As a former industrial radiographer and now a state regulator actively involved in oversight of radiographers, I can't resist a comment or two.
First off, the description of the nature of radiography work you were given is right on the money. Long hours and high doses are the norm, with >1 rem/yr not uncommon. A study of this cohort would be fraught with confounding factors, however. Tobacco, alcohol and recreational drug use is very high, as is exposure to all manner of workplace carcinogens (asbestos and every other chemical you can think of). Worst of all, researchers could never account for the how often workers removed their personnel monitors in order to keep their doses low enough to continue working or to prevent their employers and the regulators from discovering that they have been overexposed. The inaccuracy of the dosimetry records would lead to conclusions based on lower doses than were actually received, thereby biasing the results.
The radiographer's comment that he believes that his chronic exposures are keeping his prostrate cancer in check is not surprising considering the typically poor training these guys get in the fundamentals of radiation safety and the biological effects of radiation. Much more disturbing was the idea of a doctor failing to prescribe medical treatment due to the individual's occupational exposures. Surely the doctor doesn't believe that since the radiographer is working with iridium-192 and is receiving chronic low level whole body exposures, that such exposures are an adequate substitute for an Ir-192 brachytherapy treament directed at the prostate? If the radiographer's cancer has not spread as he claimed, I would have to suspect that the power of positive thinking has a lot more to do with it than the occupational dose being delivered (or maybe he just cranks the source out on himself evey now and then; I've seen these guys do crazier things).
Finally, while I would have to agree that the life of a radiographer is "interesting," that sure isn't the first term that comes to mind when I reflect on my years in the field. Brutal hours, horrible work conditions, inadequate pay, and lots of travel to less than appealing locations (ever been to Moss Point, MS or Pine Hill, AL? I don't recommend either one) are the highlights. Can't say that I would recommend it as a career choice.
Walter Cofer
Florida Bureau of Radiation Control
Tallahassee, FL
Walter_Cofer@doh.state.fl.us
-----Original Message-----
From: Lorna Bullerwell [SMTP:ljb1@cornell.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 5:02 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Radiographers
The posting regarding a radiographer reminded me of something I was going
to post this past summer. Cornell recently put a huge pipeline into Cayuga
Lake for their lake source cooling project. I happened to meet the
radiographer who checked the welds on the pipes and had a very interesting
conversation with him. He is 24 and has been doing radiography for about
two-1/2 years. He told me that he receives approximately 15-100 mrem per
day, depending on the job, and that he works almost every day of the year,
including weekends. He is basically on the road all the time. During the
conversation, I asked him if he were concerned about possibly getting
cancer, or something along those lines. (This was several months ago, so
the conversation is kind of fuzzy) Anyway, I remember being really
surprised by his response. It turns out that approximately six months
after he started doing radiography, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
Because of his job, his doctor will not prescribe the normal radiation
therapy for it. The radiographer firmly believes that these small, but
relatively continuous doses, are curing him of his cancer. I believe he
said that his cancer has not spread at all since it was first diagnosed,
although he has had no medical treatment for it. I just thought it was
kind of interesting. It also led me to wonder if anyone had ever done a
study on radiographers. I appears to me that there are probably lots of
records of these individuals and their doses. Given the doses they are
receiving, maybe they would be a good data set to look for cancer at low
dose rates. I just wondered what you all might think. If nothing else,
the guy seems to lead a very interesting life.
Lorna
***********************************************************************
Any statement above is 100% my responsibility.
Don't blame Cornell!
***********************************************************************
Lorna Bullerwell Phone: (607) 255-8816
Radiological Safety Specialist Fax: (607) 255-8267
Cornell University mailto:ljb1@cornell.edu
Department of Environmental Health and Safety
Laboratory and Radiation Safety Section
125 Humphreys Service Building, Ithaca, NY 14853
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html