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  

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe