RE: Will the LNT fiction kill again?

["Weiner, Ruth" <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

The LNT can be used for this kind of "tradeoff analysis"  for any kind of
diagnostic x-ray.  I think it would be interesting to survey diagnostic
x-ray use to see if there were any correlation with any kind of cancer.  

Clearly only my own opinion

Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
Sandia National Laboratories 
MS 0718, POB 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
505-844-4791; fax 505-844-0244
rfweine@sandia.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Muckerheide [mailto:jmuckerheide@delphi.com]
Sent: January 25, 2000 12:45 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Will the LNT fiction kill again?


Group,

Here's another uninformed application of the LNT. It has the potential to
result in decisions to avoid mammograms. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Br J Cancer 2000 Jan;82(1):220-6 

Radiation risk and mammographic screening of women from 40 to 49 years of
age:
effect on breast cancer rates and years of life.

Mattsson A, Leitz W, Rutqvist LE

Oncologic Centre, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 

The aim of this study was to evaluate the carcinogenic risks associated with
radiation in mass mammographic screening. Assessment was in terms of breast
cancer mortality and years of life for a hypothetical cohort of 100 000
women.
Data were obtained on incidence, mortality and life expectancy for the
female
population of Stockholm. With a screening interval of 18 months at ages
40-49
years, a total absorbed dose to the breast of 13 mGy per invited woman; and
an
annual breast cancer reduction of 25% per year 7 years from screening start,
the net number of years gained was at least 2800. However, using the highest
absorbed dose reported in routine mammographic screening in Sweden
(approximately 3 mGy per view), and the highest reported radiation risk in
the
literature, a programme entailing annual screening with 2 views would
require
at least a 20% annual reduction in breast cancer mortality to give a net
benefit in both the number of years of life gained and number of breast
cancer
deaths avoided. This observation supports the conclusion that exposures with
low absorbed dose are essential when performing mass screening with
mammography among young women. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Of 1000s of Br J Cancer medical readers, how many think this is just a
'conservative' analysis rather than a fiction? And how many women will pick
up
on some report on this "peer-reviewed" assessment of 'risk'? How many (of
either group) will defer mammography in 40s women to avoid this "risk"? (Of
course, perhaps some who know the actual breast cancer risk data will become
better informed about the extent of LNT fiction? Because they didn't get the
DOE report on killing 23 people due to irradiation by LLW on passing
trucks/trains :-)

Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html