(no subject)

Date: 2009-08-08 05:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] athelind.livejournal.com
I've seen a lot of the "overlay a photo over yourself" pictures, but I've never seen one with an X-Ray before. That's PERFECT.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-08-08 11:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] atlasimpure.livejournal.com
Nice cells.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-08-09 05:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zdallin.livejournal.com
Man, I thought x-ray vision would be fun!

(no subject)

Date: 2009-08-09 06:21 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] opaqueplanet.livejournal.com
is that really what a chest x-ray looks like? I didn't think breast tissue would be so visible.

And what is that to (her) left of her sternum, that it looks so wide?

I am obviously not at all well-versed in x-ray technology. I'm more a soft-tissue and sharp-instruments kind of girl.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-08-09 12:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] corruptedjasper.livejournal.com
X-ray photos really depends on the energy of the x-ray, sensitivity of the film, and exposure time. Yes, it's possible to make x-rays that show *just* bones, mostly by exposing for longer, but it's also possible to view fuzzy images of soft tissue.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-08-09 12:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] corruptedjasper.livejournal.com
The wide stuff around her sternum has to be the heart, the heart and lungs are the only big things that are behind the ribs. Lungs are, for obvious reasons, fairly lightweight tissue, and the heart is essentially a near-solid muscle (the bits that aren't solid blood), which is much denser and thus more opaque.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-08-10 05:05 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] opaqueplanet.livejournal.com
Heart! duh...

You're much better at this than me. Like I said, if I'm not sticking a needle into it or making an incision into it, I'm at a total loss.

Profile

theweaselking: (Default)theweaselking
Page generated Feb. 7th, 2026 03:12 am