what is safe distance in radiograghy?
477339
http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-frz&p=radiography%20safety%2fprecautions
420712
seems a patient is waiting! do him a favor, send him to someone who knows. however, i am no oncologist but i think quantity of radiation should depend on the site of the tumor, its grade and stage (extent of metastasis), clinical status of the patient, etc. the best way to go about it would be consulting a radiotherapist/ oncologist.
942372
could be done safely according to medical counsilling
641828
500ft\nbut you still have to be careful of whats behind your target.
508155
Write the word 'radioactivity' in www.google.com.Then collect watever information u need.
918837
In theory there is no upper bound except those imposed by real-world engineering constraints.\n\nThe Russians popped an underground event in Siberia that was a bit over 50 megatons.  It *moved* the entire  Siberian techtonic plate something like a centimeter and they decided that was probably as big as they needed to test ☺\n\nSay you detonated something in the 10 megaton range at an altitude of about 5 miles.  Pretty much everything within about a 3 mile radius of 'ground zero' is going to be, literally, vaporized.  In fact, the top 30 or 40 feet of ground zero is going to be vaporized, leaving a sort of round 'dish' shaped depression a mile or so across in the ground.  Inside this radius, the 'dish' will be coated with a 'slag' formed as melted soil and rock cools.  Depending on the minerals in the area, some of these slags are quite colerful and would make excellent souvenirs.  (Just avoid the ones that glow in the dark ☺)  Everything out to about 10 miles or so will be knocked flat and/or incinerated (total destruction on the surface) by the heat and shock wave.  The structural damage begins to fall off after that, but significant damage to structures would still occur at ranges of 20 or more miles.  People directly exposed to the event would be killed (instantly) by the radiation at distances of up to about 10 miles.  After that, survival probabilities would increase logarithmically out to about 30 to 35 miles.  Life expectency (which would be zero out to ranges up to about 10 miles)  would go up along a logarithmic curve out to a range of about 100 miles or so, at which point the mean expected lifetime (post event) would be about the same as it was before the event.  One exception would be optical effects.  Anyone looking in the general direction of the event would probably be blinded out to a range of 30 to 40 miles.\n\n\nDoug
130673
13.1 miles or 21.1 Kilometers
115192
Average distance is 384600 km
376905
Radionucleides.  The only time you might ordinarily be exposed to them is during a medical proceedure wherein the radiation they emit is a desired aspect.  Those proceedures are either for diagnostic purposes or theraputic purposes.  \n\nBad for you?  No, the amount of radiation your body is exposed to during such an exam is quite minimal.  On the other hand, theraputic radiation is very, very carefully controlled and administered.  In the past, folks sometimes experienced quite a bit of discomfort during radiation therapy.  That's much less the case now, and we have medicines to help what discomfort there is - medicines that simply were not avaliable until recently.\n\nThat having been said, there's been a lot of fuss and bother over the possibility of someone "exploding a dirty bomb",  meaning a device that might spread radioactive particles over a wide area.  Despite Homeland Security's attempts to panic us, that is very, very, VERY unlikely.  So is a nuclear accident like Three Mile Island twenty or so years ago - and Three Mile Island, frightening as it was for people living nearby, left nobody outside the plant sick from radiation - nobody.  But a serious accident COULD result in many, many serious injuries and deaths.  The proper response is for surrounding communities to have in place a proper disaster response plan that may include mass evacuation and prophylactic medicines in stock.  Unfortunately, despite all the hype and all the promises, vitually no community has done squat to properly prepare for either a nuclear accident or a deliberate attempt an spreading nuclear-contaminated materal.  Sure as can be, the Federal government has done virtually nothing worthwhile in that respect!   The stinkers...
682558
It is impossible to give the simple answer for which you seem to be searching.\n\nThere are many frequencies which could be used to cover that distance.\n\nI recommend you read about radio communication in general and about h.f., v.h.f. and u.h.f. communications in particular.
602615
You shouldn't have many problems as they are a fair distance away. In the area surrounding overhead lines (and also radio towers, in particular mast antennas) it is dangerous to risk interference; e.g. flying kites or chain balloons, using ladders or operating machinery. However, you would have to be a lot closer than you are in order for there to be a problem. While there are claims that it causes problems, they are simply claims.
849221
Many possibilities:\n\nBoost it?  Just amplify the signal.  Can you get inside its circuitry?  Can you get a schematic for it?\n\nThe patient monitor transmitter is probably omnidirectional or close to it.  If its location can be fixed during the MRI, you could use a directional antenna on the transmitter and gain 20 to 30 dB.  You'd then have to point the transmitting antenna towards the reciever.\n\nLikewise, the recieving station is probably omnidirectional and could be made directional, but only if it is monitoring just the one patient.\n\nSimplest would be to move the transmitter and receiver as close as possible, just on opposite sides of the MRI room's wall.  See if that is enough.\n\nTrickiest would be some modification of that shielding wall for a wave guide.  To pipe the radio frequency through the wall. Hobbists use plastic pipe with metallic paint on the inside.  By take one or 90-degree bends within a shielded box, you could prevent MRI EMF from getting out while guiding the patient monitor signal from transmitter to receiver.\n\nThe MRI manufacturer or installer may have encountered this already.  Or the patient monitor manufacturer.\n\nInvite in a local Ham Club to check out the facility and the problem.  Those guys are often very very knowledgable, retired and donate their time for various good causes.  Call your local EMS, Red Cross or County disaster co-ordinator.  They work with volunteer Hams during real and simulated disastors.\n\nHope some of that helps.
629035
There may be some, but it's too little to be a health concern.  Even the ambient radiation at Bikini Atoll is not extreme; the danger comes from the local trees (and any local crops), which would take up and concentrate radioisotopes in their tissues.
33083
The average distance is 238,855 miles (384,400 km). \n\nHowever, because its orbit is not circular, the distance varies between perigee (225,700 miles, or 363,300 km) and apogee (252,000 miles, or 405,500 km).
119494
What kind of "safety"?
615976
100-500 depending on how close you are to the person
850082
It depends on the type of radioactive decay.  \n\nAlpha particles are sufficiently shielded by a piece of paper.  Of course, a piece of paper is rather flimsy to work with, so you will probably want to use something stiffer.  A typical alpha-emiter would be tritium (H-3). \n\nYou absolutely under NO CIRCUMSTANCES want to use lead to shield against beta emitters such as P-32.  High atomic-weight materials will often absorb the beta emission, but then emit high-energy electromagnetic radiation (X-rays).  In other words, you put the lead between you and your sample so you don't get a dose of beta particles, and you wind up being bombarded with even WORSE radiation.  Not a good idea.  If you're using a beta-emitter, go with the polymer.\n\nTypically gamma-emitters are shielded with lead, steel, or tungsten.  Working with gamma-emitters is nontrivial.\n\nYou should consult in detail with your radiation safety office before beginning any program of work with radiation.  If your location does not have one, contact an affiliated program at another university or industry because the health hazards are considerable and legal requirements in most nations reflect that hazard.