4 ms·

1 mSv is a pretty low threshold. It's actually a bit more than 10x the radiation of a thorax x-ray done with modern equipment. But its 1/10 of a thorax ct. It's

1 mSv is a pretty low threshold. It's actually a bit more than 10x the radiation of a thorax x-ray done with modern equipment. But its 1/10 of a thorax ct. It's also less than the yearly difference between the exposure of people living in regions with low and high natural radiation here in Germany (which, as has far as could be determined, has no impact on the cancer rate).

lostlogin 6y ago
Could you expand on this? I didn’t understand the problem to be the threshold, but the convenient underestimation of dose by a factor of 2-20x.
- dr_faustus 6y ago
  It's not my place to evaluate which method of calculating the exposure was correct. Just pointing out, that 1 mSv is a rather small amount of radiation. The smallest amount of radiation where one sees some indications of an increase in cancer risk is at 50-100 mSv [1]. I'm not arguing either way whether this should have an impact on any payments. Putting the threshold for compensation at 1 mSv is very conservative and will lead to the payment of compensation for many cancers that weren't caused by radiation. Which, again, is fine by me because I do believe that very little interest was paid to the protection of the neighboring populations. [1] Pretty good summary: https://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/13761 https://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/13761
  - Retric 6y ago
    The issue here is both the linear no threshold and threshold model are indistinguishable with our current data. The problem is cancer is really quite common and has many sources so it’s hard to say what if any level is actually safe to expose X million people to. At least with medical X rays there is some benefit to offset risk, but without that it’s much harder to justify.
sjg007 6y ago
Most people don't get 10x thorax xrays done in their life. If you have a reason to get those xrays fine... But in general there's a cancer risk so just multiply it out. I don't get dental xrays every year and I wait 3-5 years to actually have one. And I never have had a problem. You should only get an xray after the dental exam indicates a problem and you trust your dentist. I learnt this the hard way after seeing several pushy dentists over the course of a few years who in retrospect focused on the money. One of the dentists I saw was busted by the FBI for insurance fraud.
- 09bjb 6y ago
  I would love to have this conversation with my dentist but don't have much data to back it up at the moment. Do you have any good sources?
  - sjg007 6y ago
    Just look at the American academy or association of dentistry recommendations. I forget the name but it’s the scientific organization that accredits dental education etc..
- jessaustin 6y ago
  ...I wait 3-5 years... You're saving money at both ends! Not only are you not buying X-rays, but it's also fairly likely that by the time a condition is serious enough to cause you pain, the only option left will be to pull the tooth. Extractions are definitely cheaper than fancy procedures like root canals, fillings, and crowns. At some point you might have no teeth remaining, and you won't have to worry about the issue at all! Modern dental x-rays involve minuscule radiation levels.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but extractions can be cheaper and more effective than root canals, fillings, and crowns. If you have a tooth with only 2 roots and one of them cracks, then it's better to just remove the tooth. Besides chronic infection that can hemorrhage, it will have to be extracted within 5 years anyway. With 3 roots and only one cracked, sometimes dental surgeons can do something. Also, the comment about dental x-rays being a profit center are clearly true. In SV, it's like they put you on a calendar for them, and they're usually done before an exam.

lostlogin 6y ago

Could you expand on this? I didn’t understand the problem to be the threshold, but the convenient underestimation of dose by a factor of 2-20x.

dr_faustus 6y ago
It's not my place to evaluate which method of calculating the exposure was correct. Just pointing out, that 1 mSv is a rather small amount of radiation. The smallest amount of radiation where one sees some indications of an increase in cancer risk is at 50-100 mSv [1]. I'm not arguing either way whether this should have an impact on any payments. Putting the threshold for compensation at 1 mSv is very conservative and will lead to the payment of compensation for many cancers that weren't caused by radiation. Which, again, is fine by me because I do believe that very little interest was paid to the protection of the neighboring populations. [1] Pretty good summary: https://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/13761 https://www.pnas.org/content/100/24/13761
- Retric 6y ago
  The issue here is both the linear no threshold and threshold model are indistinguishable with our current data. The problem is cancer is really quite common and has many sources so it’s hard to say what if any level is actually safe to expose X million people to. At least with medical X rays there is some benefit to offset risk, but without that it’s much harder to justify.

sjg007 6y ago

Most people don't get 10x thorax xrays done in their life. If you have a reason to get those xrays fine... But in general there's a cancer risk so just multiply it out. I don't get dental xrays every year and I wait 3-5 years to actually have one. And I never have had a problem. You should only get an xray after the dental exam indicates a problem and you trust your dentist. I learnt this the hard way after seeing several pushy dentists over the course of a few years who in retrospect focused on the money. One of the dentists I saw was busted by the FBI for insurance fraud.

09bjb 6y ago
I would love to have this conversation with my dentist but don't have much data to back it up at the moment. Do you have any good sources?
- sjg007 6y ago
  Just look at the American academy or association of dentistry recommendations. I forget the name but it’s the scientific organization that accredits dental education etc..
jessaustin 6y ago
...I wait 3-5 years... You're saving money at both ends! Not only are you not buying X-rays, but it's also fairly likely that by the time a condition is serious enough to cause you pain, the only option left will be to pull the tooth. Extractions are definitely cheaper than fancy procedures like root canals, fillings, and crowns. At some point you might have no teeth remaining, and you won't have to worry about the issue at all! Modern dental x-rays involve minuscule radiation levels.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but extractions can be cheaper and more effective than root canals, fillings, and crowns. If you have a tooth with only 2 roots and one of them cracks, then it's better to just remove the tooth. Besides chronic infection that can hemorrhage, it will have to be extracted within 5 years anyway. With 3 roots and only one cracked, sometimes dental surgeons can do something. Also, the comment about dental x-rays being a profit center are clearly true. In SV, it's like they put you on a calendar for them, and they're usually done before an exam.