[ RadSafe ] CT scans dangerous?

Fri Nov 9 14:01:28 CST 2007

If you imply that the benefit from proper medical care
from a CT scan is reasonable compared to the risk of a
future cancer, that is true.

However, the only benefit from ALARA is lower risk of
a future cancer.  

--- "Brennan, Mike  (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
wrote:

> I think that ALARA should indeed apply in medical
> exposure.  What
> changes is the level that is "reasonable".
> 
> The over-arching problem is looking at radiation
> risk (or any risk, for
> that matter) in isolation.  The risk of into a small
> open boat and
> rowing off into the North Atlantic is high, and
> under normal
> circumstances is unacceptably so.  However, in
> comparison to staying
> aboard the Titanic, the risk becomes much more
> reasonable.  The
> radiation dose from a CT scan is higher than I feel
> is reasonable to
> receive recreationally, but there are a lot of
> medical conditions where
> the quality of information gained is worth the risk.
> 
> As my Grandmother might phrase it; "You should live
> so long that the
> radiation from the CT is your biggest worry." 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of John Jacobus
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 7:09 PM
> To: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] CT scans dangerous?
> 
> Ward,
> ALARA does not and should not apply to medical
> exposures. ALARA
> principles are used to reduce the risk of harmful
> effects associated
> with radiation exposures.  In medicine, the patient
> is frequently
> already at risk from harm due to disease or injury. 
> Radiation, surgery, prescribed drugs, etc., all have
> the potential to
> improve the patents' health and quality of life.  
> 
> While physicians are probably not trained in the
> risks of radiation
> exposure, drug interactions, etc. they assume total
> responsibility for
> the patient under their care.  
> 
> 
> --- "Brunkow, Ward" <ward.brunkow at wipp.ws> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Good issue to bring up. I think the answer is as
> it has been for
> > decades:
> > >ALARA principal is not observed well within the
> > medical community
> > >Dr.s aren't trained well in radiation safety and
> > therefore prescribe
> > diagnostic use freely
> > >I think the older CT scanners were giving 12 -20
> > Rem  acute exposure at
> > times, especially upper and lower GI
> > >Not enough consideration given to rapidly
> dividing
> > cells, young people
> > >$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, money driven yet,
> not
> > ethical to give
> > someone this exposure if there isn't significant
> benefit, especially 
> > younger person, but have to keep those bucks
> coming in
> > >Too much "cook book" diagnosis in medical
> community
> > yet, diagnostic
> > (therapeutic for that matter also) radiation
> exposure used too freely.
> > The Prescribe and move on to the next one....
> > premise....
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > W. G. (Ward) Brunkow
> > DOE Contractor (former Medical School RSO)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
> > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> > Behalf Of Steven Dapra
> > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 7:42 PM
> > To: radsafe at radlab.nl
> > Subject: [ RadSafe ] CT scans dangerous?
> > 
> > Oct. 29, 2007
> > 
> > 	This article from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel
> of Oct. 14 was 
> > published in today's Albuquerque Journal.
> > 
> > 	The link
> > is: 
> >
>
http://gr.acr.org/acr?action=viewNewsArticle&documentId=2c9e4f69159c076a
> > 01159e51df09009d. 
> > This is the website of the American College of
> Radiology.  (The 
> > article didn't seem to be available on the SFS-S
> website.)
> > 
> > 	According to the article, the ECRI Institute "an
> independent
> research 
> > group, estimates that CT scans cause 6,000 cases
> of cancer per year, 
> > half of them fatal, making them more of a risk
> than wrong-site 
> > surgeries."
> > 
> > 	The ECRI's URL is
> > <http://www.ecri.org/Pages/default.aspx>.  It was
> founded in 1968 as 
> > the Emergency Care Research Institute.  A summary
> of its history will 
> > be found here:
> > <http://www.ecri.org/About/Pages/History.aspx>.
> > 
> > 	Any comments on the article about CT scans?
> > 
> > Steven Dapra
> > sjd at swcp.com
> > 
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "If you guard your toothbrushes and diamonds with
> equal zeal, you'll
> probably lose fewer toothbrushes and more diamonds."
> - Former national security advised McGeorge Bundy
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 

+++++++++++++++++++
"If you guard your toothbrushes and diamonds with equal zeal, you'll probably lose fewer toothbrushes and more diamonds."
- Former national security advised McGeorge Bundy
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 