Several recently published studies on the relationship between radiation dose and cancer low again revived the discussion about the risks and benefits of modern diagnostic techniques and in particular computed tomography (CT). According to an article recently published in IMAGE (Marie H. Meynadier, Vol 21, No 10 -.. March 10, 2008), it is foreseeable that in a few decades, up to 2 percent of cancers in the United States could be related to the administration of diagnostic X-rays, although the ability to control the growth of cancer related to exposure to radiation will be very difficult, since the radiation-induced cancer may take up to 20 years to develop.

For many years the relationship between the development of cancer and exposure to radiation has been studied and there are hundreds if not thousands of publications related to this topic. The problem is that one third of all people get cancer anyway, at some point in their lives, and therefore it is very difficult to find evidence that low doses of radiation to cause cancer not otherwise have occurred. Even for the 80,000 to 90,000 survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were exposed to large doses of radiation has been difficult to find a direct relationship between the development of cancer and excessive exposure to radiation. According to Japanese statistics, people who were exposed in 1945 (and did not die right away) almost half are still alive. A statistically significant increase in cancer is in the relatively high exposure level of 50 millisieverts (mSv unit is commonly used to measure the effective dose in medical diagnostic procedures), which is about 16 times the current annual average Americans of medical examinations and 21 times the average dose from natural background is effective in the U.S.. However, these figures should be analyzed carefully. There is a controversy among scientists whether the levels below 50 mSv can be considered as insurance and real (statistically proven) of rest risk of exposure to low radiation.

The mathematical model used to estimate the risk of radiation is called non-threshold dose-response linear model. This model assumes that there is no safe dose of radiation and there is no direct linear relationship between the risk of cancer and genetic damage with exposure to radiation. However, this model is under discussion for a long time. For some scientists, the linear model is the best way to estimate the radiation risk, but for others there is a threshold below which radiation poses no health hazard.

Read the rest of this entry »

Several recently published studies on the relationship between radiation dose and cancer low again revived the discussion about the risks and benefits of modern diagnostic techniques and in particular computed tomography (CT). According to an article recently published in IMAGE (Marie H. Meynadier, Vol 21, No 10 -.. March 10, 2008), it is foreseeable that in a few decades, up to 2 percent of cancers in the United States could be related to the administration of diagnostic X-rays, although the ability to control the growth of cancer related to exposure to radiation will be very difficult, since the radiation-induced cancer may take up to 20 years to develop.

For many years the relationship between the development of cancer and exposure to radiation has been studied and there are hundreds if not thousands of publications related to this topic. The problem is that one third of all people get cancer anyway, at some point in their lives, and therefore it is very difficult to find evidence that low doses of radiation to cause cancer not otherwise have occurred. Even for the 80,000 to 90,000 survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were exposed to large doses of radiation has been difficult to find a direct relationship between the development of cancer and excessive exposure to radiation. According to Japanese statistics, people who were exposed in 1945 (and did not die right away) almost half are still alive. A statistically significant increase in cancer is in the relatively high exposure level of 50 millisieverts (mSv unit is commonly used to measure the effective dose in medical diagnostic procedures), which is about 16 times the current annual average Americans of medical examinations and 21 times the average dose from natural background is effective in the U.S.. However, these figures should be analyzed carefully. There is a controversy among scientists whether the levels below 50 mSv can be considered as insurance and real (statistically proven) of rest risk of exposure to low radiation.

Read the rest of this entry »