Gnomon - I did not say it was biased, only that it caused me to question whether it is. I addressed the concerns of your first paragraph in MY first paragraph, where I said it was clear that the exposure was manipulated to show the fragmentation "WHICH IS FAIR TO DO IF THAT IS THE STATED PURPOSE". In this case, the purpose is not stated, so we are left to ourselves to decide if the presenter wanted to just maximize the fragmentation pattern to show it, or if they want us to think this is a typical appearance of what a bullet does inside the body (which it most definitely is not). To me, my concern is that the average person not used to viewing bullets on radiographs would think, "Wow! I had no idea that bullets did that inside the body," when in fact this is a rare/extreme case at best. Not sure if that's what the presenter wants us to think, though.

Regarding your second paragraph, all of that WOULD be much more apparent if the exposure followed standard diagnostic technique. You would be able to see anatomic structures and be able to judge distances, and also see what was impacted to cause such fragmentation. As it is, all the anatomy is lost in a white-out. You wondered how common that is - I can assure you that in hundreds of these cases over twenty years I've never seen one this dramatic, but we can't see what the bullet impacted to make it do this - because the technique is manipulated for a different result. My point was that standard technique would have made this radiograph tell us A LOT MORE about what really happened, and your questions would have been self-evident.

Last edited by vh20; 09/06/11 11:31 PM.