Talk:Radiographer

message: It's a very good article. --Vookie101 00:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality

message: I'm a Radiologic Technologist and I make 60,000 dollars a year.  Those salaries seem old to me.
:It completely depends on where and who you work for.  This is average public hospital salary, especially for people right out of school, in the United States.  I don't think salary should be listed on Wikipedia as it varies so much around the world.Gaviidae 15:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salary? 

message: I've expanded the article.  I put the other modalities in a separate paragraph, as a rad tech can't just go do ultrasound etc.  There's still much more that can go in this article, esp need an outside the US POV-- I just don't know the accreditation used outside the US.Gaviidae 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanded

message: I have made some editing in this page. 
* First of all I expanded the article with some more information, Given headings
*Not only the information about salary is totally unnecessery for this article, but also that was not right  -with my best knowledge, I deleted that portion.
*The Radiography professionals are no more assisting any other professionals. Radiologic Technologists are working as members of a patient care team, not as assistants . So 'assisting physicians' also deleted my me:)
Kaaliyambi 23:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: I know that someone I work with at a hospital in London, is the first radiographer in the UK to perform Nerve Root injections.  This has never been reported in any articles as this is quite recent.  Due to this I am unable to provide a reference.  Can anyone help?? Heather 17:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiographers Extended Role in the UK 

message: The section on Safety, specifically the MRI mention seems to state a risk that is not substansiated by the referenced article (that 15 mins in an MRI field causes cellular changes.) This seems to be a mis-statement of the actual risk of MRI scanning, stating a possible effect as a certainty. 86.132.89.12 (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety section 

message: "The term "technician" is reserved for biomedical technicians who fix medical equipments and is not related in any way with the allied medical professionals known as "Radiologic Technologists". It is unethical and offensive on the part of a radiologic technologist to be addressed as "technician" because they are highly educated and licensed professionals."
This paragraph is quite bizarre and I believe that it should be removed. It would appear that someone has been offended by the undervaluation of their role - that is insufficent reason to write such a personalised message to the world, IMHO.
I won't be passing by this page again, so over to you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.55.170 (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature of the work 

message: A very poorly written section, probably best removed as soon as possible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.135.3.175 (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stress and Challenges 

message: I have edited the article, removed the terrible 'stress and chalenges' section drivel. Edited the dangers to more accurate levels. Corrected grammar throughout. Many of the dangers were referenced only with the physiological effects of exposure to pathogens, radiation etc, but did not reference their actual liklihood of being encoutered/having an effect on the radiographer. With regard to studies on the incidence of cancer among radiogaphers, it is only established by correlative studies, as tumor appearance constitutes a stochastic effect within the low doses used by radiographers, and cannot therefore be referenced causally. This may seem a minor point, but its' distinction is important.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.183.167 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: I've considerably corrected this section by removing risks that fail verification, such as the ionization danger. Not only did the cited source not mention that at all, ionizing radiation powerful enough to regularly produce toxic levels of ozone would cause serious issues for patients. The claim was dubious at best. Other risks were overstated (wildly, in the MRI and hospital-acquired infection cases) compared to the source material. The only thing left there is the spinal injury line, which I personally feel is plausible, but no citation was provided. I'm sure someone can find a good example of spinal injuries from patient movement in allied health. --75.151.200.177 (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Risks

message: I reverted the changes to unsourced and NPOV information by Electromagnetictop2. A prior user, Electromagnetictop, was the source of those and was blocked for disruptive editing by User:Fastily. After I reported the behavior of Electromagnetictop2, Fastily agreed it was most likely an account created to evade the block and blocked Electromagnetictop2. So, after reviewing the subsequent edits to the page, I went ahead and reverted the text to the revision by Helpful Pixie Bot, which was the most recent one before Electromagnetictop2 reverted to the previous version they created. I also integrated some of the copy edits from subsequent edits, but if I didn't get them all and clobbered your change, I apologize. --75.151.200.177 (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  17 Sep 2011 revert 

message: I'm a year 2 BSc diagnostic radiography student in the UK and noticed how uneven and poorly cited this article is. I'm going to try and add references over time to this page and add more up to date information - especially for the UK and Australia. If I've made a bad edit please undo just that portion and tell me what's wrong here so I can correct it or reference it properly. 
I will also try to tidy up the overall structure and appearance of this page. Unrelated: Imagine what patients think when they google our profession and this thing comes up. Needs a lot of work! Haha.  
Feedback would be good so please criticize freely.
01Chris02 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a globalise tag as it's kind of UK and US biased at the moment, can anyone else contribute to help expand this? 01Chris02 (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to find a name more neutral than radiologic technologist as this, as far as I'm aware, is only really used in the USA. I've seen US workers call themselves radiographers before and it seems to be much more universal. Does anyone have any input on this? The name radiologic technologist is not used in the UK, most of Europe, South Africa, Australia, etc. 01Chris02 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup (Added UK information and a few references too)