Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2021; 31(03): 653-660
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735927
Review Article

How Safe Are Radiation Doses in Diagnostic Radiology? A Historical Perspective and Review of Current Evidence

Srikanth Moorthy 
1   Department of Radiology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Amrita School of Medicine, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amrita Lane, Ponekkara, Kochi, Kerala, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The “no dose is safe” linear no-threshold (LNT) model forms the basis for radiation safety in radiology practice. This model has its origins in observations of germline mutations in fruit flies exposed to X-rays. After World War II, quantitative risk estimates of radiation injury are primarily derived from the atomic bomb survivor Life Span Study. Current understanding of tissue response to radiation has raised doubts about the validity of LNT model at low doses encountered in the practice of diagnostic radiology. This article traces the evolution of basic radiation safety concepts and provides a bird's eye view of the Life Span Study and other studies which throw light on the matter. The arguments for an alternative, threshold, or even hermetic models of dose response are examined. The relevance of these developments to the nuclear power industry is also outlined.

Keywords

radiation - dose - radiology - safety - history


Publication History

Article published online:
06 October 2021

© 2021. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Brown P. American martyrs to radiology. Clarence Madison Dally (1865-1904). 1936. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164 (01) 237-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Muller HJ. Artificial transmutation of the gene. Science 1927; 66 (1699): 84-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 ICRP History Available from. Accessed December 24, 2020 at: https://icrp.org/page.asp?id=210
  • 4 Cuttler JM. What becomes of nuclear risk assessment in light of radiation hormesis?. Dose Response 2006; 5 (01) 80-90
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Calabrese EJ, O'Connor MK. Estimating risk of low radiation doses—a critical review of the BEIR VII report and its use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis. Radiat Res 2014; 182 (05) 463-474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 ICRP, 1977. Recommendations of the ICRP. ICRP Publication 26. 1977 Ann. ICRP 1 (3)
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Douple EB, Mabuchi K, Cullings HM. et al. Long-term radiation-related health effects in a unique human population: lessons learned from the atomic bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2011; 5 (Suppl. 01) S122-S133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Grant EJ, Brenner A, Sugiyama H. et al. Solid cancer incidence among the life span study of atomic bomb survivors: 1958-2009. Radiat Res 2017; 187 (05) 513-537
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ozasa K, Grant EJ, Kodama K. Japanese legacy cohorts: the life span study atomic bomb survivor cohort and survivors' offspring. J Epidemiol 2018; 28 (04) 162-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Jordan BR. The Hiroshima/Nagasaki survivor studies: discrepancies between results and general perception. Genetics 2016; 203 (04) 1505-1512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 NCR. Health Risks from Exposures to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. National Research Council, Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Hendee WR, O'Connor MK. Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating fact from fantasy. Radiology 2012; 264 (02) 312-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Pregnancy and Medical Radiation. ICRP Publication 84. 2000; Ann ICRP;30(1)
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. 2007 Ann. ICRP 37 (2–4)
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007; 357 (22) 2277-2284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hricak H, Brenner DJ, Adelstein SJ. et al. Managing radiation use in medical imaging: a multifaceted challenge. Radiology 2011; 258 (03) 889-905
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang C, Kaminski JM. The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data. Radiology 2009; 251 (01) 13-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP. et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2012; 380 (9840): 499-505
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 McCollough CH, Bushberg JT, Fletcher JG, Eckel LJ. Answers to common questions about the use and safety of CT scans. Mayo Clin Proc 2015; 90 (10) 1380-1392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nair RR, Rajan B, Akiba S. et al. Background radiation and cancer incidence in Kerala, India-Karanagappally cohort study. Health Phys 2009; 96 (01) 55-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pollycove M, Feinendegen LE. Radiation-induced versus endogenous DNA damage: possible effect of inducible protective responses in mitigating endogenous damage. Hum Exp Toxicol 2003; 22 (06) 290-306 , discussion 307, 315–317, 319–323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. Toxicology rethinks its central belief. Nature 2003; 421 (6924): 691-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). 2008. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Vol. II, Scientific Annex D: Health effects due to radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Accessed December 24, 2020 at: https://www.unsear.org/docs/publications/2008/UNSCEAR_2008_Annexe-D-CORR.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Wigg DR. Radiation: facts, fallacies and phobias. Australas Radiol 2007; 51 (01) 21-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). 2013 Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation. Vol I Scientific AnnexA: levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami. Accessed December 24, 2020 at: https://www.unsear.org/docs/reports/2013/13-85418_Report_2013_Annexe_A.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Cardis E, Vrijheid M, Blettner M. et al. Risk of cancer after low doses of ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study in 15 countries. BMJ 2005; 331 (7508): 77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Zablotska LB, Lane RS, Thompson PA. A reanalysis of cancer mortality in Canadian nuclear workers (1956-1994) based on revised exposure and cohort data. Br J Cancer 2014; 110 (01) 214-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Tubiana M, Aurengo A, Averbeck D. et al , eds. Dose-Effect Relationships and the Estimation of the Carcinogenic Effects of Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation. Academy of Medicine (Paris) and Academy of Science (Paris) Joint Report No. 2, March 30; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Kulkarni CB, Pullara SK, Prabhu NK, Patel S, Suresh A, Moorthy S. Comparison of knowledge-based iterative model reconstruction (IMR) with hybrid iterative reconstruction (iDose4) techniques for evaluation of hepatocellular carcinomas using computed tomography. Acad Radiol 2020; S1076-6332 (20) 30483-30489
    Google Scholar