I’m pretty sure not in my case. We’re MRIs a routine diagnostic in the 80s and before? I don’t recall. If anything, an MRI was pretty cutting edge and in our for profit medical industry, I would guess most people didn’t get the use of the most expensive machine in the facility.
CT Scans were common and their resolution is much better than most MRI scanners.I’m pretty sure not in my case. We’re MRIs a routine diagnostic in the 80s and before? I don’t recall. If anything, an MRI was pretty cutting edge and in our for profit medical industry, I would guess most people didn’t get the use of the most expensive machine in the facility.
That could be. Which of those is the one with the tube? I've had a couple of those for my back.
MRIs are a ‘tube’. CT Scans are more like a polo mint
He demanded a whiskey when they left….not his first of the day, I’m sure!
MRIs are a ‘tube’. CT Scans are more like a polo mint
In the U.K, head scans are routine for people with significant head injuries. My elderly father (RIP) once fell and banged his head on a bathroom sink and had quite an egg on his head! The paramedics came and wanted to take him to hospital for a head scan. As he lay on the bathroom floor, he told them to ‘P*ss off’ as he wasn’t going to wait for 4hrs in a drafty, cold A&E for a scan and since he was he a retire consultant physician he knew his brain was fine
This shouldn't be a problem as multiple sources can be posted to either verify or dispute another source. In terms of medicine there will always be disputes not all doctors believe the same cure. It wouldn't be the first time that multiple sources have been posted. Studies are often temporary as well and there have been times where one study stated that a chemical was safe, only to learn more about it in the future and then reverse it. Multiple sources = a more accurate picture. A medical opinion is still valuable which is why people recommend getting that second medical opinion. One doctor may know something that another one doesn't One doctor may be more political.
This is always a case even with peer reviewed documents and studies..It is the poster’s responsibility to check those data.
How to Tell if a Website is Credible | EasyBib
www.easybib.com
That depends how you're defining concussion. If you're counting major concussions, you're probably correct. Many athletes have had a bunch of minor concussions (and yes, those count). I know of at least 2 I had playing soccer in a recreational league (hit in the head by a kicked ball) and at least two from bad falls in MA. I likely had one in a car accident as a kid. And that's just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Soccer players who "head" the ball are likely suffering small trauma from that, though I doubt they'd often qualify as concussions. Football players are likely suffering minor concussions on a percentage of hard hits - we just don't have a good way to measure that at present.
I'm not a medical person (though I do have WFR certification), but aspirin is NOT recommended (nor are other NSAIDs) with a suspected concussion, bercause of the risk of bleeding.
"Diagnosed" would mean those were seen by a medical professional. There is a long history in sports of NOT suggesting that.
Do you remember what the aliens did to Cartman in the very first episode of South Park?
There is some question whether all impact is the same. Axonal twisting appears to be in play for knock-out blows. Since part of the determination of risk is change in responsiveness, being knocked out seems to qualify as a concussion. And the brain's "little pool" doesn't protect well against that.
That's .91 per 1000 athletic exposures. We'd need to know what that term means. It seems likely that refers to a game or practice. If you're practicing 4 times a week and playing once a week, you'd hit 100 exposures in 20 weeks. I'm guessing that's close to a season's exposure.
That's why I was glad to see it on the forms I had to sign to fight full contact.
This is why I focus on defense. Hands up, chin tucked. Neck strong.
MRIs and CT weren't common. Those were big ticket items back then. Also concussions weren't viewed in the same light back then. A bump on the head was just a bump on the head. It was only a biggie if you passed out. Repeated hits to the head. I grew up on the Three Stooges so that gives a person some insight on how head injuries were viewed as lol. and how to defend against eye pokes lol
If that is true (and I have no reason to believe it isn't) why are MRI's used so heavily in orthopedics?
MRIs do not use powerful ionising radiation (X-Rays) to form an image whereas CT Scans do. There’s a limit to how many CT scans you can have in a year as a consequence and cannot be used at all on pregnant women. MRIs use tiny changes in magnetic flux’s caused by the rotation and realignment of protons in hydrogen molecules of the body. But you cannot use MRI scans if people have most types of ‘metal work’ in their body and even the repeated use of metallic scalpels can leave sufficient quantities of microscopic ferro- and paramagnetic particles in and around the incision as to ‘blur’ the MRI image. To avoid this you used to be able to buy flint/obsidian scalpel (yes…dragonglass
) but they're very pricy and I can’t find them online anymore 
Ah, that explains a lot. I am chocked full of metal.MRIs do not use powerful ionising radiation (X-Rays) to form an image whereas CT Scans do. There’s a limit to how many CT scans you can have in a year as a consequence and cannot be used at all on pregnant women. MRIs use tiny changes in magnetic flux’s caused by the rotation and realignment of protons in hydrogen molecules of the body. But you cannot use MRI scans if people have most types of ‘metal work’ in their body and even the repeated use of metallic scalpels can leave sufficient quantities of microscopic ferro- and paramagnetic particles in and around the incision as to ‘blur’ the MRI image. To avoid this you used to be able to buy flint/obsidian scalpel (yes…dragonglass
Wolverine? Is that you?
