Re[2]: textbook correct?

[Ellen_Hochheiser@RL.gov]

     Cancer and death from cancer is mainly a disease of older individuals. 
     If diagnostic x-rays save lives, then they may live to get cancer, 
     therefore it does cause cancer, of course so does the flu vaccine.  
     Ellen Hochheiser 
     Ellen_Hochheiser@RL.Gov  


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: textbook correct?
Author:  "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@ix.netcom.com> at -MailLink
Date:    2/12/97 5:41 PM


Dave Gilmore wrote:

>     Somehow, from the various threads I have been following, I get 
> the feeling that such x-rays are of low dose, and low doses have no 
> harmful effects.  Is there any evidence that the doses received from 
> modern medical and dental x-rays play a "significant role in cancer 
> development"?

Depends on whom you listen to. When one considers that the average 
person receives approximately 360 mrem from all sources of radiation 
(naturally occuring and medical uses) ... and considering that a rad 
worker can receive an annual TEDE of 5,000 mrem, and considering that 
there are some areas in the world where the natural background is 
equivalent to the annual TEDE limit, my opinion is that the answer is 
a resounding NO!.  The issue of low dose has been kicked around over 
the LNT ... I am of the opinion that the theory needs to be 
"eliminated" as espoused by many more learned than I am. 

When one considers that the cancer rate in the US is apporoximatey 1 
out of approximately every 2.7 persons will get it (based on a 
presentation from Dave Wiedus) .. many can point to nuclear power 
plants and other forms of radiation as the causal agent. But the 
statistics hold true for those who are not exposed to radiation in 
any significant form, nor, do they work with radioactive materials or 
are they exposed to ionizing radiation.

Exposure from modern medical procedures has decreased over the years. 
My final point is that the benefit far outweighs the risks. The 
patient is far better off receiving the exposure, either to diagnose 
a problem, or to help alleviate it (thru therapeutic procedures).


------------------
Sandy Perle
Technical Director
ICN Dosimetry Division
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Office: (800) 548-5100 x2306 
Fax:    (714) 668-3149
  
mailto:sandyfl@ix.netcom.com
mailto:sperle@icnpharm.com

Personal Homepages:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205 (primary)
http://www.netcom.com/~sandyfl/home.html (secondary)

"The object of opening the mind as of opening 
the mouth is to close it again on something solid"
              - G. K. Chesterton -
Received: from mail.rl.gov by ccmail.rl.gov with SMTP
  (IMA Internet Exchange 1.04b) id 30255c20; Wed, 12 Feb 97 15:44:02 -0800
Received: from postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.5.11]) b
y touchet.rl.gov (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA11036; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 15:42:59 
-0800 (PST)
Received: from romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu [128.174.74.24])
	by postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA63274;
	Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:41:15 -0600
Received: from localhost by romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (NX5.67d/NeXT-2.0)
	id AA10097; Wed, 12 Feb 97 17:41:08 -0600
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 97 17:41:08 -0600
Message-Id: <199702122337.RAA16490@dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com>
Errors-To: melissa@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Originator: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@ix.netcom.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: textbook correct?
X-Listserver-Version: 6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Radiation Safety Distribution List