[ RadSafe ] New average annual medical dose

[howard long]

"Averaging" a medical dose is humorous.
  Did you hear the story about the statistician who drowned, wading across a creek that averaged one foot deep?
   
  From 4,000+ cSv (rem) in radiation oncology locally to 0 (with only benefit having been shown up to 10 cSv rem) makes averaging medical dose just an exercise for idle bureaucrats.
   
  Howard Long

Dan W McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com> wrote:
  Hello Mike & Jim:

Is there a reference for this paper? Is there a website containing the
statistical data for this new "average"? I can't help but think that the
new "average" is strongly biased by a very high end, but relatively small
"tail" on the distribution. Are there published numbers for other
descriptors of central tendency such as median, or a Tukey Trimean? How do
these estimators compare with the older distribution on which the older dose
estimate is based? Has the median dose changed that much?

Dan ii

Dan W McCarn, Geologist
Albuquerque & Houston

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:35 AM
To: radsafe
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/

_______________________________________________
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/