Dental X-Rays

[iLoveSugar]

I'm unfortunate to live anywhere within several hours of finding a dentist that will treat me without needing x-rays.

1) How do you all get a dentist to treat you without an x-ray? When I mention no x-rays, they look at me like I'm a whacko and tell me they can't treat without.

2) I had like 12 images taken today with a little handheld device. They swore up and down that I get more radiation out walking the streets than what this little device gave me.

I got home within 2 hours, used red light, and took some aspirin.

 

[catan]

No advice, just wanted to commiserate. I have not heard of any dentists in my area willing to not do X-rays. I had been avoiding dentists and had gone to one for some pain recently and they took like 3 dozen images and basically told me sorry, can't do anything until you go to a specialist for further testing (which I found out from somebody in the office is a root canal specialist for more x-rays).

They said you get more radiation from time in the sun.

I went home and took a detox bath...

 

[iLoveSugar]

No advice, just wanted to commiserate. I have not heard of any dentists in my area willing to not do X-rays. I had been avoiding dentists and had gone to one for some pain recently and they took like 3 dozen images and basically told me sorry, can't do anything until you go to a specialist for further testing (which I found out from somebody in the office is a root canal specialist for more x-rays).

They said you get more radiation from time in the sun.

I went home and took a detox bath...

Yeah, it really is ridiculous. They look at you like you belong in a phsyc ward if you try and deter away from them.

 

[supercoolguy]

Yeah, it really is ridiculous. They look at you like you belong in a phsyc ward if you try and deter away from them.

Same. The front desk doesn't even want to take your statement, and the technician stands there with the Ray Gun waiting to take "images".

There are other image devices (CariView) even red light would show the structure, but most don't invest in those simple technologies, and the one office I found locally, didn't even consider it. (Alt Options posted below)

What good is their experience when all they want is X-Rays. I think it protects their business more than the patron.

Yeah, maybe I do encounter radiation from the atmosphere, that's life. But that doesn't mean I want to receive a focused beam blasting my jaw multiple times so you can feel warm & fuzzy about excising a tooth. Just do it and clean it up. Done!

Just like Dr P said ultrasound can stimulate bone growth.
Scientists Regrow a Tooth with Ultrasound - Summerlea Dental

Dental Imaging!
Advances in Dental Ultrasonography

DEXIS CariVu™​

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Ray Peat didn’t fly because of the x-ray machines at the airports. I have gone through those thinking nothing of it, oops.

 

[tiffanya]

My family sees a "biological" dentist that is in many ways better than most others in my area. They have let us put off x-rays many times, but last appointment for my 9 year old daughter they said that they wouldn't be able to keep cleaning her teeth unless she got bite wings. She eats well , but has EMF sensitivity and is recovering from mold illness and has active lyme and bartonella. Her teeth are fine and I really don't want to get the x-rays. The hygenist claims the radiation from the x-ray is equal to "eating a banana". WTF does that mean? She goes back for another cleaning next week and I'm going to tell them no x-rays until she is healed of infections. She also is really freaked about getting them. I would love to be able to refute the banana thing intelligently.

 

[iLoveSugar]

My family sees a "biological" dentist that is in many ways better than most others in my area. They have let us put off x-rays many times, but last appointment for my 9 year old daughter they said that they wouldn't be able to keep cleaning her teeth unless she got bite wings. She eats well , but has EMF sensitivity and is recovering from mold illness and has active lyme and bartonella. Her teeth are fine and I really don't want to get the x-rays. The hygenist claims the radiation from the x-ray is equal to "eating a banana". WTF does that mean? She goes back for another cleaning next week and I'm going to tell them no x-rays until she is healed of infections. She also is really freaked about getting them. I would love to be able to refute the banana thing intelligently.

I think they all play them off to be basically no harm. Completely nonsense. I literally had 12 done today with the bite wing.

 

[slimdaddydogjim]

@tiffanya Bananas have a radioactive isotope of potassium (potassium-40). Some people use the term 'Banana equivalent dose' when comparing levels of radiation. Your hygienist is wrong for saying that a dental X-ray has the same radiation dose as a banana. A dental X-ray in fact has 50 times the radiation dose compared to one banana!

 

[RealNeat]

This topic is way more complex than a one liner, listen to all of Rays ionizing radiation talks especially in the Politics and Science interviews, radiation isnt radiation, and the exposure from cosmic radiation on a plane may be safer than the exposure in a high-rise building that people work and live in day after day. Bite wings are the least amount of radiation you can get for dental xrays, the problem is they take a bunch. If they can isolate the bite wing to the area of concern and use just one image, its really not that bad, but 12 or more is insane.

Antioxidant supplements like this one can help, this one has some nasty filler but for a one time deal before and after xray prob not a big deal, id use just Amla and red light personally. It was actually recommended by a local "natural" dentist who used to offer transillumination as an alternative to xray, of course they stopped... https://haloantioxidant.com/pages/ingredients

 

[slimdaddydogjim]

The X-ray machines at airports are one thing, but the actual flight itself could subject you to even higher amounts of radiation. This is because at higher altitudes (greater than 30,000 ft) there is more exposure to cosmic rays:

 

[RealNeat]

The X-ray machines at airports are one thing, but the actual flight itself could subject you to even higher amounts of radiation. This is because at higher altitudes (greater than 30,000 ft) there is more exposure to cosmic rays:

View attachment 59659

This chart is deceiving, its not only the quantity of radiation but also the rate at which it penetrates the body and exits that is of importance.

TERTIARY X-RADIATION—A PROBLEM FOR STAFF PROTECTION?

Abstract. The influence of tertiary x-radiation on the radiological staff is widely unknown. Tertiary radiation is caused as the scattered radiation of the pati

academic.oup.com

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0284185176017S35104?journalCode=acrb

 

[slimdaddydogjim]

This chart is deceiving

Not really. It's meant to show 'average' hourly exposure at varying altitudes.

its not only the quantity of radiation but also the rate at which it penetrates the body and exits that is of importance.

I agree. Being at an altitude of 12,000 meters for one hour does not guarantee that you will have 5 uSv of radiation passing through you. It's a probability thing; you could have less or you could possibly have more.

 

[RealNeat]

Not really. It's meant to show 'average' hourly exposure at varying altitudes.


I agree. Being at an altitude of 12,000 meters for one hour does not guarantee that you will have 5 uSv of radiation passing through you. It's a probability thing; you could have less or you could possibly have more.

Read the papers I linked, it doesnt have to do with probability, it has to do with the physics of radioactive particles.

One can receive an identical dose of radiation at different altitudes and under different materials but have completely different physiological reaction depending on the speed of the particle.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=KVq7DpxGdNk


Ray Peat: ...But the government had its agents out convincing people that below the threshold, there was no harm at all, and that the amounts were similar to what you get when you live in Denver [1600 meters high in altitude], or when flying in an airplane, or sit in the sun. Even Linus Pauling, who opposed exposing a population to radiation, was convinced that it was worse to live in Denver than at sea level, because, supposedly, cosmic rays were more intense in Denver. And sunlight too was more intense. But the facts showed that cancer of all kinds is less common the higher you go in altitude. [And sadly,] someone who's as sophisticated as Linus Pauling neglected that property of radiation; it's called “the linear energy transfer”. At high altitude, it happens that cosmic rays don't deliver much energy or damage to your tissues. But at lower altitude where they're less intense, they're more able to react with your tissues and cause damage. So, cosmic rays are harmful. And when you’re in a skyscraper, for example, it's even worse than being at a low altitude, because the cosmic rays are slowed down and produce secondary and tertiary particles. So you get much more intense radiation at low altitude [if you’re additionally] sheltered by massive structures.

JB: Ray, the cosmic ray example you just used confuses me because it seems at lower altitudes, they should be weaker, as they’re going slower, which to me implies less energy. So why is that the case? What's actually happening that it's causing damage?

RP: The ordinary photon-type of radiation (which includes infrared, visible light and ultraviolet) is an electromagnetic vibration. [But] the nuclear particles are actual protons, or nuclei, or whole atoms, minus the electrons. Cosmic rays are typically iron atoms without their electrons. So they're very massive particles; but going at a very high speed, they pass through the body without doing anything except a trail of ionization that you can see when they go through an atmosphere that is saturated with water. The ionization causes a streamer of particles to appear.

 

[tiffanya]

@tiffanya Bananas have a radioactive isotope of potassium (potassium-40). Some people use the term 'Banana equivalent dose' when comparing levels of radiation. Your hygienist is wrong for saying that a dental X-ray has the same radiation dose as a banana. A dental X-ray in fact has 50 times the radiation dose compared to one banana!

View attachment 59658

Thanks for explaining this to me. Does the same apply to digital x-rays? They are always saying that they emit so much less radiation.

 

[RealNeat]

Thanks for explaining this to me. Does the same apply to digital x-rays? They are always saying that they emit so much less radiation.

A dental xray could mean 50 different things... are we talking panoramic, 1 bitewing, 12 bitewings, Cone Beam scan, they vary in radiation tremendously.

 

[tiffanya]

A dental xray could mean 50 different things... are we talking panoramic, 1 bitewing, 12 bitewings, Cone Beam scan, they vary in radiation tremendously.

2 bitewings using digital x-rays. They say this is equal or less than eating a banana.

 

[slimdaddydogjim]

One can receive an identical dose of radiation at different altitudes and under different materials but have completely different physiological reaction depending on the speed of the particle.

If the higher speed of the particles at higher altitude is less harmful dose-wise, than this is another thing. This doesn't mean that the higher measured radiation levels at higher altitudes is wrong.

I can see why the particles slowing down at lower altitudes can provide a more harmful dose, Thank you for sharing this.

 

[iLoveSugar]

I used red light for about 20 minutes or so, and took some aspirin about 1.5 hours after.

But you have me worried about these 12 bite wings they had me do.

 

[RealNeat]

2 bitewings using digital x-rays. They say this is equal or less than eating a banana.

2 bite wings every 6 months or a year is not something I would fret over. Is it better not to? Yes, but it's far less than what most people have to go through at the dentist.

 

[Pol-Sci]

RE: finding a reasonable dentist: I typed up a form letter asking for a reasonable dentist office that didn't require a "standard of care" entailing constant yearly xrays, but would allow the patient, in consulation with the dentist, to decide if it was necessary or not. I sent this to every dental practice within a one hour driving range, and found 2 out of 12, who consided their patients to be capable of making decisions about their own health. I had to leave the practice where I'd been for 30 years, becuase they'd been bought out by a franchise that had a "standard of care" that was anything but caring. I've been hoping the ulta-sound technology that Ray mentioned would become available to dentistry someday but I haven't heard or seen anything about it for 10 years.