Okay, I’m intrigued. In this thread, rightfully closed, Mahaloth links to his recent x-rays for a second opinion. If you follow that link, you’ll notice on the bottom left corner of the x-ray it clearly says “Not for diagnostic use.” I’ve never seen it on an x-ray before, but, granted, it’s been 18 years since I worked for a radiologist, and I’m not in the habit of being conscious enough to look at my own x-rays when they’re being examined, so who knows what disclaimers they’re putting on them these days.
Is this common? What else would you use an x-ray for?
Incidentally, Mahaloth, those x-rays include your full name and patient ID number… you probably don’t want those sorts of things floating around.
I expect that Mahaloth got a copy of his x-ray from his doctor. Since the copy may have been contaminated with crud or dust, or just not as accurate as the original, it would have been labelled “Not for diagnostic use”, to tell the viewer that they are not looking at the original.
I’ve just had a look at the linked album, and these images were made with digital equipment, so quality of the originals probably isn’t an issue.
I’m thinking that the images saved to the CD that was given to Mahaloth may not be as high a resolution that would be used by an actual radiologist and may therefore lead to a questionable diagnosis. In most states, any MD can read the films and get at least a clue about what’s going on and initiate treatment, but a radiologist must read the x-rays and issue a report with the “official” diagnosis.
Oh, and Mahaloth, honey, you might want to take these images off the Web.
A lot of stuff is digitized more for patients “scrppbooks” because they think they are “neat” and are never intended for diagostic purposes. I have photographs of my FIL’s retinas – amusing and goofy, low resolution images for personal interest.
“Gather 'round kids, lets look at the inside of Grampa’s eyes!”
“Oo-oo-oo, neat!”
The images Mahaloth were just souvenirs. And they are probably scans that are compressed to JPGs or whatnot reduced in szie to fit on a disc and be e-mailable – compressed files will most certainly lose all the important details that would be needed for diagnosis.
I presume x-ray film is like regular film, in that they come in different grades. I would think there would be one grade for medical reasons and another for x-raying rocks. Copies not for diagnotic use are probably like portrait proofs good enough to make a choice on but not good enough to frame.
Film, when it is used, doesn’t come in different grades. Rather, the radiographer adjusts the amount of x-rays going to the specimen being imaged. Also, in many US hospitals, digital radiography is becoming the norm, and digital does not use film.
To answer the OP literally, some other things you might use X-rays for include treatment of skin disease (X-rays of around 15-30- keV energy so they are strong only at the surface, think they’re called Lenz rays or Grenz rays or something like that) and irradiation of tumors (usually higher energies above 100 keV so they are strong all the way through the body), measurement of the thickness of sheet materials like metal foils and plastic films, measurement of crystalline structure and orientation in solids (for example to study polymer structure), elemental identification in scanning electron microscopy, and lithography of very fine patterns too small to be reproduced with ultraviolet light (for example in cutting-edge integrated circuit development).
Note that these are uses of X-rays, not X-ray shadowgraphs. The funny see-through pictures with white bones on a black background are not X-rays, they are shadowgraphs or images made using X-rays.
Other things you can use X-ray shadowgraphs for include spicing up technical lectures (I did this with my stepdaughter’s broken finger images).
