Radiate me NOT update

I was pleased to see a brief story from USA Today that mentioned radiation moderation. As you recall, this issue has been gaining momentum since research findings have encouraged the FDA to evaluate the amount of radiation that people are exposed to from medical imaging, with the possibility of creating some regulations. The research is regarding the amount of new cancer cases that are linked directly to Xrays and CT scans.

The news story quoted a radiologist who is attending a 5 day annual meeting for radiologists and radiology students. It was good to see that radiologists themselves were acknowledging that the concern was valid. If you think about it, they could stand to lose money if physicians order less CTs, for example. I went to the website for this meeting and there you can see the program for the week - WOW - they Xray everything - it was rather eye opening. Here you can take a look.

Some of the steps being taken at this time include reducing the amount of radiation in tests - in other words, many times the radiation levels do not have to be as high as they have been for the machine to do its job. Good to know. The radiologist that was interviewed for the story discussed his own research and in that, he explained about a procedure that actually puts women at risk for breast cancer. Remember that radiation exposure IS a cause of cancer. So some women undergo a CT scan that can seen how the arteries of the heart are fairing and in that test, the breasts are exposed to radiation.

In a post from December, I introduced the milligray as one measurement of radiation. I learned from Dr. Abadi's interview that there are about 3 mGy in a mammogram. Some of these other tests have as many as 83 mGy - you see how this could be a problem and OH SO MUCH SO, if the tests begin at young ages.

This got me to wondering about the different doses of radiation in medical procedures specifically as there are certainly natural sources of radiation as well (and microwaves and cell phones). For a moment, I considered that I might find a certain dose of radiation that experts considered safe and realized that was just not going to happen. Any amount of radiation could be harmful - it is radiation! I should clarify, ionizing radiation, that which can charge atoms or molecules by detaching electrons - as most of the radiation you think of - sun, Xrays, nuclear power plants - it can be measured in ways beyond mGy - which now that I read about it, makes my head hurt.

Apparently, the rad is commonly used to compare between tests. The difference between a chest Xray and a chest CT - according to an article from Penn State is .006 rad to 1 rad - where as the coronary engram that I referred to above is 1.5 rad. YEAH google taught me this: 1 rad = 10 mGy.

I found a study from South Africa published recently (2009) where a group created some dose reference levels (DRL) for popular scanning procedures - they hope that they can be used to come up with some standards. I guess that would be the next best thing to a safe level. I am encouraged by their work and I am officially in over my head as far as describing any more differences. So I will report more when I am smarter........

Oh, but do continue to ask the clinician these questions?

• Why do I need the test?
• How will it direct my treatment?
• How many rads or mGys will I be exposed to (oh just ask to see the look on his or her face)
• Has the machine been calibrated (?) - there may be a tag on the machine

oh and just for fun

• Do you or any of your colleagues own the imaging center that you are sending me to?