Are doctors zapping patients with too much radiation?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A new study says that the average American is exposed to six times more radiation from medical tests than in the early 1980s, prompting warnings that physicians may be upping patients' cancer risk by giving them unnecessary exams. 

A study by The National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) shows that the average American's overall radiation exposure jumped from 3.6 millisieverts (mSv) to 6.2 mSv per year -- almost entirely a result of radiation-based medical tests. These tests, once responsible for only 15 percent of Americans' exposure to radiation, now account for nearly 50 percent. In contrast, there was almost no change in so-called background radiation, which naturally emanates from soil, rocks and other environmental substances.

The increase in medical radiation exposure (from 0.53 mSv to 3.0 mSv) stemmed primarily from a rise in the use of computer tomography (CT) scans (which use x-rays to create cross sectional images of inside the body to spot tumors, clogged arteries, among other things), and nuclear imaging tests, which involve injecting radioactive chemicals into the bloodstream that can be picked up by special instruments and used to create images of the body's inner structures.

The advantage of these tests is that they are generally better for diagnosing conditions than older technologies [such as standard x-rays, which expose patients to much less radiation], says Arl Van Moore, president of the American College of Radiology. "But we are concerned about the overuse of radiation through self-referral," or doctors ordering exams that can be done in their own offices for their own financial benefit, he says.

Need medical tests and worried about radiation exposure? Walter Huda, a medical physicist at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, advises that you press your doc on why he or she has ordered the exams – and ask whether the clinic is certified by the American College of Radiology to perform the tests.

One tidbit of good news from the report, says physicist David Schauer, NCRP's executive director: occupational exposure has been sliced in half during the same period. The major reason: employers have taken steps to protect them, such as installing lead-coated pipes in nuclear plants to prevent the escape of harmful radiation.

©iStockphoto.com/Snowleopard1  

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe