Are Continued Efforts to Reduce Radiation Exposures from X-Rays Warranted?

Abstract

There are pressures to avoid use of radiological imaging throughout all healthcare due to the notion that all radiation is carcinogenic. This perception stems from the long-standing use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) assumption of risk associated with radiation exposures. This societal perception has led to relentless efforts to avoid and reduce radiation exposures to patients at great costs. Many radiation reduction campaigns have been launched to dissuade doctors from using radiation imaging. Lower-dose imaging techniques and practices are being advocated. Alternate imaging procedures are encouraged. Are these efforts warranted? Based on recent evidence, LNT ideology is shown to be defunct for risk assessment at low-dose exposure ranges which includes X-rays and CT scans. In fact, the best evidence that was once used to support LNT ideology, including the Life Span Study data, now indicates thresholds for cancer induction are high; therefore, low-dose X-rays cannot cause harm. Current practices are safe as exposures currently encountered are orders of magnitude below threshold levels shown to be harmful. As long as imaging is medically warranted, it is shown that efforts to reduce exposures that are within background radiation levels and that are also shown to enhance health by upregulating natural adaptive protection systems are definitively wasted resources.

Re-establishing the cervical lordosis after whiplash: a Chiropractic Biophysics^® spinal corrective care methods pre-auto injury and post-auto injury case report with follow-up

“…First, as mentioned, comprehensive assessment of the cervical lordosis can only be done by routine X-rays to the region and quantification of important spinal parameters including global lordosis, AHT etc 6 ) . There are however, hesitancies to expose patients to radiation which are outdated concerns, because X-rays do not provide a high enough exposure of radiation to cause harm 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ) . Further, no other assessment methods (e.g.…”

Long-axial field-of-view PET/CT: perspectives and review of a revolutionary development in nuclear medicine based on clinical experience in over 7000 patients

“…The magnitude of any theoretical benefit to an individual patient through only modest reductions in radiation dose, for example a 50% reduction in activity [ 40 ] is questionable. Moreover, as nuclear medicine physicians, we must be careful that we do not inadvertently contribute to radiation induced phobia through overstating the risks of radiation doses routinely used in diagnostic procedures, which in many cases are smaller in magnitude than the risks inherent to the car journey to the hospital [ 69 – 72 ]. Furthermore, care must be taken that the potential advantages of a high-quality, low-noise examination are not unnecessarily forfeited in the pursuit of radiation doses lower than those already accepted as safe in routine clinical imaging.…”

Impact of X-radiation in the management of COVID-19 disease

“…Despite the beneficial effects, the ethical concerns to use LDRT in the management of COVID-19 were the risk of spread of infection, time frame for a patient, and inconvenience in treating an intubated patient[ 64 ]. Even though medical imaging is widely used, divergent thoughts existed on the health effects of low-dose IR in scientific communities/stakeholders[ 65 , 66 ]. An “enhanced risk of stochastic effects due to radiation dose received by the patients during CT imaging” and “clarifications” from professional associations and regulatory authorities during this COVID-19 pandemic raised the anxiety among the public at the national level[ 67 , 68 ].…”