hear back from the ordering provider about the results of the study. There is no skin heating, no burning, no skin reddening, and no hair exfoliation, which are features that we are familiar with as representing x-ray overdoses as experienced in the past. So, fundamentally, our primordial brains reject the concept that we are doing harm, because of our appreciation of the science of the immediate experience.
In fact, what I and other MRI experts have focused on in the recent past as indications for patients to undergo MRI rather than CT are cases in which patients have had contrast reactions with CT contrast (an immediate experience) because MR contrast is associated with many fewer reactions. Or we have focused on patients with kidney failure since iodine contrast in CT can result in worsening renal failure, while the MRI contrast medium gadolinium almost never worsens renal failure, which again is an immediate experience. It is difficult to abstract the immediate visual experience to a scientific concept that is somehow intangible, or at least difficult to grasp or fathom, even though dedicated scientists have proven the concept.
A good conceptual framework to use in understanding the x-ray radiation danger issue is the movement of the earth - the earth rotates along its axis at 1000 miles per hour, and moves around the sun at 87,000 miles per hour -- however, my scientific mind of the immediate experience cannot conceive and therefore believe that. The earth travels at 87,000 miles per hour, how is that possible? I don't see things rushing around past me - things are still, nothing is flying around at that speed. Yet scientists and astrophysicists have proven this point. Am I, as a thoughtful radiologist, whose senses tell me nothing is moving, going to dispute that the earth is moving at 87,000 miles per hour?
"
The answer is no.
"
The Science of the Immediate Experience
This may also be termed intuitive science, which is our innate processing of immediate cause and effect. When we took chemistry in high school and university and performed experiments in labs, we mixed 2 chemicals together, and then the product changed color, or heated up, or smoked, or maybe even exploded; however, in any event, the reaction happened more or less right away. Our brains are attuned to the science of the immediate experience, which probably relates back to survival in its basic form.
This science is basically primordial and based on what we actually see - "seeing is believing - hic Rhodos, hic salte - etc."
When we as radiologists perform a CT scan on a patient, the patient lies down on the table, undergoes the scan, gets up and is perfectly fine (unless there has been a contrast reaction or subcutaneous contrast misinjection), and then leaves and waits to hear back from the ordering provider about the results of the study. There is no skin heating, no burning, no skin reddening, and no hair exfoliation, which are features that we are familiar with as representing x-ray overdoses as experienced in the past. So, fundamentally, our primordial brains reject the concept that we are doing harm, because of our appreciation of the science of the immediate experience.
In fact, what I and other MRI experts have focused on in the recent past as indications for patients to undergo MRI rather than CT are cases in which patients have had contrast reactions with CT contrast (an immediate experience) because MR contrast is associated with many fewer reactions. Or we have focused on patients with kidney failure since iodine contrast in CT can result in worsening renal failure, while the MRI contrast medium gadolinium almost never worsens renal failure, which again is an immediate experience. It is difficult to abstract the immediate visual experience to a scientific concept that is somehow intangible, or at least difficult to grasp or fathom, even though dedicated scientists have proven the concept.
A good conceptual framework to use in understanding the x-ray radiation danger issue is the movement of the earth - the earth rotates along its axis at 1000 miles per hour, and moves around the sun at 87,000 miles per hour -- however, my scientific mind of the immediate experience cannot conceive and therefore believe that. The earth travels at 87,000 miles per hour, how is that possible? I don't see things rushing around past me - things are still, nothing is flying around at that speed. Yet scientists and astrophysicists have proven this point. Am I, as a thoughtful radiologist, whose senses tell me nothing is moving, going to dispute that the earth is moving at 87,000 miles per hour?
"
The answer is no.