News | Radiation Dose Management | January 18, 2017

Fear of Diagnostic Low-dose Radiation Exposure Is Overstated, Experts Assert

New article states that evidence suggests radiological imaging doses actually lower cancer risk  

diagnostic low-dose radiation exposure, radiological imaging dose, radiophobia, Journal of Nuclear Medicine, ALARA, LNTH

January 18, 2017 — In an article published in the January 2017 issue of The Journal of Nuclear Medicine, researchers assert that exposure to medical radiation does not increase a person’s risk of getting cancer. The long-held belief that even low doses of radiation, such as those received in diagnostic imaging, increase cancer risk is based on an inaccurate, 70-year-old hypothesis, according to the authors.

“We have shown that the claim made by Hermann Muller during his 1946 Nobel Lecture that all radiation is harmful, regardless of how low the dose and dose rate — known as the linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNTH) — was a non-sequitur unrecognized by the radiation science community,” stated Jeffry A. Siegel, Ph.D., president and CEO of Nuclear Physics Enterprises, Marlton, N.J. “Since then, it has repeatedly been shown that the dose-response relationship may reasonably be considered to be linear but only down to a threshold, below which there is no demonstrable harm and even often benefit. Yet, the LNTH still rules radiation regulatory policy.”

Siegel said that policies based on the presumption of harm at every dose level and proposing using lower and lower dosing for computed tomography (CT), X-ray, and nuclear medicine imaging studies — known as the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) doctrine — help reinforce existing widespread fear of radiation (radiophobia) in both physicians and patients, due to decades of misinformation. He emphasized, “This fear is unjustified by any scientific findings and is discredited by most experimental and epidemiological studies, which show that low-dose radiation, instead, stimulates protective responses provided by eons of evolution, resulting in beneficial effects.”

Citing numerous studies, the authors assert the LNTH and ALARA are fatally flawed, as they focus only on molecular damage while ignoring protective, biological responses. Low doses of radiation stimulate protective responses and provide enhanced protections against additional damage over time, including damage from subsequent, higher radiation exposures.

Evidence presented demonstrates a reduced, not increased, cancer risk at radiological imaging doses. The Life Span Study (LSS) atomic-bomb survivor data show the LNTH-predicted, low-dose carcinogenicity is invalid below approximately 200 mGy. The effective dose of a typical computed tomography (CT) scan is about 10 mSv; a positron emission tomography (PET)/CT brain scan, 5-7 mSv; and a routine whole-body F-18 FDG PET/CT scan, 12-15 mSv. Thus, medical imaging's much lower doses for children or adults should not be feared or avoided for radiophobic reasons. The authors reason that the actual risk of misdiagnoses from inadequate dose, or from phobia-driven avoidance of needed imaging studies, should be the main concern.

Siegel advocated for the safety and life-saving benefits of medical imaging, saying, “The task before us is to undo the public’s groundless fears of low-dose radiation exposure. The medical profession must be properly re-educated, beginning with diagnostic radiologists and nuclear medicine physicians, and only then can the public be given valid information that they can trust. Furthermore, defeating the LNTH and its offspring ALARA may lead to new ways of diagnosing and treating illness, and, even more importantly, preventing it.”

 

Read the article “Public Perception of Long-term Health Effects of Atomic Bomb Radiation Worse than Reality.”

For more information: www.jnm.snmjournals.org
 

Reference:

1. Siegel, J.A., Pennington, C.W., Sacks, B. “Subjecting Radiologic Imaging to the Linear No-Threshold Hypothesis: A Non Sequitur of Non-Trivial Proportion,” The Journal of Nuclear Medicine. Published online Aug. 4, 2016. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.116.180182

Related Content

News | Radiation Dose Management

June 17, 2022 — A multidisciplinary team of robotics and electronic systems engineers working with cardiologists and ...

Home June 17, 2022
Home
Videos | Radiation Dose Management

The vendor Radiaction introduced a new type of scatter radiation protection shielding system that mounts to the ...

Home December 10, 2021
Home
Videos | Radiation Dose Management

Dr. Simon Dixon, MBChB, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at Beaumont Hospital Royal Oak, the Dorothy ...

Home November 17, 2021
Home
News | Radiation Dose Management

November 5, 2021 – An FDA-approved device used during cardiac cath lab procedures cut radiation exposure for ...

Home November 05, 2021
Home
Webinar | Radiation Dose Management

A holistic view of contrast and radiation dose data is imperative to help identify opportunities for clinical and ...

Home August 27, 2021
Home
Feature | Radiation Dose Management | Dave Fornell, Editor

More than a decade ago, there was an alarming, rapid rise in ionizing radiation exposure in the U.S. population that was ...

Home November 04, 2020
Home
News | Radiation Dose Management

July 21, 2020 — Interventional cardiology is ranked as the occupation with the highest level of radiation exposure in ...

Home July 21, 2020
Home
Videos | Radiation Dose Management

Mahadevappa Mahesh, Ph.D., chief of medical physicist and professor of radiology and medical physics, Johns Hopkins ...

Home December 19, 2019
Home
News | Radiation Dose Management

July 18, 2019 — Low doses of radiation equivalent to three computed tomography (CT) scans, which are considered safe ...

Home July 18, 2019
Home
Podcast | Radiation Dose Management

Akshay Khandelwal, M.D., director of medical operations at the Henry Ford Heart and Vascular Institute, Detroit, and ...

Home June 14, 2019
Home
Subscribe Now