We absorb radiation from a variety of sources. How much is too much? Experts say 3 mSv per year is probably OK for most of us; 20 mSv for those who must have medical tests.
| RADIATION |
AMOUNT*
|
|---|---|
| CT scan, full body |
10–12 mSv
|
| CT scan, chest or pelvis |
4–8 mSv
|
| Natural background radiation (from sunlight, radon gas, etc.) from living in high-altitude cities (e.g., Denver, Salt Lake City) |
6 mSv (per year)
|
| Natural background radiation from living at sea level (e.g., Chicago) |
3 mSv (per year)
|
| Mammogram |
1–2 mSv
|
| High-mileage frequent flying (100,000–450,000 miles per year) |
1–6.7 mSv
|
| X-ray of chest (or ankle to look for broken bones) |
0.1–0.6 mSv
|
| DEXA (bone-density) scan |
0.01–0.05 mSv
|
| Dental X-ray (bitewing) |
0.02 mSv
|
| Single airplane flight, coast-to-coast |
0.01–0.03 mSv
|
Comments (35)
Where do cell phones fit into all this?
This article seems to address ionizing radiation sources only. That is, higher frequency electromagnetic waves (UV, x-ray, gamma) which inherently have enough power to knock electrons off of atoms and molecules. This is clearly not a good thing.
Cell phones emit lower frequency waves (radio, microwave) which, though are non-ionizing, can potentially cause some damage due to heating effects. Like when you microwave food, you’re causing the water molecules to vibrate which in turn causes heat (from the friction)… Though I think it’s still controversial, cell phones (only when in use?) can perhaps cause tissues near them to heat up which could break chemical bonds etc doing damage that way. Cell phone radiation would be an entire other article , but as speculative as it is, I agree it should at least be mentioned in this one.
Does 1 X-Ray = 2 views as is common with xrays of the chest, etc. .
Two questions: 1)Can the amount of raditation for a chest CT differ from one CT machime to another? If so, what causes an increase in exposure?
2) Is a CT with and Without contract really two CTs (therefore 16 mSv)?
Studies by Dr.Vini Khurana claim that cell phones will kill more people than smoking did.
Radiation exposure is present throughout the environment and in medicine, yet how long after high levels of cumulative exposure will your body typically require to process that cumulative exposure? Example, if over 6 months exposure to +/- 50 x-rays, 3 MRI’s, 2 CT’s and maximum permissible dose of rads, how long until a healthy body cells can process the exposure?
What about MRIs?
MRI stands for Magnetic Resonance Imaging. There is no radiation used in MRIs. I’m sure when they state “a Chest X-ray or Ankle X-ray is 0.1-0.6 mSv,” they mean it as a whole study. (Chests are usually 2 pictures and ankles are usually 3 pictures)But that is probably why they gave a “range” for it.
What is the amount of exposure for a “pano-flex” whole mouth dental X-ray?
Also, are Digital Dental x-rays any less than legacy film x-rays?
And what if you’ve had radiation therapy and x-rays during the 50s-60s when higher levels were used, even to measure shoe fit?
I just finished with a CT myelogram yesterday, which was my fourth CT of this year ALONE. Plus several x-rays added in. I had spinal fusion and am now having major nerve conduction/damage issues. I think I probably glow in the dark….
Consider radiation from atmospheric nuclear testing. I’m sure that I have read somewhere about this topic. I was born in 1952 and there were hundreds, no make that thousands of above ground tests. All of this radiation and ground dust went up into the upper atmosphere and stayed there for years, slowly falling back to earth. How long did this last? I know that everyone that was born during and for sometime afterwards of this testing, bears the “signature” of these tests. This for many people should be of far greater concern…
I found an article to follow up on my last post. Best Regards to All.
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewarticle/5297
Radiation from old nuclear fallout is minimal at most. If you are concerned about radiation, you should be more concerned about where you live (some areas have high uranium content in the ground which creates higher than average radon levels, sometimes up to 150 mSv/y) then you should be about nuclear fallout.
For a 5 in 1000 chance of getting cancer in your lifetime, you need an acute dosage of more than 100 mSv. Below 100 mSv, there is no scientific evidence that shows any negative effects except to unborn infants. 1000 mSv acute dose will give you radiation sickness, but death is very unlikely. 10,000 mSv will give you immediate radiation sickness and death (time of death depending on how much you are exposed).
Unless you are pregnant, there is absolutely no reason to worry about radiation (unless you are next to a nuclear meltdown, survive a nuclear blast, or are slated to receive 10+ CT scans in a year). The age of the scary radiation monster is over. Do your research and quit living in fear.
Do we get higher yearly doses of radiation from the sun the closer we are to the equator? If so, then how can we quantify it, say, by latitude? In this respect, how does living near the equator at sea level compare to living in Denver, Colorado, e.g.?
I have had to many CT Scans, MRIs, Bone Scans, and PET scans to count. I was diagnosed with cancer at 17. When I was sick I was having a few scans every month and now I have them every three months (usually CT Scans). Who knew trying to prevent cancer or catch it early may increase the risk!?!
One controversial area is the yearly Mammograms for healthy women over 40.
Please keep in mind that while mammograms diagnose breast cancer, they do not prevent it. They may however actually contribute to the development of cancer by increasing your exposure to medical radiation. One option is for healthy women to have thermographic imagining instead. This can give you an idea if you need a mammogram. It does not replace mammograms for diagnosis of problems, it just identifies an area of concern.
check out http://www.athermalimage.com
As for shoe-fitting Fluoroscopes that were popular for decades, they generated about 100 to 1000 mSv per minute for direct exposure to the feet, with a fitting lasting 10 to 30 seconds. These devices had some radiation shielding, but due to direct exposure from the inadequate shielding and radiation scatter exposure from the foot itself, we know that the customers and salesmen were exposed to unacceptable radiation levels. Even a full-body exposure that was 5% of the direct exposure to the feet, this would be an average dose of from 10 mSv up to 100 mSv per dose. We don’t know how many people were affected by this exposure, but simple math seems to say that the number of people that suffered indirect effects due to this radiation exposure can be estimated to be up to a million people, if not more.
Does living near the equator affect exposure to radiation from the sun? How does living near the equator at sea level compare to living in a high-altitude city such as Denver, Colorado, e.g.? Can the exposure in a given city be quantified in terms of latitude?
Good question, Paul. As a skinny little runt of a child in the 50’s, I experienced frequent episodes of sickness including organ inflammation, most often kidney, followed by multiple x-rays.
Turns out to have been caused by food allergies, but drs. couldn’t figure that out.
Ten years ago, I lost a kidney to renal cell cancer. Of course I can’t prove it, but I suspect radiation exposure.
Yes natural background radiation is something to be aware of but I really dont think it is something the average person has to worry about. Workers in the nuclear industry pick up alot more and are just as healthy as the majority of other folks. I am not belittling the concern it is valid just trying to put it in perspective.
To Karen:
1) yes, CT machines differ from one to another. Usually the company “suggests” a working level of radiation. This can be adjusted by the radiology staff. It also depends on the person being studied: an obese person needs more radiation for a good study than a smaller one (radiation has to penetrate the body, after all). Hoe much it differs between people I don’t know, but I do know that the difference in machines can be significant.
2) CT w/ and w/o contrast probably would be considered 2 exams, since the machine is run twice. Usually though, these are fairly limited in the area they look at, so the risk should be less for the body NOT being scanned.
I am very concerned about the amount of medical X-rays and the radiation exposure I have had from 1/2/2006- 6/20/2008. I have several medical problems and these are the x-ray exams I have received and the number of times for each one. I do not understand why Doctors are not using MRI’S and Ultrasounds more often instead of risking patients to harmful radiation doses? I am fearful of developing radiation sickness or even cancer. Because of the amount of medical x-ray exams within a two year period (Close to 40 different exams) I’am afraid to have anymore. What are my risks?
Chest X-ray- 16 exams
Mammograms-3 exams
Abdominal Series exams-3
CT Head exams-5 exams
CT Abdomen & pelvis- 4 exams
CT Chest & Thorax- 2 exams
Knee- 1 exam
Cardiolite Stress Test- 3 exams
Right foot- 2 exams
Upper GI with Barium- 1 exam
Hello all,
When they talk about radiation exposure levels from Xrays, are they talking about the traditional/older kinds of xrays OR the newer DIGITAL xrays (that are always touted as having MUCH LESS radiation than the older Xrays)? AND: IS IT TRUE that digital Xrays have MUCH less radiation than the older kind? Would digital Xrays change the ranges of radiation listed in the chart?
I’m REALLY SCARED because I had an accident at the end of May 2008, and since then have had 1 head CT scan, a chest Xray (multiple takes), an abdominal Xray (multiple takes), an xray of the shoulder in my intital ER visit (probably 3 takes) shoulder (3 takes) then a follow up shoulder Xray (again about 3 xray takes) then an ER visit with a shoulder Xray (2 takes), then I went to a Spine Dr. – he did 11 Xray takes (8 they kept and 3 were thrown out I guess), and then a few months before my accident I had Full Dental X Rays done. The worst part is that MOST! of the Xrays produced NO NEW INFORMATION or EFFECTIVE FINDINGS; it was more along the lines of “we can’t find anything”.
What do you think?
Also, is it normal for a spine specialist to take 11 Xrays of the neck and base of the head all in one setting?
Also, any legitimate detox things for exessive xrays and radiation?
In the last 2 weeks I have had 18 mammograms done, yesterday, I had 4 biopsies done and now I’m itchy with a rash and now I have a blister under my arm pit. The Doctor swears it’s not due too much radiation, but I think I’ve been exposed to a little to much. I ask my self, then why does the radiologist have everyone sign a form before these kinds of test done?
When it comes to CT exams (CAT scans), I tell friends and family that they should always ask their doctors a couple of questions before consenting to them:
1) What specifically are you looking for and how likely are the findings from this CT study to be conclusive?
2) What other diagnostics tests would accomplish the same thing (what did doctors do before CT)?
There are 2 occasions when an immediate CT is a must:
1. TRAUMA! A high energy trauma, such as a 10 fall, or a car crash,
2. For a loss of conciousness or altered mental status.
In these cases, CT can and does save lives every hour (if not every minute) of every day!
Digital:
X-rays are not “digital”. Only the means for recording and archiving the resulting images are.
Nicole H:
Get a 2nd opinion! 18 mamograms and 4 biopsies? someone is yanking someone’s chain.
i:
Your x-ray experience is probably pretty typical for someone who had an ER visit as a result of an “accident”.
The ER doctors and radiologists have to rule out certain types of injury as a result of how you looked, what the EMTs tell them about you, and the type of accident you had.
If you add up all your individual exposures, its not enough for you to be concerned about as long as you’re not doing this sort of thing on a regular basis.
Besides, in the grand scheme of things, you’re statistically just as likely to develope a cancer as a result of exposre to radon gas as you are from medical x-rays.
All it takes is 1 photon to strike 1 electron just right to create the free-radical which starts the chain reaction that leads to cancer. Life is a crap shoot, and when the risk of not finding an injury or disease outways the risk of getting cancer from an x-ray, get the x-ray.
I work at the radiaology service (includes X-Ray, CT Scan, MRI, Mammogram), even though I am working at the “office ” side, will I recevied a great chance to ge radiation harm?
NO!! there are lead in the walls, it is a fed regulation. JACHO would not allow this to happen. As to the mammograms…..It is very unlikely for this to be radiation syndrome but rather a reaction to medication? or other factor. the “paperwork” you signed is a consent form….and unless your just coming in for diagnostic imaging…..any other procedure….YOU SIGN A CONSENT!
Digital equipment uses less radiation than old screen-film. YES! you are right…..and quite a bit less.
According to CT’s. They are over-ordered and abused everyday. although that one positive pulmonary embolism that CT picked up… makes it all worth it.
CT scans have very useful and diagnostic value, and as previously mentioned……..what did Drs do before CTs? XRAY!
well, people are living longer these days, is all the radiation worth it?…..I’d say so.
Hi, my name is Haley and I am 15 years old. I was born with many diseases. To name a few, Scoliosis, a type of Muscular Dystrophy that doctors aren’t sure what it is, and dislocation of my hips, shoulders, elbows and wrists. Also, my thumbs were connected to my hands. I have had to have x-rays all over my body since I was born. My total x-rays that I think I have is about 150. Am I at risk for any type of cancer?
Due to the scientific theory of protractinunum, the theory stated according to telechenis, has been aprroved as un-true. This is due to the fact of the quinticential fact of the sun. Thank you.
Hey if you have a few MRI’S will that cause a skin problem,
I have fallen several times in the last 3 years. I
was given a head cat scan twice when going to the ER.
I am in my seventies. How dangerous is a catscan
which took about 3 minutes to complete. I read so
many different theories about ct scans, x-rays,etc.
Thank you for your input.
Yes xrays can be worrisome. I was diagnosed 2 years ago with thyroid cancer. Papillary thyroid cancer. 5 tumors in my thyroid all malignant .Cause..radiation exposure. I was raised in California. I had a growth of soft tissue in the front of my neck at 6.which required surgery in hospital for 3 days. We will not ever know how I acquired it. Just make sure those lead aprons always get use on you or your children whenever any type of xrays are done. The down side. I had to radioactive iodine to elimate any last cancer cells. The pits. that raised my chances of Leukemia because the site was so close to my spine.
How much radiation a DEXA operator will take as he is working everyday with the machine but he , himself is not being scanned ?