[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: textbook correct?



At 05:39 PM 2/12/97 -0600, you wrote:
>Exposure from modern medical procedures has decreased over the years. 

I take exception to this statement, but only on technical level. It is very
true that the film manufacturers have done wonders with film sensitivity,
and patient doses from diagnostic xrays have gone way down over the past
couple of decades. Way to go, Kodak, Agfa, Polaroid, etc., etc.

But, over the same period, the use of radioactive material in diagnostic
testing has blossomed, leading to more patients exposed and more often.
World-wide, I doubt we can say with much confidence whether total patient
dose is up or down as a net result.

Having said that, I must agree that these doses are not a cause of
increased risk of cancer in the world, except under the circumstances where
the procedure saves a life and makes cancer development possible later in
the extended life.

Curiosity question: has any large scale study of dose response that used
patient data ever tried to account for the "naturally-occurring" cancers
made possible by the medical procedures using radiation when comparing
exposed and unexposed populations?


Bob Flood
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
(415) 926-3793     bflood@slac.stanford.edu
Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone.