nytimes.com:
At least four million Americans under age 65 are exposed to high doses of radiation each year from medical imaging tests, according to a new study in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Helene Pavlov: Another Look at Radiation
Your imaging provider is most likely taking the necessary steps to ensure your safety, but it never hurts to inquire.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If you are concerned about receiving "real" health care reform in this country, please take the time to watch a video on our current system. The video was created by Oregon physicians who are advocating for the single-payer option. The video is very informative and helped me to gain a better understanding of various aspect of health care, as we know now it.
https://ww
These Oregon physicians are in the process of organizing a caravan designed to inform the public about the benefits of the single-payer option. At last count they will be stopping in approximately 23 states, on their way to demonstrate in Washington. They need volunteers and our support. Please spread the word.
The major point in this article seems to not have resonated with most people, why are Doctors allowed to own these machines, am I the only one that sees this as a huge conflict of interest, as well as the impetus for go d knows how many unnecessary tests.
"Each individual patient is at relatively minor additional risk from the tests, Dr. Redberg said, but because they are given to so many people, the cumulative risk is significan
are the insurers going to try to weasle out of providing proper testing to save bucks?these tests save lives.
"tort reform" needs to go away.there aren't a lot of frivolous lawsuits.b
I think this is a glimpse of what has been promised to insurers behind closed doors.Rent
As a Radiologic Technologist, I know that the benefits should always be measured againt the risks. Radiations doses for exams are monitored by by the state. Mammography equipment is monitored by both the state & Fed. And by the way, one of the best government programs in this country is the Mammography program( MQSA). Providers are required to the latest equipment,the lowest, dose with the highest quality images. Radiologist thought that this "government program" was going to put them out of business in 1990's, it did not.
I also know the dirty secrect of self-referal, and its costs. One wonders if patients realize that a Radiologist often does not interpret these exams. They think the “one stop” shop is great, but as someone who worked in health care for 30 years, my suspicions are raised.
We all know non-Radiologist who own CT, MRI, Ultrasound, Nuclear Medicine Scan equipment. As a patient, I wonder if the exams are needed--perhaps not he first time, but follow-up exams, certainly. It creates a doubt.
Additionally, some specialties are also involved in research--are the extra cuts for your benefit or the benefit of the next journal article.. All of this for both the technical and professional component payments.
I want my exams preformed by and interpreted by a trained professional. A fellowship does not a Radiologists make. As a patient, I should not have to be suspicious of my doctor’s intent-- I want to know that I really need the procedure.
Pretty bloody obvious if you ask me, as the technician
This article is misleading at best.
If you are going to work, do you want exposure to radiation at a level that will kill 1 in a million people? Nope.
If you have a 50% chance of dying of cancer, and getting the above level of radiation would cut your chances to 10%, would you want the test? Yep!
It is called cost/benefit people, get a brain!
This just goes to show that Americans don't understand radiation at any level. They have no qualms about having an x-ray for every insignificant thing, but if a puddle of small radioactivity water leaks of a power reactor then all hell breaks loose.
This is part of the "health care" debate that is never aired.
Devices that fail, drugs that kill, procedures that increase risk . . . our medical model is fraught with hazards primarily because of "the marketplace" mentality that drives all of it.
We need to stop "buying" every little thing they offer us, and start reclaiming our power to question what they are recommending and why, and, most importantly, holding ourselves to a higher standard for our own health.
I figure the medical profession across the board is subject to the same 80-20 rule that certainly applies to other professions: 20% are competent and possibly well-intentioned; the rest are in it for something else and at any point in time are quite capable of making mistakes, sometimes BIG ones.
"20% are competent and possibly well-intentioned. . ." Wow, you're extremely charitable. And you're right - it's our responsibility to not allow unnecessary testing. I'm constantly amazed at the number of Americans who still let their doctors do pretty much whatever they want to. No one does anything to me until I understand and agree to it.
Guess how popular I am with doctors?
I'm the same way. I pay for my own insurance and I tell my doctor to find natural alternatives rather than using pharmaceuticals. Followups? I thought I went in to get the answers on the first round and if it still persists, I will make another appointment. I say no to my doctors for frivilous visits.
Inquiring minds would like to know why the workers at airport security counters are not wearing dosimeters (which measure radiation exposure).
When I was a young child, I remember how the dental assistant wore such a badge, and carefully draped me with a lead apron and stepped out of the room to take an X-ray. But I see no such precautions being taken with the powerful, apparently largely un-shielded devices which are used to barbecue my luggage.
No mention is made of "radiation exposure" as the TSA (sic...) is gleefully describing electronic STRIP-SEARCH machines that are supposed to make us all "safer." And we're supposed to just waltz into that damnable thing and smile while we are ... what ... rendered sterile?
I know what tomorrow's headlines will be. But why are they not headlines today?
"Inquiring minds would like to know why the workers at airport security counters are not wearing dosimeters (which measure radiation exposure).
They are not wearing dosimeters because there is very little chance of recieving anything but background radiation. I survey these things for a local courthouse and they give off no additional radiation. The devices ARE well shielded and you'll notice that the vertical curtains on either side of the device are impregnated with lead. In order to get any kind of radiation above background, I have to stick my Gieger counter into the middle of the device.
The dental assistant would receive no additional radiatoin exposure if she left the room as you described. I'm sure if you asked her what her dose was from working there, she would tell you that it was minimal.
I have to wonder why the NY Times did not speak to a Health Physicist (a radiation safety specialist) for this article. The "expert" is a cardiologist so I'm not sure how well versed she is in radiation safety and the LNT model of risk. She states that it is "certain" that low levels of exposure cause cancer. I would argue with using that term. Instead she should've stated that the prevailing model "predicts" cancer at low level exposures. All she succeeds in doing is getting everyone all freaked out - as evidenced by the reaction on this board.
Medical student here... I agree. They need to spend more time finding a true expert in the field.
As someone who has had severe and potentially terminal illness in the past, I've been exposed to more X-ray radiation than most. However, I'm not going to worry about that exposure. Without the scans, I might not be here today. The diagnostic benefit in my case outweighed the risks.
I do think, though that there are some doctors who DO overuse x-rays and CT scans.
I don't think an expert is needed when it is well known in the scientific community that there is no low-threshold dose of radiation that has no risk of cancer. It is also well known that ionizing radiation is one of the few known carcinogens for humans and that an increase in radiation dose is an increase in cancer risk. The point is patients need to be informed of these risks and tests utilizing ionizing radiation need to be used sparingly.
Why does this article compare radiation in medical procedures to the levels received by people working in nuclear power plants? Those levels are heavily regulated and very low.
To quote the actual study: "During the study period, 655,613 enrollees (68.8%) underwent at least one imaging procedure associated with radiation exposure. The mean (±SD) cumulative effective dose from imaging procedures was 2.4±6.0 mSv per enrollee per year; however, a wide distribution was noted, with a median effective dose of 0.1 mSv per enrollee per year (interquartile range, 0.0 to 1.7). Overall, moderate effective doses of radiation were incurred in 193.8 enrollees per 1000 per year, whereas high and very high doses were incurred in 18.6 and 1.9 enrollees per 1000 per year, respectively"
Ultimately these levels are low. Some of them are worrisome, yes. But for the most cases its not a big deal. However as the units are Sievert, it may be worth studying further (Sv measures biological effects).
". . .patients and physicians should discuss the risk of the tests and keep close track of the overall radiation dose that patients are receiving. . ." Doctors have obviously dropped the ball on this, so I see no sense in discussing it with them. Patients need to be in charge of their own health care, whether or not the doctors understand or agree. We need to realize that we are the ones who have our own best interests at heart, and no one else.
i have a question for someone with an answer.
after being kicked in the chest by a horse i had an MRI
they only did the area close to my heart -bone fracture--i thought as long as i am on this machine and you techs are here, why not do a full body scan --to look for tumors or aneurisms in the brain.they said they had heart only instructions.
question -why would they not do the full search? as a preventative thing.?
I am a Nuclear Medicine engineer (similar to PET)
I frequently work at facilities where the operators admit to a near 90 percent negative scan result rate.
That means the doctors are ordering scans for a huge number of patients that don't need it. Why? To make money. Duh.
How much radioactive isotope do you want injected into your body because some guy wants a bigger house?
This is reality folks.
That's what I was saying in my earlier comment, At last somebody agrees.
the other reality --your premiums are rising.
DUH !!!! CAT scans are not Disneyland rides .....
Loading comments…
First Posted: 08-26-09 10:49 PM | Updated: 09-26-09 05:12 AM