00:1300:13, 1 June 2011diffhist0
Radiographer
→Nature of the work: There are radiographers who work only day time shifts (in smaller hospitals/clinics for instance) Therefore shifts cannot be stated as an absoloute, only as a likelihood.
00:1100:11, 1 June 2011diffhist−142
Radiographer
→Risks: Only the patient lies within the acoustic field, The radiographer does not, so it is therefore irrelevant to reference the dangers of ultrasound with regard to radiological technitions
00:0900:09, 1 June 2011diffhist−331
Radiographer
→Risks: There can be no effects of MRI exposure, as patients (and the MRI scanner itself) are enclosed within a faraday cage, which contains the magnetic field, the radiographer etc will not be exposed, so THEORHETICAL damage cannot occur.
00:0600:06, 1 June 2011diffhist−605
Radiographer
→Risks: Radiographers are not exposed to sulphur dioxide, this is nonsense. The reference states only the dangers of sulphur dioxide poisoning, not its' prevalence in an xray examination, which is the key point.
00:0100:01, 1 June 2011diffhist−261
Radiographer
→Risks: overall correction of grammer. Removed the 'causal' inference with regard to the correlative study (which cannot be established inherrently). Removed section on 'lead poisoning' and lead posioning requires ingestion of lead,.
31 May 2011
23:4923:49, 31 May 2011diffhist−129
Radiographer
Spinal chord injury is not referenced, and correct references cannot be found. The "enormous" risk of infection is not referenced and opinionated.
23:4623:46, 31 May 2011diffhist−1,289
Radiographer
Opinionated, not reflective over the proffesion internationality with regard to budget cuts and registration to supervising bodies. Offers advise.Tag: section blanking
00:1300:13, 1 June 2011diffhist0
Radiographer
→Nature of the work: There are radiographers who work only day time shifts (in smaller hospitals/clinics for instance) Therefore shifts cannot be stated as an absoloute, only as a likelihood.
00:1100:11, 1 June 2011diffhist−142
Radiographer
→Risks: Only the patient lies within the acoustic field, The radiographer does not, so it is therefore irrelevant to reference the dangers of ultrasound with regard to radiological technitions
00:0900:09, 1 June 2011diffhist−331
Radiographer
→Risks: There can be no effects of MRI exposure, as patients (and the MRI scanner itself) are enclosed within a faraday cage, which contains the magnetic field, the radiographer etc will not be exposed, so THEORHETICAL damage cannot occur.
00:0600:06, 1 June 2011diffhist−605
Radiographer
→Risks: Radiographers are not exposed to sulphur dioxide, this is nonsense. The reference states only the dangers of sulphur dioxide poisoning, not its' prevalence in an xray examination, which is the key point.
00:0100:01, 1 June 2011diffhist−261
Radiographer
→Risks: overall correction of grammer. Removed the 'causal' inference with regard to the correlative study (which cannot be established inherrently). Removed section on 'lead poisoning' and lead posioning requires ingestion of lead,.
31 May 2011
23:4923:49, 31 May 2011diffhist−129
Radiographer
Spinal chord injury is not referenced, and correct references cannot be found. The "enormous" risk of infection is not referenced and opinionated.
23:4623:46, 31 May 2011diffhist−1,289
Radiographer
Opinionated, not reflective over the proffesion internationality with regard to budget cuts and registration to supervising bodies. Offers advise.Tag: section blanking