Low Life Expectancy

[Xsherv]

I know that radiologists used to have the shortest life expectancy among medical specialties. However, this data was collected in the seventies so I was wondering whether any recent studies have been done on radiogists' life expectancy and morbidity. Or for that matter, have there been any studies on other aspects of health, ie fertility. Anyhow, I just want to separate facts from urban legends so I would appreciate any data you may be aware of.
Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[oldandtired]

1. Fertility is a non issue. The threshhold for temporary sterility is about 1-2 Gray and we do not come close to this


2. Life expectancy: I am not aware of any studies. Although most non-interventionalists get exposed to very little radiation above the background level.

Radiation has a finite chance of inducing malignancy regardless of dose. Everytime one of your patients has a chest x-ray, you have increased their risk of developing a malignancy (although miniscule). There are no thresholds for radiaiton induced malignancies. Every additional x-ray photon that you are exposed to raises the probablility of malignancy.

So I would guess that if you took one million radioloigists, there may be an additonal malignancy compared to the expected number. So I would not worry to much about diagnostic level radiation exposure.


Cardiologists, orthopods, surgeons, etc also use fluro for many applications and are at increased risk also

 

[WaitingForJuly]

Originally posted by oldandtired
Radiation has a finite chance of inducing malignancy regardless of dose. Everytime one of your patients has a chest x-ray, you have increased their risk of developing a malignancy (although miniscule). There are no thresholds for radiaiton induced malignancies. Every additional x-ray photon that you are exposed to raises the probablility of malignancy.

Though certainly not yet proven, there is a growing body of evidence that low-level radiation exposure may, in fact, have a protective effect. See this link: Nonlinearity of Radiation Health Effects for example.

 

[eddieberetta]

And remember that, at least for the DR guys, the risk of catching HIV, HebB, HepC and even norwalk virus is zero (unless you do gastrics 😀)

 

[oldandtired]

Where I practice, the DR do all types of basic interventions. Venous access, biopsies, drains, taps of all sorts, etc. The risk is always there!

 

[Ligament]

I dont expect much from low lifes.

 

[Whisker Barrel Cortex]

Don't believe the hype. Radiation in the doses recieved by radiologists wearing appropriate protection is not significant enough to cause shortened life expectancy. In fact, as unbelievable as it may be, a little bit of radiation may actually have a protective effect!

The whole idea of danger from radiation developed as a combination of two things. First, early radiologists, with no image intensification and with no idea of the doses of radiation they were receiving did indeed get radiation burns, sometimes disfiguring (many lost fingers or hands). Second, the emergence of nuclear weapons and the nuclear plant explosion at Chernobyl brought the danger of radiation to the limelight for the general public. The high dose of radiation people near Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl is quite evidently dangerous.

With those fears in mind, the much lower dose radiation properly trained radiologists are exposed to today has not been shown to be harmful. In fact, recent studies ( Sherwood T. 100 years' observation of risks from radiation for British (male) radiologists. Lancet. 2001 Aug 25;358(9282):604 and Daunt N. Decreased cancer mortality of British radiologists Br J Radiol. 2002 Jul;75(895):639-40 ) tracked cancer rates and mortality of British radiologists with age controlled other British physicians. They found (these numbers are not exact) that prior to 1930 (and prior to radiation protection and image intensification) cancer rates were indeed higher but mortality was similar. After 1930, and even more so in the 1950+ group both the cancer rate and the overall mortality of radiologists were lower. The average life expectancy was I believe about 3 years longer!

With all of that being said, I'd have to add that the weakness of these studies is in the retrospective approach and that the recent advancement of interventional radiology are not included. However, with proper protection the exposure in VIR should not be that much higher than DR was in the past. Plus, you need to factor in the protection from heart disease, stroke, and drug abuse the lower stress of radiology provides when compared to surgery, cardiology, and many other specialties.

 

[Hendooneh]

Maybe the life expectency has more to do with sitting in a chair all day rather than radiation dose.

 

[alphahelix82]

All Levels of Radiation
Confirmed to Cause Cancer​

For more information, please contact:
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
1424 16th Street NW, #404, Washington, DC 20036, USA
tel.: +202.328.0002; fax: +202.462.2183 http://www.nirs.org
Rosalie Bertell, PhD, GNSH, special adivisor to the Nuclear-Free Future Award, is President of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health (IICPH), and Editor in Chief of International Perspectives in Public Health.
6 July--The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report last week on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation Ð that even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: This is a huge admission that low dose estimates, far from being "conservative," are actually the same (linear extrapolation) or higher (supralinear, which we claim). 

Among the reports conclusions are:
1. There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure.Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers. Additional exposures cause additional risks. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: The magnitude of background radiation risks has never been agreed on. This isvague, but may be helpful. The nuclear industry uses background as "safe" and a little extra as trivial.)
2. Radiation causes other health effects such as heart disease and stroke, and further study is needed to predict the doses that result in these non-cancer health effects. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: "This has never been admitted. I think we have anough information to document this, but they are calling for more study. Other sicknesses caused by radiation are the autoimmune diseases. Focus on cancer was, I think, an administrative decision on the part of the A-bomb researchers, for the sake of research simplicity.")
3. Children born to parents that have been exposed to radiation could be affected by those exposures. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: "Gentic effects, now called genomic instability. These concepts are not new, but indicate that the radiation establishment has finally decided to look at low dose radiation, found the effects we have been noting, and has given them a new name so that they will seem new.")
The "bystander effect" is an additional, newly recognized method by which radiation injures cells that were not directly hit but are in the vicinity of those that were. "Genomic instability" can be caused by exposure to low doses of radiation and according to the report "might contribute significantly to radiation cancer risk." These new mechanisms for radiation damage were not included in the risk estimates reported by the BEIR VII report, but were recommended for further study. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: "The bystander effect fits under the same category of nuclear industry research discoveries (old concepts renamed). We used to call this cellular communication, which was well known in micro-biology. Again it is not new and doesn't really need more research.")
The Linear-No-Threshold model (LNT) for predicting health effects from radiation (dose-response) is retained, meaning that every exposure causes some risk and that risks are generally proportional to dose. The Dose and Dose-Rate Effectiveness Factor or DDREF which had been suggested in the 1990 BEIR V report to be applied at low doses, has been reduced from 2 to 1.5. That means the projected number of health effects at low doses are greater than previously thought. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: "The linear dose-response has been claimed to be correct for some fifty years. However, although they claim they believe it, nuclear scientists modify it for low dose and low dose rate (making it not really linear). For example, the Atomic bomb data would predict, by linear dose response, about 17 - 20 cancer deaths per 100 Person Sievert exposure to radiation. BEIR and UNSCEAR reduced this estimate by about 2 because of low dose effect, to about 10 cancer deaths per 100 Person Sievert. Then ICRP took the BEIR and UNSCEAR estimates and reduced them by 2 because of the slow dose rate, to 5 cancer deaths per 100 Person Sieverts, which is now used by the nuclear industry. This latter reduction is now 1.5 instead of 2, allowing for more deaths. In my opinion there is no scientific data on humans to support these two reductions from linear. There is some obscure lab data. Our studies showed the true curve to be supra(above) the linear.")
RADIATION RISKIER THAN THOUGHTÑ
RISKS TO PUBLIC and NUCLEAR WORKERS
The BEIR VII risk numbers indicate that about 1 in 100 members of the public would get cancer if exposed to 100 millirads (1milliGray) per year for a 70-year lifetime.[1] This is essentially the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's allowable radiation dose for members of the public. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: " The ICRP recommends no more than (on average) 1 mSv (100 mrads) per year from nuclear industries. In the US, 5 mSv per years is allowed. However, for one's local nuclear facility, no more than 0.25 mSv per year is allowed. The difference is permitted so that long distance transport of radionuclides is able to be included.") 

In addition, 1 in about 5 workers [2] would get cancer if exposed to the legally allowable occupational doses[3] over their 50 years in the workforce. These risks are much higher than permitted for other carcinogens. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: "This will likely result in union demands for hazard pay, and may cripple the nuclear industry.")

Specifically, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows members of the public to get 100 millirems or mr (1 milliSievert or mSv) per year of radiation in addition to background. The BEIR VII report (page 500, Table 12-9) estimates that this level will result in approximately 1 (1.142) cancer in every 100 people exposed at 100 mr/yr which includes 1 fatal cancer in every 175 people so exposed (5.7 in 1000)[4]. 

(Dr. Rosalie Bertell: "I have no idea what Cindy is trying to say on this one!") The risk of getting cancer from radiation (in BEIR VII) is increased by about a third from current government risk figures (FGR13): 

BEIR VII estimates that 11.42 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem (1,000 millirems or 10 mSv). The US Environmental Protection Agency Federal Guidance Report 13 estimates that 8.46 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: "This is about back to the BEIR and UNSCEAR level before ICP lowered it in 1990.")

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service interprets this as further evidence that unnecessary radiation exposures should be avoided. 

"This means that the government is not justified in deregulating nuclear power and weapons waste-releasing it to regular trash or "recycling" it into everyday household items as proposed by 5 US federal agencies at the behest of nuclear waste generators hoping to save money," stated Diane D'Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director at Nuclear Information and Resource Service Radioactive (NIRS). "This also means that remediation of radioactive sites should be done to cleaner levels and that nuclear transport standards should be strengthened." 

Cindy Folkers, NIRS Energy and Health Project Director stated "These findings confirm that all levels of radiation are harmful. Since nuclear power routinely releases long-lasting radiation into the air, water and soil, we must avoid a new generation of nuclear power to prevent unnecessary exposures."
Endnotes:
[1] NAS Report in Brief June 2005 BEIR VII: Health Effects from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation pp 2-3 (for 1 cancer in 100 people exposed to 100mSv or 10 r ). More detailed calculation: National Academies of Science, Prepublication Copy, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII Phase 2, June 29, 2005 page 500 Table 12-9. Table 12-9 indicates that average risk (cancer incidence for males and females) of getting leukemia or solid cancers is 1142 out of 100,000 exposed to 10 r. Thus a member of the public who lives for 70 years and receives the permitted 100 mr (or 0.1 r)/year could receive 7 r or 7000 mr in his/her lifetime. [US Nuclear Regulatory Commission permits 0.1 r or 100 mr per year above background to members of the public.] Comparing to BEIR VII's risk estimate of 1142 in 100,000 at 10 r, to the 7 r lifetime dose permitted by NRC🙁7r/10r= 0.7) we get 0.7 x 1142 = 799 cancers in 100,000 population at 7 r or 799cancers/100,000 exposed = 1 cancer in 125 exposed (to 7 r over lifetime). 

[2] At 0.1 Sv (100 mSv or 10 r) the risk is 1 in 100 getting cancer (NAS Report in Brief Jun 2005 pp2-3. At 2.5 Sv (worker legal dose) the dose and risk are 25x higher or 25 in 100 (or 1 in 4) exposed getting cancer...but since workers are exposed later in life than the general public, adjusting for age would correct the risk to about 1 in 5 exposed to the full legal amount for their working lives getting cancer from those exposures. 

[3] 10 CFR 20 subpart C, Occupational Dose Limits limit workers to total effective dose equivalent of 5000 millirems or 50 milliSieverts (5 rems or 0.05 Sv) per year. If it is low LET radiation, this is comparable to 5000 millirads or 50 milliGray. 

[4] National Academies of Science, Prepublication Copy, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII Phase 2, June 29, 2005 page 500 Table 12-9. There will be 570 fatal cancers in 100,000 exposed at 0.1Gy or 10 r. (100,000/570= 175) Approx 1 in 175 so exposed will get fatal cancer.
Copies of Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII - Phase 2) are available from the National Academies Press at www.nap.edu

All Levels of Radiation
Confirmed to Cause Cancer​

For more information, please contact:
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
1424 16th Street NW, #404, Washington, DC 20036, USA
tel.: +202.328.0002; fax: +202.462.2183 http://www.nirs.org
Rosalie Bertell, PhD, GNSH, special adivisor to the Nuclear-Free Future Award, is President of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health (IICPH), and Editor in Chief of International Perspectives in Public Health.
6 July--The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report last week on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation Ð that even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: This is a huge admission that low dose estimates, far from being "conservative," are actually the same (linear extrapolation) or higher (supralinear, which we claim). 

Among the reports conclusions are:
1. There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure.Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers. Additional exposures cause additional risks. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: The magnitude of background radiation risks has never been agreed on. This isvague, but may be helpful. The nuclear industry uses background as "safe" and a little extra as trivial.)
2. Radiation causes other health effects such as heart disease and stroke, and further study is needed to predict the doses that result in these non-cancer health effects. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: "This has never been admitted. I think we have anough information to document this, but they are calling for more study. Other sicknesses caused by radiation are the autoimmune diseases. Focus on cancer was, I think, an administrative decision on the part of the A-bomb researchers, for the sake of research simplicity.")
3. Children born to parents that have been exposed to radiation could be affected by those exposures. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: "Gentic effects, now called genomic instability. These concepts are not new, but indicate that the radiation establishment has finally decided to look at low dose radiation, found the effects we have been noting, and has given them a new name so that they will seem new.")
The "bystander effect" is an additional, newly recognized method by which radiation injures cells that were not directly hit but are in the vicinity of those that were. "Genomic instability" can be caused by exposure to low doses of radiation and according to the report "might contribute significantly to radiation cancer risk." These new mechanisms for radiation damage were not included in the risk estimates reported by the BEIR VII report, but were recommended for further study. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: "The bystander effect fits under the same category of nuclear industry research discoveries (old concepts renamed). We used to call this cellular communication, which was well known in micro-biology. Again it is not new and doesn't really need more research.")
The Linear-No-Threshold model (LNT) for predicting health effects from radiation (dose-response) is retained, meaning that every exposure causes some risk and that risks are generally proportional to dose. The Dose and Dose-Rate Effectiveness Factor or DDREF which had been suggested in the 1990 BEIR V report to be applied at low doses, has been reduced from 2 to 1.5. That means the projected number of health effects at low doses are greater than previously thought. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: "The linear dose-response has been claimed to be correct for some fifty years. However, although they claim they believe it, nuclear scientists modify it for low dose and low dose rate (making it not really linear). For example, the Atomic bomb data would predict, by linear dose response, about 17 - 20 cancer deaths per 100 Person Sievert exposure to radiation. BEIR and UNSCEAR reduced this estimate by about 2 because of low dose effect, to about 10 cancer deaths per 100 Person Sievert. Then ICRP took the BEIR and UNSCEAR estimates and reduced them by 2 because of the slow dose rate, to 5 cancer deaths per 100 Person Sieverts, which is now used by the nuclear industry. This latter reduction is now 1.5 instead of 2, allowing for more deaths. In my opinion there is no scientific data on humans to support these two reductions from linear. There is some obscure lab data. Our studies showed the true curve to be supra(above) the linear.")
RADIATION RISKIER THAN THOUGHTÑ
RISKS TO PUBLIC and NUCLEAR WORKERS
The BEIR VII risk numbers indicate that about 1 in 100 members of the public would get cancer if exposed to 100 millirads (1milliGray) per year for a 70-year lifetime.[1] This is essentially the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's allowable radiation dose for members of the public. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: " The ICRP recommends no more than (on average) 1 mSv (100 mrads) per year from nuclear industries. In the US, 5 mSv per years is allowed. However, for one's local nuclear facility, no more than 0.25 mSv per year is allowed. The difference is permitted so that long distance transport of radionuclides is able to be included.") 

In addition, 1 in about 5 workers [2] would get cancer if exposed to the legally allowable occupational doses[3] over their 50 years in the workforce. These risks are much higher than permitted for other carcinogens. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: "This will likely result in union demands for hazard pay, and may cripple the nuclear industry.")

Specifically, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows members of the public to get 100 millirems or mr (1 milliSievert or mSv) per year of radiation in addition to background. The BEIR VII report (page 500, Table 12-9) estimates that this level will result in approximately 1 (1.142) cancer in every 100 people exposed at 100 mr/yr which includes 1 fatal cancer in every 175 people so exposed (5.7 in 1000)[4]. 

(Dr. Rosalie Bertell: "I have no idea what Cindy is trying to say on this one!") The risk of getting cancer from radiation (in BEIR VII) is increased by about a third from current government risk figures (FGR13): 

BEIR VII estimates that 11.42 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem (1,000 millirems or 10 mSv). The US Environmental Protection Agency Federal Guidance Report 13 estimates that 8.46 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem. (Dr. Rosalie Bertell: "This is about back to the BEIR and UNSCEAR level before ICP lowered it in 1990.")

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service interprets this as further evidence that unnecessary radiation exposures should be avoided. 

"This means that the government is not justified in deregulating nuclear power and weapons waste-releasing it to regular trash or "recycling" it into everyday household items as proposed by 5 US federal agencies at the behest of nuclear waste generators hoping to save money," stated Diane D'Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director at Nuclear Information and Resource Service Radioactive (NIRS). "This also means that remediation of radioactive sites should be done to cleaner levels and that nuclear transport standards should be strengthened." 

Cindy Folkers, NIRS Energy and Health Project Director stated "These findings confirm that all levels of radiation are harmful. Since nuclear power routinely releases long-lasting radiation into the air, water and soil, we must avoid a new generation of nuclear power to prevent unnecessary exposures."
Endnotes:
[1] NAS Report in Brief June 2005 BEIR VII: Health Effects from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation pp 2-3 (for 1 cancer in 100 people exposed to 100mSv or 10 r ). More detailed calculation: National Academies of Science, Prepublication Copy, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII Phase 2, June 29, 2005 page 500 Table 12-9. Table 12-9 indicates that average risk (cancer incidence for males and females) of getting leukemia or solid cancers is 1142 out of 100,000 exposed to 10 r. Thus a member of the public who lives for 70 years and receives the permitted 100 mr (or 0.1 r)/year could receive 7 r or 7000 mr in his/her lifetime. [US Nuclear Regulatory Commission permits 0.1 r or 100 mr per year above background to members of the public.] Comparing to BEIR VII's risk estimate of 1142 in 100,000 at 10 r, to the 7 r lifetime dose permitted by NRC🙁7r/10r= 0.7) we get 0.7 x 1142 = 799 cancers in 100,000 population at 7 r or 799cancers/100,000 exposed = 1 cancer in 125 exposed (to 7 r over lifetime). 

[2] At 0.1 Sv (100 mSv or 10 r) the risk is 1 in 100 getting cancer (NAS Report in Brief Jun 2005 pp2-3. At 2.5 Sv (worker legal dose) the dose and risk are 25x higher or 25 in 100 (or 1 in 4) exposed getting cancer...but since workers are exposed later in life than the general public, adjusting for age would correct the risk to about 1 in 5 exposed to the full legal amount for their working lives getting cancer from those exposures. 

[3] 10 CFR 20 subpart C, Occupational Dose Limits limit workers to total effective dose equivalent of 5000 millirems or 50 milliSieverts (5 rems or 0.05 Sv) per year. If it is low LET radiation, this is comparable to 5000 millirads or 50 milliGray. 

[4] National Academies of Science, Prepublication Copy, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII Phase 2, June 29, 2005 page 500 Table 12-9. There will be 570 fatal cancers in 100,000 exposed at 0.1Gy or 10 r. (100,000/570= 175) Approx 1 in 175 so exposed will get fatal cancer.
Copies of Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII - Phase 2) are available from the National Academies Press at www.nap.edu
​

 

[alphahelix82]

Radiation​

NO SAFE DOSE
ˆThere is no safe level of exposure and there is no dose of radiation so low
that the risk of a malignancy is zero˜--Dr. Karl Z. Morgan, dubbed the father of
Health Physics.1
ˆ.there is no safe level of exposure to ionising radiation, and the search for
quanitifying such a safe level is in vain.˜˙Rosalie Bertell, PhD.2
In 1940, several members of the US Committee on X-Ray and Radium Protection
ˆproposed that the [radiation exposure] standard be lowered by a factor of five
in response to the accumulating evidence that ANY amount of radiation, no matter
how small, can cause genetic damage, injuring future generations.˜ Gioacchino
Failla argued against the lowering of the standards saying that ˆif genetic
damage were to be a consideration for standard-setters, then logically no
radiation exposure should be allowed.˜3
ˆ.the human epidemiological evidence establishes˙by any reasonable standard of
proof˙that there is no safe dose or dose-rate.the safe-dose hypothesis is not
merely implausible˙it is disproven.˜ Dr. J.W. Gofman 4
ˆOne thing we should take from this (1991 study of Oak Ridge weapons workers by
Steve Wing, et al.) is that there isn´t any safe level of radiation exposure.˜
Dr. Carl Shy 5.
ˆThe reanalysis (of Hanford worker data) provides no support for the idea
that.there is reduced cancer effectiveness of radiation at low dose levels.˜
Drs. G.W. Kneale and A. Stewart 6.
ˆThere is evidence that single tracks of all types of ionizing radiation can
induce a variety of damage including DNA double-strand breaks which are believed
to be critical lesions in radiation exposure. There is also a body of
experimental evidence that argues against an error-free DNA repair system
operating at low doses of ionizing radiation that might result in a dose
threshold for the induction of gene and chromosomal mutations.˜ MP Little and CR
Muirhead.7
ˆAn important feature of alpha irradiation is that, no matter how low the total
dose to the whole body, a substantial dose of radiation (approx. .5 Gy) is
delivered to an individual cell if it is traversed by a single alpha particle.˜
E Wright 8.
Compiled by Cindy Folkers, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 1424 16th
Street NW Suite 404 Washington, DC 20036; 202-328-0002; [email protected]
website: www.nirs.org
Works Cited:
1.˜Cancer and low level ionizing radiation˜ The Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists. September 1978.
2...No Immediate Danger? Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth. Women´s Educational
Press, Toronto, Ontario. 1985: 45. isbn 0-88961-092-4
3 Caufield, Catherine. Multiple Exposures: Chronicles of the Radiation Age.
Harper and Row, New York. 1989: 48. isbn 0-06-015900-6.
4.Radiation-Induced Cancer from Low-Dose Exposure: An Independent Analysis.
Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. 1990:18-16, 18-18. Isbn
0-932682-89-8.
5 Garloch, Karen. ˆRepeated low radiation doses hike leukemia risk, UNC study
finds.˜ The Charlotte Observer. Wednesday, March 20, 1991.
6 .˜Reanalysis of Hanford Data: 1944-1986 Deaths.˜ American Journal of
Industrial Medicine. 23:371-389 (1993).
7.˜Curvilinearity in the Dose-Response Curve for Cancer in Japanese Atomic Bomb
Survivors.˜ Environmental Health Perspectives. 105 (6): 1505. (1997)
8.˜Chromosomal instability in the descendants of unirradiated surviving cells
after alpha particle irradiation.˜ Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.95: 5730 (1998).
ACE
P.O. Box 3063
Stowe, PA 19464
[email protected]​

 

[f_w]

The 'threshold' vs 'no threshold' discussion has been fought over and over in the radiation biology community and is far from settled.
The same data used to support the 'no threshold' standpoint can be analyzed to demonstrate a beneficial effect of low dose radiation (radiation hormesis).

The posts above are from activist websites that deliberately quote studies only illustrating one side of this discussion.

 

[Docxter]

The 'threshold' vs 'no threshold' discussion has been fought over and over in the radiation biology community and is far from settled.
The same data used to support the 'no threshold' standpoint can be analyzed to demonstrate a beneficial effect of low dose radiation (radiation hormesis).

The posts above are from activist websites that deliberately quote studies only illustrating one side of this discussion.

f_w is absolutely right. The two lengthy posts above just show one side of the coin and deliberately omit the counter-arguments and evidence to the contrary.

 

[werewethere]

At least anectodal evidence seems to suggest that it is possible to live to a ripe old age and be a radiologist. I've seen plenty old timers roaming the halls; then again, I never asked their age.

 

[dizzle69]

At least anectodal evidence seems to suggest that it is possible to live to a ripe old age and be a radiologist. I've seen plenty old timers roaming the halls; then again, I never asked their age.

I agree. I would think that life expectancy would actually be fairly high being a radiologist. Sure, there are stresses, but I don't believe it is comparable to the OR or ER and radiologists in general do not deal with the typical number of patients as do PC doctors. The environment is relatively laxed compared to other specialties. However, I'm no expert either, so don't shoot me guys

 

[f_w]

Repeated jokes rarely get better:

The principal occupational risk of being a radiologist is to inadvertently run your 911 into a bridge abutment in your mid 40s 😉