Did you know years ago, after an xray, you had to under go treatment for xray burn.? The goal in xray is less radiation, precise dosage / area control. Ask which is more controllable, digital or analogue. Start to see the future, instead of a few months ahead. Someone can..., I asked the surgeon if all those x-rays may have been a cause. He said that any x-ray taken before 1990 could be classed as a "dirty" x-ray, due to incorrect dosage or leakage from the machine, and failure to shield those parts of the body not being x-rayed.
 |
| Source: National Museum of Health and Medicine, circa 1915 |
So, here you have it, if you believe that everyone x-rayed prior to year 1990 had to undergo treatment for x-ray burns, you may as well believe that Nanox is not a complete fraud.
This is how desperate Nanox has become.
Update #1 October 11, 2021: A snapshot from a Nanox video documenting tests done by Foxconn in December 2019 reveals that the "digital" Nanox x-ray source is unsafe because of poor filtration (spews too much low-energy x-ray radiation that is useless for diagnostic imaging but gets absorbed in soft tissues and causes cancer).
An HVL of 1.17mm Al fails the FDA's 1.3mm limit (see 21 CFR 1020.30m, Table 1) and the European standard's 2.0mm limit (see IEC 60601-1-3, 2013 edition, Table 3) - links in References. It is a good bet that Nanox never showed this scary test result to the FDA.
Update #2 October 11, 2021: The bot insists
the second half [of the above Yahoo post] was from a cancer paitent [sic]. No mistake.
What can one say about such an accusation by a bot of pervasive world-wide medical malpractice involving all x-ray use prior to 1990? Here is the current position of the American Cancer Society.
Update #3 October 11, 2021: The bot falsely claims the above Yahoo post
Its [sic] from American cancer society page.. [sic]
It is essentially a modern version of ELIZA.
RxR.I told you, scraper bots dont read:
ReplyDeleteThe fact that HVl is HIGHER. fall in line with shall not be less than below. Good to know you ignorant arrogance knows no bounds.
You admitted nanox worked back in 2019. And as an added bonus, testing at 57 kv..Aaahh.
Youve been played by a bot...
Note the lower mGy. Low dose. Exactly my point. Hope someone else reads the blob..
The HVL of the useful beam for a given x-ray tube potential shall not be less than the appropriate value shown in table 1 in paragraph (m)
The snapshot from Nanox video shows a HVL of 1.17 mm Al. A modern AI bot will have difficulty with the OCR, of course, and will conclude that 1.17 is greater than 1.3 or 2. Further advancements in software development are needed.
DeleteI have never admitted that "nanox worked back in 2019." I don't even know what that would mean. The so-called "Foxconn-at-Hadassah" video does not show in any way that Nanox.Arc worked - just the opposite - the device did not even have a detector (and Foxconn had to bring a Konica Minolta one).
The voltage in the snapshot is not 57 kVp - it is 56 kVp, but again, OCR difficulties would prevent a bot from deriving that information. For avoidance of doubt, Nanox.Cart (which was previously known as single-source Nanox.Arc) cannot do more than 40 kVp, per 510(k) Summary, even with its regular dental tube.
I have no idea why the bot considers 0.3 mGy over 49 ms a low dose. I would welcome a more detailed explanation.
To conclude, yes, I agree that "the HVL of the useful beam for a given x-ray tube potential shall not be less than the appropriate value shown in table 1," which happens to be 1.3. That's a problem, because 1.17 is less than 1.3, but shall not be, per US CFR! Any modern AI bot, even if cheap one, should be able to get that, eventually.