Long arms required for X-rated selfies

An original subsurface x-ray image of the Loch Ness Monster (complimentary from Isak). There aren't any recorded selfies taken by the monster.

Confusing x-rated, ex-rated and radiological terminology could result in lots of awkward misunderstandings. In common talk, x-rating of course refers to a publication or a performance requiring parental advisory. Ex-rated, on the other hand, could be something that your "ex" (as an ex-partner) has commented or criticised or, as by being an ex, has been allowed to take an experience of... and rate it, him, her. Playing with these words may sound dull, but still I take it seriously as Radiology is a branch of The Medical Science, and the well-advised users of x-rated or ex-rated stuff are either enthusiasts of The Science of Art, or they just appreciate a second opinion. 

In order to alleviate the discomfort created by the starting statement, I'll tell you a true story (some of you may have heard about it, but it was his fault): So, I had just finished a golf round near my place with a friend, and he stayed over night as the way home was long and dangerous. In the morning my friend asked me if I had any pain killers or suppositories for hemorrhoid pain. I offered him some, but the point here is that I just forgot to mention something very essential. Earlier, I had occasionally tried to cover the smell of beer in my breath from my wife with garlic. I used to scale and slice garlic cloves in the toilet (and then mix in balsamic vinegar with a raw egg, but that's another story). Extra garlic cloves I hid in a box of hemorrhoid suppositories. Already then, my friend was pretty far-sighted and didn't wear glasses in the morning. The morning was sunny and clear, and I can still hear his scream reverberating in our bathroom with pretty blueish tiling.

I don't know if, after the incident, my friend's colon was x-rayed or otherwise rated by anyone's ex. However, I can say that if the whole episode had been taken on film, quite likely the actual toilet action and definitely the aftermath would have been some tough x-rated material. Recently he has developed an aversion to all Russian food.

But then, let's get back to the theoretical discussion. The radiologists use softer x-rays for imaging soft tissues as they are more "transparent" than bones, and the term "soft" is also an attribute to borderline x-rated filmography. Obviously, that compartment is all about soft tissues and transparency. On the other hand, xxx-rated magazines (hard core) and especially videos are nowadays a common source of information, and the more Xes are prefixed the more reliable the info is. As well do divorced people have exes, ex-exes or even more. However, these two categories differ in one fundamental way. The xxx-rated stuff maintains its effectiveness and function as the ex-exes do not. The increasing number of x- or ex-prefixes entails inverse correlation in this case. They do not simply work in the same department. I don't know if the radiologists use the term xxx-rays for harder beams they use, but the outcome of handling xxx-rated material could definitely be measured using the Rockwell test, and if that pair existed, the correlation would be direct. 

Talking about the radiologists and their tasks, writing an interpretation of an x-ray (radiograph) is an essential chore for providing the clinician with some good information about the subject (patient). X-rated magazines consistently also have "a story" that provides the reader with essential details about the x-rated "clinical" pictures (who is the patient?). The x-ray interpretation tells the clinician almost all that is necessary, but the x-rated material is first ex-rated by ocular means, and only after some positive feed-back studied in writing. These two procedures have a marked difference also in that the first interpretation is definite and is provided by an outside source, but in the latter the impact of the reading experience is ultimately up to the readers own imagination.

Taking selfies has seemingly swept over the social media as an enthusiast would go for non-radiological journals. Technically, xxx-rated selfies are relatively hard to take as even the full extension of arms is only sufficient for a good shot of one's own ear or the partner's plumber's crack. So, these selfies would fall in the one-x-category. Recently, I read about a selfie-taker who caused a serious traffic accident. Quite often the aim is to awake publicity, and is there a faster means for that than to put some soft tissues on display in social media. Hanging them up in a tree shortly after will boost the impact. For the medical staff, who is trying to reconstruct an accident victim, it is of course easier if there is a recent photograph available. Now if the manufacturers were really clever, they would also include an x-ray script in the selfie-apps. Reconstructing the bony jig-saw puzzle is not always so easy with no decent manual.

Once in a while, imagination plays a role in everyone's life. Having a research report published in a scientific journal requires some imagination too. A submitted paper has to go through a peer review process, and thus has to be accepted, except by the editorial staff of the journal, by two to four experts of the same discipline. For gaining some more credibility and impact factor, should also the x-rated "journals" have a peer review system? But which criteria should be used for selecting the reviewers; the duration of the magazine subscription or perhaps police records (depending on the number of Xes)? The same could be applied to ex-partners. Should the priests or magistrates intending to join previously divorced couples in marriage require a peer review done by the ex, or even an ex-ex-spouse; could ex-boy or ex-girl friends be included in liberal congregations? Perhaps in remote congregations and Louisiana, siblings and cousins would be eligible? What about the radiologists. Should their sweethearts first be screened (trans-illuminated), and the x-rays be nailed on light boards in town halls. Well, you shouldn't take this ranting too seriously. I didn't really mean what I said about the radiologists. On the other hand, the Loch Ness monster above didn't have any peers, didn't get married, and hasn't been seen for a while.

Well now, let's get serious; there's always room for true stories. A sorry misjudgement may occasionally be like laughing through tears, and it literally applies to the garlic incident above. However, sometimes the events simply get out of hands, and the laughter comes but later. Some ten years ago, during the Second Gulf War, one Sunday morning I was playing golf (again) in Q8. The local airfield wasn't that far, and we saw an XXL-size US Air Force cargo plane approaching at low altitude. Suddenly, two bright flares were fired from it, and the plane forcefully waved its wings. For a fast passing moment we thought the plane was going to emergency land on the golf course, but it just disappeared behind the hills. However, as soon as its roar had reached some nearby bungalows, a male military person in his 20's came running out from one, and hid in the bushes. He really did misjudge the situation. Perhaps he thought the house was on fire, they had been attacked, or the C-17 pilot's untrue wife had used a flash. Probably, in near future they both would qualify for ex-raters. We of course never got to know how the things turned out, but most likely the pilot did have some beforehand intelligence, or just had stumbled on some old x-rated selfies taken by his wife. Also, if his timing was perfect, the wife was just seeing fireworks, but didn't take them as real. Is it easy to recognise someone else's plumber's crack in a snap shot?

Theoretically, taking selfie x-rays is possible, but sharing them won't provide what so ever satisfaction. There is a chance that an ordinary selfie reveals more about the subject's cerebral wavelengths (i.e. the way of seeing him/herself, friends, life, society, politics, pimples on nose etc.) than any radiograph or an MRI image ever could. On the other hand, the term MRI (e-Mailed Rear Image) is quite well-known also among selfie-takers.

Good imagination is a source of plentiful joy, and it may even enrich the discussion about non-radiological issues. Still some time ago, old people made us believe that reading non-radiological journals would make us blind, or at least make us lose the sense of humour. Although I can't brag about being an enthusiast in that sector, I'm convinced that reading any kind of material from cereal packet covers to Shakespeare will improve our rating ability whether it concerns garlic cloves, ex-girl/boy friends, objects of selfies, or the Loch Ness Monster. Or then not.

P.S. Earlier in this talk I mentioned something about awkward misunderstandings. If some of the readers now think that I'm a radiologist, they are so wrong.