RE: News Article: Patients, Physicians Unaware of CT Radiation Exposure

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

The statement should be that there are no demonstrated

effects below 10 rem, which does not mean there are

none.  In certain subpopulations, like children, there

may be greater risks.  CTs are producing the greatest

exposures in radiology.  Its use had been doubling,

and imaging is replacing some medical procedure. 

Consider that surgical laparotomy exams are no longer

done for suspected appendicitis.  CT exams with a dose

of 10 mSv are providing the evaluations. 



"While the number of visits (to the Emergency Room)

remained stable throughout the reporting period, the

use of head CT increased from 23.9% to 46% between

1992 and 2000 (p=0.001). In addition, head CT was used

more frequently in the older age groups: Children 0-4

years of age had 15.9% of the scans, children 5-10

years of age had 37.7% of the scans, and patients

11-18 years of age had 45.9% of the scans, he said."



The fuss is that 1 rem plus 2 rem plus . . . add up to

significant doses in some patients.



I would also suggest you invest in companies that make

CT and PET scanners.



--- "Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@AECL.CA> wrote:

> It would not be uncommon for a patient to get more

> than 50 mSv (5 rem).  

> <SNIP>

> 

> I thought that the current thinking was that no

> detrimental effects can be

> supported scientifically for any dose less than

> about 10 rem.

> If that's the case, than why all the fuss about 1

> rem CT doses ?

> 

> -----------------

> 

> 

> 

> As far as I know, there is no debate about DECREASED

> risk of cancer in the medical profession.  It only

> appears on this list server.

> 

> --- "Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@aecl.ca> wrote:

> > Thanks John, this is interesting.

> > 

> > Regarding the statement, 

> > "Given the current debate about the possible

> > increased cancer risk

> > associated with diagnostic CT scans,...... we

> > believe that it is important

> > that the radiology community make current

> > information regarding CT radiation

> > dose more widely available."

> > 

> > I thought the "current debate" was about the

> > possible DECREASED cancer risk

> > associated with low dose radiation ?

> > (they seems to be talking about a debate 20 to 40

> > years ago....)

> > 

> > Regarding,

> > "Nearly half the radiologists (47%) believed that

> a

> > CT scan increased the

> > lifetime risk of cancer"

> > 

> > ....seems to suggest that there might be a problem

> > if these radiologists are

> > asked to "make current information regarding

> > radiation widely available...."

> > 

> > Jaro 

> > 

> > 

> 





=====

+++++++++++++++++++

"We cannot escape danger, or the fear of danger, by crawling into bed and pulling the covers over our heads."

-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt



-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com





	

		

__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  

http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/