Forums

The several Forums on this page are intended as a welcoming venue for information exchange and mutual support. Through facilitating dialogue with a central focus, it is hoped to emulate the knowledge base and unity of purpose that has so far given advantage to the technology sector.

By its nature, relevant subject matter may involve personal accounts of health or psychological effects. To encourage sharing on an equitable basis, any observed instance of disrespect, trolling or commercial intent will be subject to appropriate moderation.

How to Join

Although anyone can read the Forums, you must register to post content. Please use our Contact form to provide 1) a username, 2) a preferred password and 3) your email address. We will then subscribe you and post confirmation. Once received, log in, select one of the seven categories of interest below, and then “Add Topic”. Subscriptions can be cancelled at any time via the Contact form.

Although this platform is primarily directed toward conditions within Australia, there are no geographical restrictions upon joining in. Daily statistics show 50 to 150 visits originating from dozens of Countries

medical scans  

  RSS

TMBL
 TMBL
(@tmbl)
Eminent Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 45
31/03/2019 1:31 pm  

Does anyone have a good understanding of the dangers of various medical scans for EHS persons?  I'd like to get a better understanding of what tests are safe for people to undergo.  I have heard that CT scans are diabolical because they are like a hundred xrays all in one hit.  And then I was reading that MRIs give the patient a huge dose of magnetic fields and that scares the crap out of me.  Does anyone know if OPGs (full mouth dental xray) are the dental equivalent of a CT scan or are they safer than a dental Xray or a little worse?  What tests/scans are safer alternatives?  It would be great to get something like a hierarchy of worst to best types of scans though I guess they are not all going to fit neatly into such a framework.


Quote
Topic Tags
emrtechie
(@emrtechie)
Active Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 14
01/04/2019 1:24 pm  

Dentistry and CT utilise X-rays, while MRI is wholly magnetic. Exposure varies according to the make and model of equipment, and part of the body being diagnosed. The latter also relates, in terms of potential damage, to the susceptibility of included organs. It is thus impractical to generalise potential effects based upon the single parameter of dosage.

Nonetheless, below are a few figures based upon averages. Please consult your doctor for accurate information.

X-ray:

Dental - 0.005mSv each, 0.1mSv full head
Chest - 0.1mSv
Mammogram - 0.4mSv
Abdomen - 0.7mSv

CT scan (full):

Head - 4-5mSv
Abdomen - 10-20mSv

Natural background radiation is 2-3mSv per year.

MRI:

5,000-30,000 Gauss

Earth's natural magnetic field is 2.5 to 6.5 Gauss

 


TMBL liked
ReplyQuote
TMBL
 TMBL
(@tmbl)
Eminent Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 45
01/04/2019 1:47 pm  

Wow, thanks EMRTechie.  That's helpful info.


ReplyQuote
emrtechie
(@emrtechie)
Active Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 14
02/04/2019 10:27 am  

An additional source of X-rays, and general cosmic radiation, is air travel. The dose received relates to flight duration, altitude and latitude. For comparison, a trip from New York to Tokyo equals about 1/30th of a chest X-ray.

Here is a useful online calculator. http://jag.cami.jccbi.gov/cariprofile.asp

However, onboard Wi-Fi and use of devices by fellow passengers are undoubtedly of greater import to EHS. To minimise exposure, I find the best place is a window in the last row. This is usually away from the centrally situated modems, and has fewer adjoining seats. Being at the outer periphery also avoids, in part, the concentration of RF along the centre axis of the curved metal fuselage.

For prospective passengers who wish to avoid Wi-Fi, this is a list of commercial airlines that do and do not have it. https://www.finder.com.au/list-of-airlines-with-wifi


ReplyQuote
TMBL
 TMBL
(@tmbl)
Eminent Member
Joined: 9 months ago
Posts: 45
22/05/2019 10:13 am  

What do people make of this guest post on Lloyd Burrell's website  https://www.electricsense.com/14745/ultrasound-pregnancy-risks/ ?

If this is accurate then it's additional fuel to ensure world de-population.  If you can't successfully decrease people's fertility via EMR exposure, then surreptitiously kill off the foetus, all in the name of 'we're helping you'.  

Remember, it's not only pregnant women who have ultrasounds.


ReplyQuote
41Earth
(@41earth)
Active Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 8
23/05/2019 7:07 pm  

That's pretty scary TMBL - thanks for sharing. My research shows that a CT scan is equivalent to 200 chest x-rays or 1500 dental x-rays and an MRI is not just magnetic waves but also radio waves i.e. radio frequency radiation!!! I thought ultrasound was relatively benign but now I see that idea is wrong.

I remember seeing an ultrasound of my grandson before he was born and every time a wave hit him he jumped. It was very disturbing to watch. It was like he was being pummelled or attacked. These days pregnant women do ultrasounds to determine the sex of their baby - they can't wait till the baby emerges and choose to assault their unborn instead. I'm sure it's ignorance on their part ... if only they knew what Lloyd Burrell knows they might choose not to have ultrasounds.

It was recommended to me to have a Thermogram which appears to be totally harmless consisting of infrared photographs taken of you over about 45 mins.


ReplyQuote
Share:

You are not alone. According to certain experts, over 35% of the world’s population feels some form of unwanted reaction to EMR exposure. Additionally, everyone is susceptible to induced biological abnormalities that may not manifest perceptibly for years or even decades.