Radiation FUD: "Unsafe at any dose"

So I saw this article in the NYTimes, and it really triggered something in me. An irritation about doctors who think that they "know better" about something that they know nothing about?

It's really made me very angry, and as someone who actually knows a bit about medical physics, I just have to rant.

The author is just plain wrong about many of her facts.

She denigrates physicists for discussing 'permissible doses of radiation', and states that radiation in any dose is dangerous. She seems to be completely uneducated on the nature of radiation itself. Does she stay away from sunlight all the time? The sun is a large source of radiation, including the photons that we use to see-- and
sometimes those photons interact with skin cells and produce melanomas. Does that mean that sunlight in any dose is completely unsafe, and that we should stay away from all light sources or photon emissions? I certainly hope she's not advocating that stance, since the human body produces vitamin D when exposed to sunlight, and staying indoors can lead to bone degeneration.

She says that physicists also ignore the effects of internal dosing-- but is she aware that the radioactive contents of potassium rich foods have been well studied. Or how about a PET scan-- where does she think that the source for that image comes from? Hint 1: it's radiation, hint 2: it's internal.

How about airplane travel? Should we stop all air travel, because flying above the protective layers of atmosphere will deliver radiation dose about the equivalent of a chest x-ray?

Does she never walk on grass? Because dirt contains trace amounts of uranium. Not enough to be practically harmful, but by her standard of 'any dose is dangerous', she would never step foot on dirt again.

How about CT scans, or mammograms? Those images do not appear by magic, they appear by radiation. And interestingly enough, radiologists have long argued _against_ dose constraints in the US, because they state that dose constraints will interfere with their ability to treat and diagnose a patient. The ACR has a 'guideline,' but there is no law. For her to claim that doctors have been shut out of the legislative process when it comes to radiation standards is disingenuous at best.

Even so, there is an entire field of medical physics, called dosimetry, that is predicated on the concept of ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable). The more signal (radiation) that is used when taking these images, the better idea the radiologist can get of the internal contents of a person using these imaging modalities. Increased signal also means increased dose to the patient. and so
medical physicists and device manufacturers strive to reduce the amount of dose requires to produce a useful medical image. (My dissertation was a subset of this field, aimed at reducing mammography radiation through computational increase of signal to noise).

Radiation can be a tool in other fields as well, not only for diagnostic medical procedures, but also for producing power. I believe that the debate should be between the various sources of power that we have available to us. In the comparison between fossil fuels and nuclear power, the deleterious effects of neither should be
discounted. Living within 1000 yards of a freeway have been correlatively linked with higher cancer rates, and such particulates (or worse) are released by coal-burning plants, as opposed to just oil. Wind energy has problems with environmental advocates worried about wildlife migration patterns and with nearby residents thinking that it
messes up the skyline. The production of solar panels is just as bad as producing other silicon-based electronic devices, because it's a silicon-based electronic device. All of these technologies have advantages and disadvantages, and it's important to weigh facts rather than knee-jerk reactions.

Personally, I believe that nuclear power is the best plan for long-term stability and growth of the country, but only if sufficient safeguards are put in place. The plant between Los Angeles and San Diego, San Onofre, has a 25 foot tsunami wall, which was found to be inadequate in Fukushima. Now that we know that such a disaster is
possible, I think it should be a national priority to ensure that our current generators are reinforced against the kinds of natural disasters that Japan experienced, not just the 7.0 quake that Edison claims San Onofre can withstand.

I do believe that this debate is a very important one, but I think it's also important that those who contribute to this debate have some knowledge about the facts at hand. I would suggest that Dr. Caldicott begin with Randall Munroe's Dose Chart before she makes fantastic claims about a field in which she has no expertise.