Dean, this question was posted by wesleyjv over on the Yahoo board, and I just thought I'd give it some more visibility here...
wesleyjv said:
------------------
X rays are normaly given with lead shielding for the technician as well as the areas of the patients body not being photographed. The time of exposure to radiation is brief, therefor increased risk of cancer do to radiation minimal & outweighed by the need for the image.Benifits cited, 3D, real time for treatment guidance, CT substitute etc. seems to imply comparatively long term exposure to radiation for the patient & maybe even the medical personel. Hence much higher risk of cancer developing after imaging. I have 2 theorys. 1- 3D is minimal advance in useful images with minimally longer & or greater radiation exposure compared to regular X ray snapshots as opposed to films like in the web site example (the example would seem to me to require a radiation exposure equal to hundreds of typical x rays.) 2- The real time commentary is therefor just hype for longer radiation exposure time concurent with surgery or other treatment creates too much cancer risk. My theorys give me pause as a potential investor, for unless the concerns they raise are resolved, best case scenario is very limited applications. Worse case FDA will not approve. Responses eagerly awaited!
------------------
So the question seems to boil down to--what kind of radiation exposure levels are we talking here and will that pose a problem to the FDA...??
