Originally posted by mamandcrm
View Post
On the other hand, with low dose exposure, while does effect the cells, it is possible that any damage received will be repaired before the next exposure. However, this is also unproven.
Assessing this risk seems to be extremely difficult, as you can imagine. The debate with this topic seems to focus over repeated CT scans which is about 100 times more radiation than an x-ray (10,000 microSV vs 100 microSv). Calculating 1 x-ray series (standard 2 views) per month from 9-18 years old (108 series) would result in a total exposure of ~11,000 microSv (11 mSV). So it would take that many chest x-rays to equal 1 CT scan. But realistically, that number would probably be half or 1/4 that amount, if not even smaller.
All of that being said, younger patients are more at risk. As are blood making tissues, reproductive and digestive organs. Which pretty much covers a two view scoli x-ray series. Certainly, if you were trying to design a population and x-ray study to maximize risk, the JIS and AIS population fits the bill perfectly.
I'm not sure how many x-rays she is getting per year. IMO, 4-6 would be the most I'd feel comfortable having my daughter receive. Any more than that and I'd want to weigh the risk to benefit ratio pretty heavily. That is, how important are these additional x-rays to the overall success of this treatment?
Originally posted by mamandcrm
View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
Comment