Are all nuclear medical techniques highly dangerous?

Answer 1

The use of ionizing radiation that occurs with nuclear medical techniques carries with it some combination of risks and benefits. Assuming the medical work is done by responsible, compotent medical personnel, it is deemed that the benefits outweigh the risks. X-rays, whether for dental or medical purposes, do give the patient a dose of ionizing radiation that would be harmful if repeated excessively, but a few each year is unlikely to cause damage to the patient's health. One could refuse to be x-rayed to avoid the small amount of radiation one would receive from x-rays, but since x-rays are used to diagnose medical and dental problems that may need real attention, one could end up much worse off for refusing x-rays. A woman who refuses a mammogram for fear of the tiny bit of radiation she'll receive from it is more likely to die from breast cancer than a woman who accepts the risk so that any potential breast cancer within her is diagnosed early enough.

The amount of radiation from diagnostic x-rays is not out of line with the amount of radiation one receives from background sources in the course of a year, such as natural radon in houses and rays from the sun. Most people get somewhere between 100-500 mrem a year from natural sources. An x-ray is likely to give someone somewhere between 10-100 mrem, depending on the x-ray. Therefore, someone is not likely to get more radiation from medical procedures than from all other sources. An exception might be a thallium injection, which is more likely to give a person a dose of about 500 mrem. However, since thallium injections are used for diagnostic tests on heart patients, the benefits are worth it, even the relatively high dose from thallium. (By the way, cigarette smokers get quite a bit of radiation from their habit. Smokers can get 1000 mrem or more in a year due to the natural impurities in cigarettes.)

Assuming one has a healthy diet and no unusual health condition, the human body can repair itself from small doses of radiation, such as the levels we get naturally. DNA damage resulting from ionizing radiation (or something else) can be repaired as long as it is not overwhelming. The more radiation, the more likely it is that tissue damage and/or cancer will result, but our bodies have remarkable healing abilities; we can withstand the small amount of damage from radiation that results from diagnostic medical procedures.

Radiation therapy, which is used to kill cancerous tumors, uses doses which are much higher than the doses used for diagnostic procedures. After all, the purpose of radiation therapy is to kill cells. Cancer cells are more suseptible to radiation and chemical destruction than healthy cells, which is why radiation and chemotherapy are useful. Radiation and chemo both have a negative effect on healthy cells, but they are much worse for cancer cells. Radiation therapy targets the tumor with a dose sufficient to kill cancer cells, and ideally, all tissues outside of that tumor receive a much, much smaller dose. The way that modern radiation therapy is done is quite sophisticated, and the amount of radiation received by areas outside the tumor is remarkably small compared to the large dose received by the tumor. However, it's possible that healthy cells near the treated tumor, which are going to receive a somewhat considerable amount of radiation, may themselves become cancerous or otherwise weakened in a way that the patient's health is negatively affected. In any case, radiation therapy is used for cancer patients, not normally healthy people, so the upside of accepting the risk is that the patient may live significantly longer (or perhaps even beat the cancer altogether) than a patient who refuses treatment. For cancer patients, radiation therapy is often the best option, and if I had cancer, I would trust my oncologist if he or she recommended radiation therapy. (One side note: radiation therapy is performed by a radiation oncologist, whereas x-rays and other diagnostic tests are done by a radiologist.)

Life is full of risks. While it is not true that the use of radiation for medical procedures is absolutely without risks, the benefits of these procedures generally outweigh the risks. I would not recommend refusing medical tests and treatments just because they involve a small exposure to radiation.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

1. Home smoke detectors contain radioactive material. FALSE 2. Radioactive material and radiation are unnatural-they did not exist on Earth until created by scientist. FALSE 3. All radiation causes cancer. FALSE 4. Human senses can detect radiation. FALSE 5. Individuals vary widely concerning how they are affected by exposure to radiation. FALSE 6. Small amounts of matter change to immense quantities of energy released by nuclear weapons. TRUE 7. Physicians can distinguish cancer caused by radiation exposure from cancer resulting from other causes. FALSE 8. Medical x-rays are dangerous. FALSE 9. Nuclear power plants create serious hazards to public health and to the environment. FALSE 10. An improperly operated nuclear power plant can explode like a nuclear weapon. TRUE 11. Some nuclear waste must be stored for centuries to prevent dangerous radioactivity from escaping. TRUE 12. New dangerous elements are being invented every day. TRUE 13. Nuclear power plants produce material that could be converted into nuclear weapons. TRUE 14. All nuclear medical techniques are highly dangerous. FALSE

Answer 4

Handling nuclear material requires the proper training. Radioactivity can be harmful, but so can water if you don't handle it properly. With the proper precautions, adherence to proper techniques and shielding, the benefits far out weigh the risks. For a nuclear technician exposure to radiation can be greatly minimized and easily monitored.

Answer 5

2

Answer 6

No, not at all.

Medical uses of radio-isotopes etc etc are harmless

They only began to inflict damage if the treatment is done many many times.

Answer 7

Oh yeh.
radioactive isotopes are nasty and very dangerous.