4 ms·

I think it's definitely true people are overly anxious about radiation, and irrationally so. For example, it's easy to find people who get anxious about xrays b

I think it's definitely true people are overly anxious about radiation, and irrationally so. For example, it's easy to find people who get anxious about xrays but not about flying even though it gives you roughly the same amount of exposure. I know I was pretty anxious when I had a chest xray as a kid. It's just the invisible nature of radiation. Coupled with the real and brutal effects of extreme doses, it just lends itself to horrifying media portrayals.

hwillis 6y ago
> For example, it's easy to find people who get anxious about xrays but not about flying even though it gives you roughly the same amount of exposure. A 7 hour flight gives you 1/5th (.02 mSv- 2000x daily background exposure) as much as a chest xray and 1/350th as much as a chest CT. They're only similar if you fly relatively often, and if you get any kind of CT you need to fly a LOT to make them comparable. Your example also under-rates the danger of xrays compared to flying under models that are suspected to be more realistic than current linear threshold. If acute doses are worse than spread out doses, the xray is even worse than the plane. As a child, you would have gotten even less radiation from a flight. An xray exposes you to roughly the same dose, since the image is confined to a specific spot on your body. Everybody gets the dose delivered to a roughly 1'x1' area, yadda yadda. On a flight, every part of your body receives more radiation- so a 50 lb child will get 1/4th as much radiation as a 200 lb adult. If they get an xray, a smaller area needs to be exposed... but not 1/4 the size. It's actually related to the square-cube law, since the image is cross-sectional but dose delivery depends on volume. https://www.xrayrisk.com/faq.php https://www.xrayrisk.com/faq.php
- drivebycomment 6y ago
  https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017SW001639@10.1002/(ISSN)2333-5084.SCISOC1 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/201... says: During times of calm space weather, travelers on flights from say, Chicago to Beijing, over the north pole get the equivalent radiation dose of a chest X‐ray (~0.1 mSv) [e.g., Meier et al., 2009; Bennett et al., 2012, 2013; Joyce et al., 2016; Tobiska et al., 2016].
  - pelario 6y ago
    I guess 'Chicago to Beijing over the north pole' can hardly be considered as standard for 'flying' ...
xigency 6y ago
Compare that to the days when scientists like Marie Curie cared around vials of radioactive material, shoe stores had flouroscopes to test fit shoes, and xrays were used as an acne treatment.
jimmcslim 6y ago
I’ve just had approximately 7 weeks of radiation therapy as post-surgery treatment for a cancer in my neck. 2 grays each treatment (I think) and 33 treatments, 66 grays in total. My skin in the treatment area held up fine until the last week when it basically gave up, so I’m looking forward to a couple of weeks of applying gel and changing bandages... So even quite moderate exposures can have significant effects, I can’t imagine what this would be like across my whole body.
- corty 6y ago
  66 Gray is far from moderate as a whole body dose. The 100% lethal onetime dose for gamma or beta rays (which you probably got one of) is around 10 Gray, LD50 is 3 Gray iirc. A wholebody dose of 2 Gray consequently would get you severe radiation sickness, depletion of white blood cells and possible secondary infections with some chance of death. Radiation therapy therefore needs to "aim" right, so as not to hit too much of the sensitive tissues like nerves, bone marrow, mucosa, etc. Edit: here is a chart for a comparison of typical doses: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert#/media/File%3A027_dose-ranges-sievert.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert#/media/File%3A027_do... Hope you beat the cancer.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  I hope you recover soon. Wishing for the best!
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  I wish you all the best.

hwillis 6y ago

> For example, it's easy to find people who get anxious about xrays but not about flying even though it gives you roughly the same amount of exposure. A 7 hour flight gives you 1/5th (.02 mSv- 2000x daily background exposure) as much as a chest xray and 1/350th as much as a chest CT. They're only similar if you fly relatively often, and if you get any kind of CT you need to fly a LOT to make them comparable. Your example also under-rates the danger of xrays compared to flying under models that are suspected to be more realistic than current linear threshold. If acute doses are worse than spread out doses, the xray is even worse than the plane. As a child, you would have gotten even less radiation from a flight. An xray exposes you to roughly the same dose, since the image is confined to a specific spot on your body. Everybody gets the dose delivered to a roughly 1'x1' area, yadda yadda. On a flight, every part of your body receives more radiation- so a 50 lb child will get 1/4th as much radiation as a 200 lb adult. If they get an xray, a smaller area needs to be exposed... but not 1/4 the size. It's actually related to the square-cube law, since the image is cross-sectional but dose delivery depends on volume. https://www.xrayrisk.com/faq.php https://www.xrayrisk.com/faq.php

drivebycomment 6y ago
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017SW001639@10.1002/(ISSN)2333-5084.SCISOC1 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/201... says: During times of calm space weather, travelers on flights from say, Chicago to Beijing, over the north pole get the equivalent radiation dose of a chest X‐ray (~0.1 mSv) [e.g., Meier et al., 2009; Bennett et al., 2012, 2013; Joyce et al., 2016; Tobiska et al., 2016].
- pelario 6y ago
  I guess 'Chicago to Beijing over the north pole' can hardly be considered as standard for 'flying' ...

xigency 6y ago

Compare that to the days when scientists like Marie Curie cared around vials of radioactive material, shoe stores had flouroscopes to test fit shoes, and xrays were used as an acne treatment.

jimmcslim 6y ago

I’ve just had approximately 7 weeks of radiation therapy as post-surgery treatment for a cancer in my neck. 2 grays each treatment (I think) and 33 treatments, 66 grays in total. My skin in the treatment area held up fine until the last week when it basically gave up, so I’m looking forward to a couple of weeks of applying gel and changing bandages... So even quite moderate exposures can have significant effects, I can’t imagine what this would be like across my whole body.

corty 6y ago
66 Gray is far from moderate as a whole body dose. The 100% lethal onetime dose for gamma or beta rays (which you probably got one of) is around 10 Gray, LD50 is 3 Gray iirc. A wholebody dose of 2 Gray consequently would get you severe radiation sickness, depletion of white blood cells and possible secondary infections with some chance of death. Radiation therapy therefore needs to "aim" right, so as not to hit too much of the sensitive tissues like nerves, bone marrow, mucosa, etc. Edit: here is a chart for a comparison of typical doses: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert#/media/File%3A027_dose-ranges-sievert.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert#/media/File%3A027_do... Hope you beat the cancer.
searchableguy 6y ago
I hope you recover soon. Wishing for the best!
read_if_gay_ 6y ago
I wish you all the best.