What do you think?

Expose yourself to the facts...
False
Radiology
Expose yourself to the facts...
Chat about radiology with radiologists and those who want to get into the speciality
Radiology journal have been running some good editorial debates recently.  If you haven't caught them, I thought they'd make for some interesting discussion on doc2doc. The latest has been on inf
1
Cat:OpenClinicalForum:Radiology
Cat:OpenClinicalForum:RadiologyDiscussion:a9fa4035-c6aa-4410-8194-141039b3271e

Forums » Open clinical » Radiology » Expose yourself to the facts...

You must be logged in to contribute. Log in | Register
 
 First << 1 2
Forums  »  Open clinical  »  Radiology  »  Expose yourself to the facts...

Re: Expose yourself to the facts...

posted at 29/1/2012 2:04 AM GMT on bmj.com
Posts: 2075
First: 10/3/2009
Last: 18/5/2012

Re: World No Radiation Day

Annual background radiation is 2mSv. Live 80 year and you have been exposed to 180 mSv not to mention medical imaging and air travel. A four hour flight at 12,000 metres is equivalent to three days background irradiation. One CT chest is equal to 400 chest radiographs.

After a myocardial infarct most people in the West get about 5mSv in the first year just from tests. There is an increased risk of cancer in these patients in the next five years.

We need to think more about this. At present there is no system in place to record a person's accumulative radiation from medical imaging.  No one seems to care about the radiation from air travel. 

As the atmosphere degrades our annual radiation from gamma rays will worsen. 

Re: Expose yourself to the facts...

posted at 2/2/2012 12:21 PM GMT on bmj.com
Posts: 167
First: 27/10/2011
Last: 19/5/2012
I agree, Odysseus. This does need to be addressed - It would be very interesting to see the public reaction to a World No Radiation Week (let's stretch it out a little).  You'd cringe at the number of repeat CTs we do for patients with abdominal complaints such as pancreatitis or post-surgery (the worst offenders).

Kirked - there is no way of knowing for sure, but I'd say that 1% is a fair ballpark figure. We will have a better idea in 20-30 years time, when we may be able to see the increase in cancer rates from iatrogenic imaging radiation through epidemiological study.

Re: Expose yourself to the facts...

posted at 2/2/2012 6:05 PM GMT on bmj.com
Posts: 632
First: 9/12/2011
Last: 21/5/2012
Good point Odysseus,  Perhaps there will be some progress on alternative testing for post heart attack victims. I agree some work needs to be done with reference to safety.  I had a work related injury,  Shoulder Muscle tears,  and no loss of movement per say, yet the Doctor ordered an Xray of shoulder,  I got it,  but frankly was amazed since xrays show little for shoulders, when no rotater cuff injury is suspected.    We need to be more frugal in tossing out Gamma Radiation for the sake of Tests.
DuaneF

Re: Expose yourself to the facts...

posted at 13/2/2012 9:27 AM GMT on bmj.com
Posts: 150
First: 23/12/2010
Last: 16/5/2012
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes/radiation/radiation-risks-pediatric-CT
It is high risk/ vulnerable groups like children that are supposedly at higher risk.. especially after repeated CT scans.....and more so when children are exposed to adult CT scan doses....
All said, the clinician and radiologist must always weigh the pros and cons before doing a CT.
Joe
 First << 1 2

Forums » Open clinical » Radiology » Expose yourself to the facts...