Re: an ethical issue?

["A. Hancock" <a.hancock@s1.cxwms.ac.uk>]

H.Wade Patterson wrote:

> I wonder if they do not see an abortion, induced by fear of radiation
> exposure, as an ethical issue.
>
> It seems to me that it is.
>
> Such fear of course arises from the official ICRP/NCRP position that
> there is no threshold for radiation induced cancer and teratogenesis.
>
> I wonder what opinions others may have on this matter?

**************************************************************
Hi All

I agree with the above's first sentiment entirely. However if we're
talking about antenatal exposure it's worth looking closer at what the
ICRP position, albeit cagey, is:

Some excerpts from ICRP 60: para 90 "Exposure of the embryo in the first
three weeks following conception is not likely to result in
deterministic or stochastic effects in the live-born child..."   "During
the rest of the period....malformations may be caused in the organ under
development at time of exposure. These effects are deterministic in
character with a threshold in man, estimated from animal experiments, to
be about 0.1 Gy. On the probability of cancer - para 91 "The available
data are not consistent and considerable uncertainty exists." On mental
retardation - para 93 "At doses of the order of 0.1 Sv, no effect would
be detectable in the general distribution of IQ...."  "All the
observations on IQ and mental retardation relate to high dose and
high-dose rates and their direct use probably overestimates the risks"

The ICRP sentiment in para 90 indeed led to the "28 day rule" in
radiology. i.e. that in the fist 28 days of a pregnancy there are no
risks to the embryo from diagnostic x-rays (or words to that effect)

Lets therefore give the ICRP (spies and all!) a bit of a break from time
to time. Their recommendations are exactly that and not mandatory
(although try telling that to the Commission of the European Union!!)

Cheers
Andy Hancock
Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK
a.hancock@cxwms.ac.uk