Tag Archives: ct scan

Commonword names for technical concepts

In a previous post I talked about the use of commonword names for technical concepts, for example, “simple group” for a group with no proper normal subgroups.  This makes the monster group a simple group!  Lay readers on the subject might very well feel terminally put-down by such usage.  (If he calls that “simple” he must be a genius.  How could I ever understand that?  See note 1.)  Mark Ronan used of “atom of symmetry” instead of “simple group” in his book Symmetry and the Monster, probably for some such reason.

Recently I had what used to be called a CAT scan and (perhaps) what used to be called a PET scan on the same day.   The medically community now refers to CT scan or nuclear imaging.   This may be because too many clients were thinking of doing sadistic testing on cats or other pets.   But I have not been able to confirm that.

The nurse called the CT scan an x-ray.  Well, of course, it is an x-ray, but it is an x-ray with tomography.  She explicitly said that calling CT scans x-rays was common usage in their lab.  In the past, other medical people have said to me, “It used to be called CAT scan but now it is CT scan.”   But no one said why.

The situation about PET scan is more complicated.  I didn’t raise the question with the nurse, and Wikipedia has separate articles about PET scans and nuclear imaging, even though they both use positrons and tomography.   The chemicals mentioned for PET are isotopes of low-atomic-number elements, whereas the nuclear medicine article mentions technetium99 as the most commonly used isotope.  Nowhere does it explain the difference.  I wrote a querulous note in the comments section of the NM article requesting clarification.

Note 1.  “If he calls that ‘simple’ he must be a genius.  How could I ever understand that?”   Do not dismiss this as the reaction of a stupid person.  This kind of ready-to-be-intimidated attitude is very common among intelligent, educated, but non-technically-oriented people.   If mathematicians dismiss people like that we will  continue to find mathematics anathema among educated people.  We need people to feel that they understand something about what mathematicians do (I use that wording advisedly).  Even if you are an elitist who doesn’t give a damn about ordinary people, remember who funds the NSF. See co-intimidator.

Send to Kindle