New York Times Hyping Unfounded Radiation Fears Associated With Dental Cone Beam Scanners
On November 22, 2010, the New York Times published another one of those “protect the children” articles that quotes professional critics, plays on fears and perpetrates the journalistic assumption that the general public should be protected from math and numbers at all costs. The article, titled Radiation Worries for Children in Dentists’ Chairs describes how some dentists and some medical equipment vendors are encouraging the use of “cone beam scanning” technology that can produce detailed, three dimensional images of jaws, whole mouths or even whole heads.
According to the proponents, the tools are simple to use, dramatically reduce the time required in the chair and produce far more accurate results than other alternatives. According to the critics, the dentists who use the tools are at a comparable level of sophistication with shoe salesmen who used fluoroscopes to measure feet in the 1950s and they are guilty of exposing children to “dangerous” amounts of radiation. The authors of the article come down firmly on the side of the critics and paint the proponents of using the diagnostic tools as being firmly captured by profit-hungry corporations.
The more I read, the more angry I became at the lack of balance and the lack of real information that can help nervous mothers (and there are lots of them reading the New York Times) make good decisions for themselves and their children. Though I am sympathetic to the idea that some corporations will go to great lengths to sell tools that have questionable utility (like full body scanners at airports), I love human creativity and problem-solving.
There are many tools in modern society that I would hate to do without. I am writing this post on one of those tools – a fast computer with a 24″ flat panel display connected to the Internet at 3 Mbps. I would have loved it if the dental clinic where I received my exit physical from the Navy had a “cone-beam CT scanner” that required a single exposure lasting about a minute instead of the half dozen or so old fashioned x-rays that the technicians decided they needed for a full evaluation of my dental health.
Of course, I know that too much radiation can be hazardous; I am a trained radiation worker and once served as the Chemistry and Radiological Controls Assistant. I also know that the dose makes the poison – so I kept wanting to know how big the doses were. The article did not provide a single number or an actual unit of measure. Instead, it relied on weak comparisons and opinions on the level of “it’s safe” and “no it’s not.” It also mentioned that the devices emitted more concentrated radiation, but did not help readers to understand the overall effect on total dose from shorter periods of exposure.
The article itself was in a portion of the Times that does not accept comments, but there was an accompanying New York Times Well blog post titled Radiation in the Dentist Chair written by Tara Parker-Pope that invited a discussion about the article. Here is how that post started:
A new scanning device that emits significantly more radiation than conventional methods is gaining popularity among dentists despite the potential risks to young patients, an examination by The New York Times has found.
I read through some of the comments – which was a frustrating experience – and decided to add one of my own. Here is what I said:
I found myself hoping to see some numbers somewhere in the article so that I could better understand the scale of the potential risk. Sadly, there was not a number in the article nor any discussion about rem, sieverts, grays or any other unit of radiation exposure.
Though many radiation protection practitioners continue to assert – without evidence – the assumption that every dose of radiation poses a risk, study after study has provided real world evidence that there is a dose below which there appears to be either a tiny amount of risk, no risk or even beneficial effects known as hormesis.
The level below which there is no risk is several orders of magnitude higher than what people get from the proper use of medical tools like cone beam scanners that require only brief periods of exposure. A full head shot apparently gives a tissue weighted dose of about 210 micro Sv. (http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi/content/full/82/973/35)
In units more familiar to US radiation workers, that is about 21 millirem. The radiation dose level at which there is some evidence that increased doses lead to increased harm is about 5,000 millirem per year. It would take about 230 full head shots from a modern cone beam scanner to reach that level. (Note: The numbers in the preceding paragraph were corrected on 11/24/2010 at 0826. The initial conversion of microsieverts to millirem was incorrect by a factor of 100.)
This result should surprise no one who understands that some sunlight is vital to life; too much can cause skin cancer. Some amount of most vitamins and minerals improve human health; overdoses can kill. Moderate exercise is healthy; overdoing it can cause early death or break down even the strongest physiques.
The link below leads to a book whose cost does not make it readily accessible to the general public, but it is a book that would make excellent reading for reporters of a major publication like the New York Times as they try to understand a bit more about how radiation affects humans. It is an incredibly important topic.
http://www.amazon.com/Radiation-Hormesis-Linear-No-Threshold-Assumption-Charles/dp/3642037194
It is worth recognizing that consultants who are paid to perform studies by the European Commission, vendors of fast film that costs “pennies” more than slower film, and a doctor who runs a company that contracts with states to “keep dental radiation in check” are not exactly disinterested critics. They certainly have the right to criticize, but they are professionals who stand to make more money and obtain more work by hyping their criticism and inflating fears.
Finally, for those people who want dentists to simply work harder or longer and use tools that are “perfectly safe” but take 30 times as long, take a look around the world. There are billions of people who could use the services of well trained dentists. I like the idea of safe tools that allow them to see more patients every day and that have the potential for reducing costs.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Reduce cost?! I just signed on for SureSmile braces for my 14 year old to the tune of $5,400. Prior to, I heard nothing about the increased use of xrays for this new and improved braces phenomenon.
Newbraces – I am not sure I understand your comment. Are you saying that you would be interested if the process saved you money, but that it was not offered to you?
How would you react if the reduced time (cost) required in the dentist’s chair for imaging show up as improved results for the same price as a less effective treatment?
Rod, you’re an incurable optimist. Do you really think that a blogger for the NYT is going to know what a sievert is? She probably thinks that it’s some Swedish rock band.
Speaking of sieverts, minor error: 210 micro Sv is 21 millirem.
In other news:
The governor of “one of America’s largest oil producing states” promotes nuclear power
And on the tragic side:
The faces of the consequences of New Zealand’s phobia of all things “nuclear”
Is it just me, or does the Times really seem to have it out for anything radioactive or nuclear? There’s this story, there was another attack story on medical radiography and radiotherapy a few months back, then there was the “Solar Energy is Cheaper Than Nuclear Power” story (in which they fail to mention that this was the opinion of controversial journal article/monograph written by elements associated with NC WARN, and then don’t really bother to get the other side’s opinion), then there are their editorials against that evil shredder of fish, Indian Point.
It doesn’t seem like the Times is interested in reporting news about radiation, nuclear power, and associated technologies, so much as they are interested in stirring fear, uncertainty, and doubt about them. It’s unfortunate and sad that such a formerly respectable newspaper has stooped to become a partisan in these debates.
It’s not just you.
Matt Wald even wrote a story the other day for the Times accepting the line that it was a good thing to be destroying a fully complete nuclear plant simply because it was uneconomical to operate – in 1998 when it was shut down by a management that wanted to teach a union a lesson in obedience.
I guess the only good nuclear plant – in the opinion of the Times – is a dead nuclear plant. Wonder how much money they make each year running advertisements for fossil fuel suppliers.
Although it is a national paper, the NYT primarily serves the greater New York City region (it is the largest local metropolitan newspaper in the United States). Look at the local politics. New York just elected as governor the son of the stupid jackass who shut down the Shoreham NPP in the late eighties. The residents of Long Island are still paying for that mistake, both financially and in terms of public health.
Is it any wonder why the Times takes the positions that it does? Fossil fuel companies alone are not enough to blame. You can’t get to the heart of this until you understand the corrupt and incompetent nature of New York politics and the failure of public common sense that keeps getting these people elected.
The surprising thing is that this is also coming from a paper that has some excellent science and engineering coverage as well. For instance, their retrospective on how the Deepwater Horizon disaster happened was one of the best technical – yet quite readable and understandable – explanations of a man-made disaster that I’ve seen. They ought to know better.
Perhaps someone from the editorial board or the op-ed page is directing news coverage of energy technologies? Not a good idea to get reporting the news and editorial/opinion-writing mixed up. Sad.
Given what we now know, from radiotherapy to the legacy of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is clear that radiation safety limits are far too conservative. Evidently, our bodies have learned through evolution to repair or eliminate damaged cells, with a low failure rate. I suggest the upper limit might be reset at a lifetime total of 5 sieverts, at no more than 0.1 sievert per month. That would be a fraction of a radiotherapy dose, spread over a lifetime. Given what we now know from Hiroshima and Nagasaki it is clear the safety limits are too low
In other words, I would like to see a revision that would relax current regulations by a factor of 1000. This may seem excessively radical to some, especially those in the safety industry, (who in my opinion are part of the problem) but common sense says that extra precautions are most needed when we know least, and relaxed later, as instrumentation improves and our understanding of it grows. The regulation of ionizing radiation has resolutely gone in the opposite direction, driven by fear.
Changing the limits would bring practical benefits. Radiation safety is a major contributor to the cost of nuclear power, so any relaxation should lead to major cost reductions, and stop nonsense beliefs, that medical x-rays are a serious risk.
@DV82XL – you will get no argument from me other than a repetitive comment about the economic benefit that certain establishment energy industry stalwarts have obtained by efforts to impose excessive fear of radiation.
Actually, there are probably some stalwarts in the medical industry that benefit from imposing a fear of radiation. After all, many drug makers are most profitable when they find a long term treatment – not a cure – for a scary illness like the big C. If a radiation treatment actually serves to cure an illness, there may be an accountant or MBA somewhere that views that positive result as a lost revenue opportunity.
Well with many countries with universal heath care paid by the state, there is no benefit in stretching out treatments, particularly as most facilities in those countries are running at close to capacity. I would hazard a guess that any treatment that would speed things up would come to light in those places, even if they were suppressed in countries with profit-based health care.
The funny thing is that medical diagnostics and treatments have doubled the background radiation of people in the U.S. in the past 50 years with very little public notice or comment… The population exposure of the whole nuclear power industry is a tiny, practically unmeasurable addition to the background.
I would be particularly concerned about things kids are exposed to. I know of some parents who tan their 8-yr old girl so she looks like a sun goddess year round… I think they’re nuts. Of course, in that case, you really know there is tissue damage because you can see.
Great article Mr. Adams. I would like to ask your permission to post a link to this article from my Website.