Japan Earthquake/Tsunami

Science Rulz!!!!!!

XD

NO U!

My Dad just sent me this picture, he used to work in New Zealand; his friend took this in Christchurch, a minute after it hit New Zealand. It's so unfathomable how fast and far it traveled and how truly devastating it was.

Scary thing is the recent quake was said to be 8000 times stronger. It's unthinkable.

Er... You mean this is a picture of Christchurch about a minute after the earthquake they had in February, right? And we are seeing the dust clouds from collapsed buildings?

Square Enix donated 100 million Yen. ($1,247,934.89) to disaster relief.

You'll need to translate this: source

The infograph at the bottom brings up pretty damn good question:

Why the hell are CT scans not used as a last resort, and preference given to using MRIs?

Your text to link here...

Well 1 that was for full body which isn't always necessary.

And 2 while yes they accomplish fairly similar things each one is better at visualizing different things. These machines are litterally at least hundreds of thousands of dollars each so you better believe there is a good reason they use both

And 3 it's not like you need either one all that often. Most people go there whole lifes without 1 so it's not like the exposure is really that great.

4. Back to cost. CT machines are only a few hundred thousand. MRI machines are more like a couple mil...

With some exceptions you may be able to pick up the same data. Yes, CTs are better at looking at bone structure; but if the MRI is inconclusive, you could then order a CT scan.

No, you shouldn't need either one often. And yes, there are reasons to contraindicate the use of an MRI in place of a CT scan (implants, pacemaker).

As far as cost goes, there isn't a staggeringly huge difference between CT/MRI on a per scan basis, low end appears to be about $300 different, high end would be $1300 different. When it comes to the cost of the machines, yes, MRIs are significantly more expensive than CTs. They also take longer. But they are also a lot more flexible in their use.

Which means a few things: the wait time for the use of the machine is probably higher, and local/private clinics probably have invested in CT scanners. It would be interesting to see how many orders for CT scans were issued, and correlate that with the association of the physician with the owner(s) of the device. But that might just be me being cynical.

Also from this study, the actual procedure(and associated exposure) itself can vary widely from institution to institution.
Which is in some ways even more scary.

The nuclear sitition seems to be getting worse by the day over there. I hope they can get it under control soon. If it comes to the point where they have to evact tokoyo I dont think we will see final fantasy 11 for a very long time.. I dont beleive it will come to that but you never know. For the sake of the japense people i hope thay are able to get it under control soon

Meh you can scan the same things but not always as well for certain disease/injuries. Plus 3d imagining is cool! MRI can't distingiush between some things. Why start with one you know is going to work not as good knowning you will probably have to do the other anyways. But yeah it is kinda overused lately. Kid gets a bump on the head get him a CT scan

And yeah pretty much any metallic or electronics make MRIs no no. Liver/kidney problems and pregnancy too. If you can't remain perfectly still while taking them you lose alot of quality. And MRI scans are much longer.
I've been a radiation worker. That much doesn't really scare me. Pretty sure the radiologist factors that in.

The amount isn't the scary thing, the variation is. A mean of 13x difference between min and max amounts, between the various types? That's pretty inconsistent.

Unfortunately I can't figure out how to get access to the actual article, I'd be interested in seeing what the actual datapoints are.

No U! >.>

Depends on the reason. Sv and rem aren't really a measurements of radiaton. They are units of radiation dose equivalent.

So it takes into account the actual radiaton absorbed and then weighting factor. Weighting factors are based on Quality factor which is radiation type and another factor is basically everything else put together. Which can include things such as tissue type time or area which the radiation is spread.

Different organs have vastly different weighting factors for that.

On top of that are these dose local or organ equivalent doses or effective whole body dose equivalents? The first 2 dose of just that part and the last an equivalent of what an actual localized dose means to the overall body.

Needless to say this can all lead to some confusion and misinterpretation/representation of data. Very easy to just read different ones as the same and such. But we use it because it is more useful for determine amount of biological effects since it takes all those things into account

Lies and slander

Here you go:

Graph showing variation in scans per type

Not sure why you felt the need to repeat what I said on terms and such with a little less... but if you read thru the article it kinda explains how it varies based on how they measured/calculated due to various inaccuracies in different methods especially given how it works. And how they have adjusted to get greater agreement between calculated and actual risk factor.

Either way decent variance in doses have lots of factors. That doesn't even factor in different machines operators size of person etc

Wife had the option of that 3d Imaging when , err before my son was born, to see the my child, when she had her....what do they call it again.. I forget...having a brain fart atm....

and yes, they do look real interesting. It can get real techical too. Images look so life-like.

ultra sound?

Yea, Thanks. I know.. long morning..and really, Dasva, not like I use or talk about child labour everyday, or work in a clinical setting..

but yes, thanks Das

Let's try to keep related info in this thread instead of creating multiple threads, and keep it on topic.

I kinda thought we were Krizz, Radiology, Cat Scan's, Thermal Imagings.. X-rays, thought all that had nuclear similaritites...

No, it's all good. I was just sayin'.

And someone rates me down.. ..Knock it the off???

<even with a chat with a moderator>

Sheesh!

If they have power back to the plants, that's terrific news.

All now is have to wait for the rolling black-outs to stop..and areas that get electricity to have power 24-7.. Sounds like stability in some form...

my question is, that even if they get power to the cooling systems how long will they be able to produce their own power or turn back on their regular systems in order to be stable in running?

Or even if they get power has the plant received too much damage to continue using it?