Another nail in the Silver Coffin

[richard_ilomaki7]

I went for some X Rays today and asked the tech how the new systems work.

 

They have a plate of phosphors, like a CRT/TV screen that goes where the film USED to go. When it is

bombarded with X rays, the phosphors take on a charge corresponding to the intensity of the rays hitting

it after going through my body. The plate is then put in a reader and scanned and the digital image

appears on a screen in a few seconds.

 

The output to the doctor is a CD with the file on it that the Dr. can read back in the office. The plate is

then bombarded with a high energy laser to restore the charges to the original state and it is ready to be

used once again. No silver film, no smell of fixer and an ever-decreasing demand for film of any kind, and

you know what follows. Oh well!

 

Cheers

[Lou_Meluso]

Yes, and you would go digital too if you shot enormous sheets of silver-based media at the rate the medical industry does.

[bruce_karnopp1]

And once these files are digital they can be sent to a third world doctor to be read. I have to say that I love the smell of hypo on my paws after coming out of the darkroom. After 60 years of this smell, digital stuff seems far to removed from the process to have much fun. It is just too abstract.

[rustys pics]

Look at it this way; that leaves more silver for us photographers to play with!

[stp]

The benefits to patients of this new digital method are huge, especially in terms of better

images. My doc has seen things on digital that just couldn't be picked up via film (e.g.,

subtle problems with artificial joints). The fact that my doc can easily share the images with

others in the office is an added benefit.

[larrydressler]

Speaking of out dated film there is some electron microscope film on ebay. I may just get a box because someday I know every home will have a used electron microscope to check for any remaining silver particals since they seem so bad..... :)

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=280219245876&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=018

 

Film will never die out it will be left in the hands of proper photographers.

 

Funny thing is I still have a working 8 track not kidding.

 

Larry

[tim_bradshaw1]

Last I checked you could still buy oil paint. Around 2000 production of valves (tubes for Americans) was increasing at 10% a year. I see valve amps, Hammond B3s and Fender Rhodes pianos all the time on TV, often played by people less than half my age. People are building new, standard-gauge steam locomotives, in first-world countries.

 

Film isn't going sway.

[antonio_a.1]

Yet another nail in the coffin of the film is dead bandwagon, surely.

[leon_f]

Another nail in the Silver coffin ...

 

Sorry but this thread breathes utter nonsense!

 

Do you know what traffic police cameras use? high speed b&W Film! Why? Because digital files can obviously be manipulated and are not accepted in court. But this forum is neither about medical appliances nor about police camera's. Moderator: please delete... .

[craig_supplee]

Leon, perhaps the Moderator should wait to delete this thread until everyone else has put their 2c in just as you have. This may not be the correct forum for this post, but I found it very interesting. I live in a very large metropolitan area with all the latest medical advances at my disposal, but fortunately enjoy good health, so the last time I had xrays several years ago, they were still using the film based plates. Just my 2c.

[john bond]

While the potential of digital xrays, MRIs, CT scans and other medical imaging is huge

and never going to go away (and it shouldn't), in practice, the use of digital media often

fails to realize that potential. As a physician, one of my greatest frustrations is that digital

sometimes just does not work. There is nothing more exasperating than when the images

fail to open because the proprietary software is not supported by even the most current

operating system and when it does open, having to learn how to navigate through some of

the most rediculous work flows one can imagine and then having to wait forever for all of

the images to load, assuming that the proprietary software does not crash the computer.

This happens all of the time, and it frequently occurs to me that if someone could simply

invent a system where a transparency could be held up to a light box, or even a light

bulb on the ceiling, they might win a nobel prize for common sense.

[Mike Gammill]

In the early days of x-rays similar phosphors were used in fluroscopes for direct viewing until the dangers of x-rays became apparent. There are still experimenters in the field: A common homemade x-ray emitter (cold cathode) is to convert old radio tubes or TV power supply tubes into x-ray emitters using flyback transformers, ignition coils, or even Van de Graft generators as high voltage. (Don't try this at home!) But to get back on the subject, my only concern is that film/chemical manufacterers may be hurt from the loss of income from selling these things and they may have to cut production and raise prices for the products we use. My 2 cents worth.

[terry_m1]

My mate has been in the radiology field for 50 years and reports to me that many U.S. radiologists are being terminated as medical facilities outsource the evaluation of x-ray films by transmitting them electronically to radiologists in India to read. The U.S. is going straight to hell, not film.

[william_goldstein]

If film was dead why would Kodak go through all the trouble of making a new Tmax 400?

[rustys pics]

What Terry said. Very informative thread on the current state of medical imaging. Makes me wonder how much we could all benefit if there were such a thread at Photo.net.

Is it possible to request that your radiology images be read by a specialist in your city/hospital??

 

Seems to me that some guy in India looking at hundreds of med images a day is not going to be too careful....Good lord. For what we pay for health care in the US, they ought to frame the images for us.....

[paul_miller10]

You may not be aware of this, but for years a few pennies here and there from your purchase of black and white films such as Tri-x and Super-XX went to subsidise glass astronomy plates. The idea was to reduce the high cost of this material to astronomers. Glass plates were used way into modern times because of their dimensional stability.

[andrew1]

Aside from being an excellent photographer who introduced me to the craft, my father is

an orthopedist. His feeling is that right now, film x-rays are still better. He has seen

numerous situations where the new digital x-rays don't show as much information and

miss things, where film x-rays were better at showing fine details like small fractures and

subtle changes in tissue density. <p>Just as with regular photography, digital x-rays will

"get there", in terms of the clarity and reliability of the technology to do everything one

could ask of it, but it's a slow and incredibly expensive process. Even the four or five year

old systems at the facility where my father works are having a hard time with some of the

newest technology they are trying to integrate, and this is a facility that has been around

for more than 30 years. Talk about a hybrid of systems from various eras! It's a

nightmare- and this is at a highly respected and wealthy university. They are currently

building a new facility and upgrading all the technology and systems to the latest cutting

edge technologies, but the cost is staggering. This says nothing of the training and re-

training to make sure the people who use this technology know how to. Just the x-ray

techs and radiologists who know the old film x-rays well have to be entirely re-trained to

use the new equipment. Healthcare is already out of control in terms of

costs.<p>Consider what digital technology has done to photography- to stay on the

leading edge, now you have to spend several thousands every couple of years to upgrade

not only your camera gear, but all your computer systems too. Then there's the time

spent to learn to use it all. Of course most of us don't do this, but the top pros have to.

Now apply this concept to healthcare. It's been going on for a while, but it's getting

exponentially more costly and difficult- and would you want to go to a healthcare facility

that wasn't cutting edge?<p>As for the U.S. going to hell in a hand-basket in general,

well, take a look around- it's hard to miss.

[bcostin]

We've been headed to hell in a handbasket every year I've been alive, apparently. Maybe we took a wrong turn.

 

My dentist just switched over to a digital x-ray system. He said that the early systems weren't up to par, but they finally improved to the point where he could justify the expense without sacrificing quality.

The digital files can be contrast enhanced, easily sent to another dentist or an oral surgeon for review, and archived much easier than film. If I really wanted to I could take a flash drive and keep a set of x-rays for myself.

 

IMHO, one of the reasons medical costs have increased so rapidly, in comparsion to other costs, is that the medical field is far too technologically conservative and inherently resistant to change, even when change is clearly advantageous to the patient. They do as little as possible as late as possible and then readily backslide when they don't reap every benefit immediately.

[terry_m1]

My aforementioned mate, most recently the director of radiology for a nearby hospital and before that in the same position for over 40 medical offices' x-ray departments, oversaw a transition from x-ray film to digital two years ago and mentions the two most prominent and most liked changes: radiologists are now very pleased about not having to pull heavy, large x-ray film from film envelopes all day long, evaluate them, and then place them back in their jackets; and now gone is the burdensome requirement to constantly move heavy x-ray film envelopes from on-site storage to costly off-site storage due to a state-based 7-year film storage requirement. Additionally, if a patient requests a copy of their film, the technicians must bother with duplicating it. Now that they don't use film, it is easy to pull up the digitized x-ray images via a computer, burn the images to a CD, and hand the CD to the requesting patient. The downside of this, though, is what I already mentioned: terminating U.S. radiologists and transmitting the images via the Web to radiologists in India.

[joseph_wisniewski]

Leon - "Because digital files can obviously be manipulated and are not accepted in court."

 

Actually, digital is perfectly admissible in most jurisdictions. It's the concept of the "chain of evidence" and the tracking of the media (whether film or digital) that determies admisibility.

 

William - "If film was dead why would Kodak go through all the trouble of making a new Tmax 400?"

 

Since you asked... I can think of several reasons. The most likely would be to reduce silver costs or production costs, in a last ditch attempt to draw profit from a failing product line.

[jim_appleyard]

I've found this thread interesting. After having my knees x-ray'd, (too much time in church?) I asked the tech if it was still film. He said it was digital, but I didn't ask details. Now I know some.

[blarg_.]

complain complain fear complain end of the world blah blah blah...

 

 

just shut up and get back in your darkroom...more productive that way.

[kelly_flanigan1]

My Dentist in Thousand Oaks went to digital Xrays about 1995; my other dentist in the SE USA went digital a few years ago.

[robert lee]

"The downside of this ... terminating U.S. radiologists and transmitting the images via the Web to radiologists in India."

 

Why is this a downside?

[john bond]

"The downside of this ... terminating U.S. radiologists and transmitting the images via the

Web to radiologists in India."

 

Why is this a downside?

 

Because you can't sue the radiologist in India if he or she gets something wrong.

 

Seriously though, out sourcing in this way can certainly have a legitimate role, but I think it

is largely used as a way of decreasing costs, only, without real concern for the quality at

the other end. There are plenty of excellent radiologists in India and other countries too,

but when we send them out in this way we start to give up control of how we enforce

quality concerns.

 

Also, I discuss xray, CT and MRI findings with radiologists all of the time, often

going to the radiology suite at the hospital and looking over the films with the radiologist

discussing the patient's history and physical findings with radiologists, as well as getting

opinons from other radiologists. It makes for better patient care to engage in an in depth

discussion between the doctors than to simply rely on a report from someone you may

never be able to find or talk to.

 

Another issue is privacy. You never know when you might find pictures of your insides

showing up on You Tube.