[ RadSafe ] New average annual medical dose

Tue Aug 14 13:16:19 CDT 2007

Hi all,
I have requested a detailed cite for the increase in average radiation dose to the public from diagnostic procedures used in medical procedures. I am quite certain that dose from therapy procedures is NOT included in the recently revised upward average radiation dose delivered.  The increase is due to a larger fraction of Americans receiving diagnostic tests and the tests employed delivering more dose per procedure --on average. Larry Dauer of Memorial Sloan Kettering gave a very good presentation on this point as part of a recent presentation to the New York Chapter of the HPS.

However, I feel the approximate tripling of radiation dose from "routine" diagnostic testing is very important to have "on the table" when considering the overall dose to the public from background, residual fallout, consumer products, nuclear power, and other trivial contributors to public radiation dose. The increase is a very significant trend and deserves recognition.   

The increase in average medical dose also gives some incentive to physicians to be more "balanced" in their claiming concern about health risks of trivial sources of radiation exposure when radiation exposure in the "healing arts" is increasing so sharply, but still below any level of annual exposure that is clearly linked to health impacts. If a physician were to claim serious concern about risk from trivial radiation exposure, they would in effect be hoisted on their own petard. The large and increasing dose from medical procedures also has significance related to consideration of a deminimus level and development of acceptable residual dose levels for public exposure in the case of a so-called "dirty bomb".

Perhaps it will even give the "Physicians for Social Responsibility" and Helen Caldicott something worth focusing their attention upon vs. a small fraction of a mrem from nuclear power plant operations today or if more nuclear power plants are built.   "Physician heal thyself".

As far as too much news focus on Paris, perhaps we can hope the Germans perform an end run around her Maginot Line and march down her Champs-Élysées -- which would be just comeuppance, so to speak. Forgive me, the devil [and a warped sense of humor] made me say it. 

Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
Consulting Scientist
Farber Technical Services
1285 Wood Ave.
Bridgeport, CT 06604
[203] 441-8433 [office]
email: radproject at sbcglobal.net
          radproject at aol.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
To: "radsafe" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:34 PM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] New average annual medical dose

It was also presented by the EPA (I don't recall the individual) at the CRCPC meeting in May.  The factor driving this increase in the "average" is the large number of procedures such as CAT scans, where the high resolution and large information content comes at the cost of higher dose, and the increase of radiation based options replacing conventional surgery.

While I have no problem at all with updating the pie chart, I do take issue with including "average" medical dose in the same display as other, presumably non-healthy, dose.  I believe it sends the wrong message to the public.

As an example, the average dose in my family has gone up very dramatically in the last six months.  My mother has been diagnosed with a brain tumor.  She has had a number of CAT scans of her head, radiation treatment of the tumor, and undoubtedly several other exposures that I don't remember at the moment.  I don't know what her total dose is, and frankly, I don't really care; I don't think that viewing this dose to her in the standard ways we view dose is productive.

While her no-doubt large dose increased the average dose of any demographic she is included in, it does not increase the risk from radiation to anyone but her.  And for her, the dose resulted in an overall reduction in risk.  Both those points will be lost in a dose pie chart.

When the media sees the new pie chart I can see the lead stories about the HUGE increase (unless, of course, Paris Hilton does something more interesting that day).  I can almost hear news anchors and special reporters speaking in concerned tones about this development, and asking why somebody doesn't do something.  I wouldn't be surprised if some Congressional committee looks into it to see if there aren't some good sound bites available.  It will all come to a bad end.

But we will always have Paris. 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Muckerheide, Jim (CDA)
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:20 AM
To: Wes Van Pelt; radsafe
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] New average annual medical dose

Hi Wes,

The new estimate is 320 mrem/yr.  This was presented by Fred Mettler at the NCRP April Annual meeting.  This will be in an update of the NCRP 93 report (1987) in which medical exposure is estimated to be 54 mrem/r.

I've seen a ref to a later presentation by Dr. Mettler also, but I forget where.

Regards, Jim 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Wes Van Pelt
>Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:59 AM
>To: 'radsafe'
>Subject: [ RadSafe ] New average annual medical dose
>
>A few weeks ago there was some discussion on a new revised estimate of 
>annual dose from diagnostic medical procedures (e.g., x-rays, CT, mamo, 
>etc.). I recall that the annual average medical dose went from about 70 
>to about 250 mrem per year. A BIG increase!
>
>I cannot find the reference(s) to this new estimate. Can anyone help?
>
>Best regards,
>Wes
>Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD, CIH, CHP
>Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc.  
> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
>the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
>visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/