WikiProject Medicine / Radiology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Technology (Rated Start-class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been classified as relating to The field of anatomy.

Radiography has been split into two pages: Medical radiography and Industrial radiography. People improving this page may miss the other pages, which are the ones that really need improvement. Maybe as soon as I figure out how to do, I'll nominate to delete (or turn this into a dismbig page pointing the other two pages). So, if you propose any changes to this article, make sure you also do those changes to the other Radiography pages. Dikke poes 15:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted edits that removed most of the current content and requested protection on the page. please dscuss the way you feel the page should end up and where you intend the content currently here should be placed in future. See the bottom of this discussion. Philipcosson 06:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I Think these is a need to create new pages that link here, rather than add lots more content. Do people agree? I stopped short of removing stuff from the page, as I know that can be seen as destructive. I think the section on theory could be better on it's own page. It clearly is not the "theory of radiography" as it is only a small part of a small part of radiography. Philipcosson 10:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

All the theory section is bad written and pertinent to x-ray (or absourdely to gamma ray) not to radiography AnyFile 13:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

## Acknowledgements

Is it correct to keep the part of Acknowledgements AnyFile 13:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

## Sonography

Philip-- in the UK radiographers might be allowed to do sonography, but in the US they must have one year of clinical training, theory, and pass a test administered by the ARRT. Many hospitals also require that they pass further tests for specific tests like vascular and breast imaging. Until recently, a US sonographer also had to be a radiographer (registered with the ARRT) but there's a pilot program that just finished that proposes sonographers don't need to have anything to do with x-ray, since they don't use ionizing radiation. I suspect in the future they will have as little to do with each other as radiology does with the lab.Gaviidae 15:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

my point remains - currently in the UK and the US - sonographers must be registered health professionals BEFORE embarking on sonography training - i.e. they are not plucked from school or college and trained as sonographers and registered as professionals (your pilot program aside) Philipcosson 23:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the US, nuke med isn't done by the medical physicists-- they come every so often and calibrate and certify the machines using phantoms, but don't touch patients (that I know of).Gaviidae 09:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to take a delete key to a lot of this article and rewrite it. - have done, but still needs more work, give me a hand... Philipcosson 10:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a radiographer and I have never heard of breaking radiography into 4 sections. Dental needs something about opg's in it. Mammo's are low kVp giving high contrast to visualise the effects of subtle differences in x-ray attenuation of the various tissues of the breast. General radiography does not just deal with the "hard tissues" but is also used for "soft tissues". Abdomen x-ray's are the prime example but it is also important to visualise some soft tissue information in almost all general radiographs as they can be indicators of pathology not visualise in the bone (eg fat pads of the elbow). It would then be more useful to have a heading of Screening and Procedures to explain the use of x-rays in producing realtime diagnostic information, contrast studies and other procedural applications including mobile and Image Intensifier (Theatre) radiography.

I would also like to point out the article at one point makes it sound like CT's do not use x-rays which of course they do. CT (at least in Australia) is classified as part of the radiography profession so it should also be discussed.

The second sentence is also technically incorrect and the link to attenuation is useless.

I have done a bunch of work to this page, but one problem I keep running into on both this and the radiologic technologist page is that there are different uses, standards, and terms in different countries. Even if we assume only people of English-speaking countries are reading this, the US, UK, Australian and Canadian systems are different, esp. in who does the exams.
Even though CT, Nukes, Mammo etc have their own pages, I still added to their summaries. I guess we're writing for lay people, who most likely are looking at this page to learn about their upcoming tests, so I added some things about MRI and CT that really is for patient benefit only. I don't think this goes beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, esp since we don't have the publishing restrictions books have. The more info, the better, with the more succinct stuff in the beginning for people who don't want to get all into it.
However, indiviualy procedures might be going too far. There are gazillions, and each has several different ways of being done. Heck, fluoroscopic exams could have their own multi-page chapter! But I still added a lot of stuff, inluding angiography summary.Gaviidae 08:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

## Spelling of "x-ray"

Is this a British/Commonwealth thing to spell x-ray as if it were a proper noun (name of person or place) with a capital X? None of my textbooks do so, but they're American. I've been changing them to non-proper nouns, but someone is changing them back, so if this is how it's supposed to be in other English-speaking countries, I'll change them back to proper nouns if you want. But definitiely we can't have the encyclopedia using half x-ray and half X-ray  :) The x in mathematics is lower case, too. Gaviidae 08:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to X because that's the way the X-ray article spells it. I didn't realise then that it was a UK/U.S. thing, but now I've found that Scientific American [1] and the AAAS [2] use lowercase and all my British reference books use uppercase. It's nothing to do with proper nouns, though; "A-bomb", "G-string", "H-bomb", "Q factor", "P wave", "S wave" and "U-boat" aren't proper nouns, either. Some abbreviations get capital letters and others, like "f number" and "e-mail", don't. It's just convention. --Heron 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
They're changed. I also tried to make all my spelling commonwealth, so the article flows. Gaviidae 16:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Capitalisation of x/X-ray: In radiography school I was told that it was always capitalised as this is how Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen wrote it; all nouns are cpitalised in German.

## Who is that someone?

I've added the definition of skiagraphist - my grandfather had it on his discharge papers in 1918 and went on to work in the field until shortly before his death. He worked as assistant to Dr George A Pirie in Dundee originally

http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/content/full/76/904/283

he finally (?) qualified in 1939 but sadly died from a combination of lung cancer and aplastic anaemia shortly after retiring in 1952.

The greek comes from my father who has a masters from St Andrew's University.

I also added theraputic radiography entries, and can wholly agree that the division of radiography into 4 sections is ridiculous. I changed it to "diagnostic" which I think makes it slightly less wrong, but then that doesn't actually help in the long term. It's still wrong.

It's a huge subject area and really needs to be torn apart I think. I'm not qualified (yet; I'm hoping to enter the field as a mature student) to do it.

## spliting this up

I totally agree - this needs spliting up.

\\\computed tomography

\\\medical ultrasound

\\\magnetic resonance imaging

\\\nuclear medicine

\\\fluoroscopy

\\\\angiography

\\\\gastro-intestinal fluroscopy

\\dosimetry & planning

\\mould room

\gamma

\ultrasound

## Definition

have had another think about the definition and tried to put a reason in. I'm not quite happy about it yet - hope someone comes along and tidies it up a bit more. It is a bit of a force to keep radiotherapy in the same article - but I Think the Therapy Radiographers will want to be represented here. Philipcosson 19:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I accept that there is more to radiography than the dictionary definition. I was looking at the subject from an engineering point of view, and you have supplied plenty of much-needed information about the medical side. --Heron 20:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would stronly disagree. Radiography is a protected title in UK law. I believe that the Radiography page should represent the profession of Radiography - not the equipment Radiographers use. A new page on Radiography equipment is a good idea however. Philipcosson

I don't think it is wikipedia policy to make such a drastic edit without discussing it here first and gaining majority support. Lets talk about it before making any serious changes please. Philipcosson 06:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Philip,
I would disagree, I would view radiography as a process rather than a profession. A police scene of crime officer might have a very deep understanding of locks/doors/door frames. He might even have many of the skills of a professional locksmith (he might even hold a quailification in locksmithing) but he is a policeman not a locksmith. I would suggest that we could have a page on the profession of medical radiographer. I think that you are missing out on the industrial radiography which is very different.
Why did you remove the section on radioisotope photon sources ? This is in my view a very valid area which is more valid than a vast discussion of every medical method. For instance in the page the conventional type of projection radiography (done in the old days with film) is separated (this suggests that you view it as totaly differnt) from the Fluoroscopy which is the same physcial processes (different detection system). I am aware that in some modern hospitals that film is no longer used, I suspect that the process is fluoroscopy using a sintillator and a CCD device (these devices are being used as detectors for X-ray diffraction equipment and gamma cameras). To my mind it would be like considering Na-24 based radiography of jolly thick steel plates as being totally different to Am-241 based radiography of thin aluminium objects.
I would like to know if you know (or know anyone who knows) about after loading equipment in radiotherphy. I suspect that such equipment might be using the same technology as some of the cable based radiographic equipment where a source is stored in a S shaped tube in a block of DU. Do you know about this topic ?Cadmium

I only removed your material about radioisotopes because I could not work out how I could revert to that point.

Fluoroscopy is by definition the imaging of moving objects, radiography is the imaging of still objects - I agree - they both use projection methods. Any "medical" radiographer would see these as very different processes.

The trouble with the term "medical radiography" is that it is not in current use. I agree we should probably split the contents of this article up into several articles. If we can talk about it some more and propose a logical spilt that will satisfy the casual reader (it is an encyclopedia after all).

I will give it some thought and pop back later to suggest a split - please feel free to do the same. 

### New pages?

I agree, the definition was created to try to include radiotherapy (remember it was a much smaller page then) It needs chaging. I think it is great that we are now in a position to split into several pages, at the begining there was barely a paragraph! 81.107.56.99 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that a good idea right now would be to fork into two pages, Medical radiography and Industrial radiography as these activitys are so very different. I think that some of the editors are being too medico-centric they appear to only think that the page should deal with medical work (and leave out a discussion of equipment and other matters).Cadmium

I would not want a page called "radiography" not to "medico-centric" information. As far as i was aware - ultrasound is used widely in weld inspection etc, by industrial radiographers. I can't see the point in freezing a term at a certain point in technological terms. For example - Surgery used to be a simple cutting with knives. Now there is microsurgery and laser surgery and laser ablation and angioplsty etc. etc. The term surgery now encompases more than cutting with blades 81.107.56.99 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to include radiotherapy as part of radiography, it makes the page too borad. You could then argue using the same logic that includes radiotherapy will require food irradation and the radiation treatment of polymers should be included in the radiography page. Anyway what is wrong with making the fork to go for medical (all things living as the subject) and industrial radiographies ?Cadmium

Traditionally (in the UK) radiographers did both diagnostic and theaputic radiography, then they split. The UK society and college of radiographers represents both therapy and diagnostic staff and validates the university courses and clinical training of both. Both sets of staff call themselves radiographers. Philipcosson 06:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

we could have a single base page with the following definitions:

3) Radiography (Security) - the use of radiations to provide images inside baggage, vehicles etc at boarder crossings and public events. Usually to detect terorist threat or theft.

4) Radiography (Industrial) - The use of technologies to create images of man made structures to identify weakness, as a routine manitenace operation or in detecting a known problem. This can involve oil pipelines beneath the sea, aircraft, and bridges for example.

5) Radiography (Scientific) - The use of technologies to create images of objects of scientific interest. Including astronomy, molecular imaging, x-ray crystalography etc.

How is that? Philipcosson 06:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds more reasonable, except 5 has already been taken care of. 5 appears to me to be crystallography, this already has a set of pages. I would replace 5 with a page on radiographic equipment. I have already started the page on radiographic equipment. The page for 4 has already been started (by me) it is called Industrial radiography. Page 3 is already taken care of as an airport security page exists, I hold the view that while details of how the equipment works is in the public domain..... But I think it would not be in the public intrest to make it easy to find details of how the airport security equipment works.Cadmium

But 5 is not JUST crystalography is it?

and 3 is not just airport security - what about land border, ports, public buildings, etc. etc. 81.107.56.99 07:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Radiography equipment is a good idea.

Molecular imaging is realy only diffraction methods, EXAFS and NMR can sometimes be used and these are already taken care of by existing pages.
About security uses, I think that the equipment and methods used at airports are very similar to those used at other sites. Much of the "airport" equipment is not radiographic, you have metal detectors, some prompt neutron activation systems to detect nitrogen rich objects and some systems which are designed to detect traces of explosives in air and on surfaces. These are very different to radiography, so I think that a new radiographic page devoted to security uses is a bad idea.Cadmium

I've tried to bring the industry links to the Industrial radiography page, but a robot deleted them. Also it got my spelling corrections and grammar. I hope someone else can go back and fix them. Fixed. Still, I hope people keep improving the two Radiography pages. 12:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (Gaviidae) 82.93.133.130 19:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the two pages.Cadmium

Just saw this; cool. I'm going to check out Industrial now. Dikke poes 09:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

## Resolution?

The first paragraph mentions that e.g. at the brain "the bones can be viewed at an optimum resolution (128 shades of grey)." I am almost certainly sure this plain wrong, I've never heard of photographic chemical material that has a discrete number of bits (7 bit here). This may be the case for digital imaging but is not a property of the radiography itself and should thus be clarified or removed IMO. --Rubik's Cube (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It might have been a good story. I't would be interesting to have it on first page. I can imagine ways, but ... It would also help to get some more connections for war in Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.232.26 (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Seriously...how did that get there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.209.53 (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I bet that this radiography was purposely made to cheat the viewer. That grenade could have been placed at either side of the head. Come on, do you really believe that a man can live up an intervention to allocate a grenade of that size in his head? If so, how gullible you are. 81.60.184.222 (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

## Some information posted in the article

JamieJLing (talk · contribs) put this in the article on 31 January, which I removed:

- Manifestation 14:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

## Expansion on system category

X-Rays utilised in diagnostic radiographic examinations can be used to visualise much more than just the musculo-skeletal system.

• XR Chest = Respiratory + Muscular + Cardiovascular
• XR-Abdomen = Abdominal content = Gastrointestinal system
• XR-Kidneys Ureter & Bladder, Ureterogram = Urinary system
• Intravascular Contrast Media Contrast Media exam = Cardiovascular System
• XR Orbits = Visual System

There are many others too; perhaps the system category listed in the infobox should be changed from just musculoskeletal as this could be misleading? Especially when many patients often over-concerned about cancer and such sometimes google these exams and rely on content such as this to be accurate. 01Chris02 (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)