June, 2003                       

Return to June Newsletter

Return to Part 1

A Personal Word: The X-ray Deserves Its Honored Place in Health

The finding, that radiation from medical procedures is a major cause of both Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, does not argue against the use of x-rays, CT scans, fluoroscopy, and radioisotopes in diagnostic and interventional radiology. Such uses also make very positive contributions to health. We deeply respect those contributions, and the men and women who achieve them.

This author is most definitely not "anti-x-ray" or "radio-phobic." As a graduate student in physical chemistry, I worked very intimately with radiation, in the quest for the first three atomic-bombs. Subsequently, in medical school, I considered becoming a radiologist. In the late 1940s, I did nuclear medicine with patients having a variety of hematological disorders. In the 1960s, I did chemical elemental analysis of human blood by x-ray spectroscopy. In the early 1970s, our group at the Livermore National Laboratory induced genomic instability in human cells with gamma rays.

In short, I fully appreciate the benefits and insights (in medicine and other fields) which ionizing radiation makes possible.

But no one honors the x-ray by treating it casually or by failing to acknowledge that it is a uniquely potent mutagen. One honors the x-ray by taking it seriously.

While doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology are very low relative to doses used for cancer therapy, diagnostic and interventional x-ray doses today are far from negligible. The widely used CT scans, and the common diagnostic examinations which use fluoroscopy, and interventional fluoroscopy (e.g., during surgery), deliver some of the largest nontherapeutic doses of x-rays. In 1993, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation warned, appropriately, in its Annual Report:

"Although the doses from diagnostic x-ray examinations are generally relatively low, the magnitude of the practice makes for a significant radiological impact."

In the USA until about 1970, fetal irradiation occurred during ~ 1 pregnancy per 14.

Every Benefit of Medical Radiation: Same Procedures, Lower Dose-Levels

The fact that ionizing radiation is a uniquely potent mutagen, and the finding that radiation from medical procedures is a major cause of both Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, clearly indicate that it would be appropriate in medicine to treat dosage of ionizing radiation at least as carefully as we treat dosage from potent medications. In the medical professions, we do not administer unmeasured doses of powerful pharmaceuticals, and we do not take a casual view of a 5-fold, 10-fold, even 20-fold elevation in dosage of such medications.

By contrast, in both the past and the present, unmeasured doses of x-rays are the rule -- - not the exception. When sampling has been done, in which actual measurements are taken, dosage has been found to vary from one facility to another by many-fold, for the same procedure for patients of the same size.

The reason for large variation is obvious from the list of numerous proven ways to reduce dosage. Facilities which apply all the measures can readily achieve average doses more than 5-fold lower than facilities which apply very few measures.

Certain Spinal X-rays: A Dramatic Demonstration

The potential for dose-reduction may far exceed 5-fold for some common x-ray exams. This has already been demonstrated for the spinal x-rays employed to monitor progress in treating idiopathic adolescent scoliosis, a lateral curvature of the spine. An estimated 5% of American children, or more, have this disorder. In a most responsible way, Dr. Joel Gray and coworkers at the Mayo Clinic developed radiologic techniques for scoliosis monitoring which can reduce measured x-ray dose to various organs as follows:

Abdominal exposure: 8-fold reduction.

Thyroid exposure: 20-fold reduction (with a back to front radiograph), and 100-fold reduction (with a lateral radiograph).

Breasts: 69-fold reduction (with a back to front radiograph), and 55-fold reduction (with a lateral radiograph).

They report, "These reductions in exposure were obtained without significant loss in the quality of the radiographs and in most instances, with an improvement in the over-all quality of the radiograph due to the more uniform exposure.

Mammography: A Model of Success

The importance of dose-reduction for the mammographic examination has been recognized, and such doses have been reduced by about a factor of ten in recent years. "Where there is a will, there is a way." In certified mammography centers today, doses are routinely verified periodically, and measurements provide the feedback required, in order to achieve constant dose-reduction instead of upward creep.

The Benefits of Every Procedure -- - with Far Less Dose

Dose-reduction can be a truly safe measure. It is clear that average per patient doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology could be reduced by a great deal without reducing the medical benefits of the procedures in any way.

Radiography: Quality-assurance (dose-reduction by an average factor of 2), beam-collimation (by a factor up to 3), rare-earth screens (by a factor of 2 to 4), rare-earth filtration (by a factor of 2 to 4), use of carbon-fibre materials (by a factor of 2), gonadal shielding (by a factor of 2 to 10 for the gonads).

Digital Radiography: Decrease in contrast resolution, when such resolution is not needed (dose-reduction by a factor of 2 to 3), use of a pulsed system (by a factor of 2).

Fluoroscopy: Changes in the operator's technique (dose-reduction by a factor of 2 to 10), variable aperture iris on TV camera (by a factor of 3), high and low dose-switching (by a factor of 1.5), acoustic signal related to dose-rate (by a factor of 1.3), use of a 105mm camera (by a factor of 4 to 5). Additional methods not specified in the list: Use of a circular beam-collimator when the image-receiver is circular, adoption of "freeze-frame" or "last-image-hold capability, and restraint in recording fluoroscopic images.

An Immense Opportunity: All Benefit, No Risk

The evidence in this monograph, on an age-adjusted basis, is that most fatal cases of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease would not happen as they do, in the absence of x-ray-induced mutations. We look forward to responses to our findings.

We have also presented findings, from outside sources, that average per patient radiation doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology could be reduced by a great deal, without reducing the medical benefits of the procedures in any way. The same procedures can be done at substantially lower dose-levels.

Does the Public Need a Denial, "For Its Own Good" ?

One type of response to this monograph may be that the findings need to be denied immediately (without examination), lest the public refuse to accept the benefits of x-ray procedures.

This type of response, insulting to the public, would not be consistent with reality. In reality, the public accepts a host of dangerous medications and procedures, in exchange for their demonstrable benefits -- - sometimes, for undemonstrated benefits. Very few people will forego the obvious benefits from diagnostic and interventional radiology, just because such procedures confer a risk of subsequent Cancer and IHD.

The only change will probably be that people will demand that the same degree of care, now exercised with respect to dosage of potent medications, be exercised with respect to dosage of radiation from each procedure. They will want to avoid a dose-level of, say, ten rads -- - if the same information could be acquired with one rad. They do not deserve "one useful part of information, and nine unnecessary parts of extra risk of Cancer and IHD." Patients will want more measurements, and fewer assumptions, about the doses delivered. But they will not reject the procedures themselves.

The "Advocacy Issue" and the Hippocratic Oath

It is very often said that, if scientists advocate any action based on their findings, they undermine their scientific credibility. If such scientists stand to benefit financially from the actions they advocate, such suspicion occurs naturally. But even in such circumstances, if their work is presented in a way which anyone can replicate, it should be impossible for their advocacy to diminish the scientific credibility of their work.

Our findings are not encumbered either by financial interests or by any barriers to replication. The findings stand on their own, whether or not we advocate any action.

I have spent a lifetime studying the causes of Ischemic Heart Disease, and then Cancer, in order to help prevent such diseases. So it would be pure hypocrisy for me to feign a lack of interest in any preventive action which would be both safe and benign. And when sources, completely independent from me, set forth their findings that such action is readily feasible -- - namely, significant dose-reduction in diagnostic and interventional radiology -- - it would be worse than silly for me to pretend that I have no idea what action should occur.

After all, as a physician, I took the Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm." Silence would contribute to the harm of millions of people.

Why Wait? What Is the Purpose?

Although it is commonly assumed that radiation doses are "negligible" from modern medical procedures, the assumption is definitely mistaken.

An estimated 35% to 50% of some higher-dose diagnostic procedures are currently received by patients below age 45 -- - when the carcinogenic impact per dose-unit is probably stronger than it is after age 65 or so.

In diagnostic and interventional radiology, dose-reduction would be wholly safe, quite inexpensive, and guaranteed beneficial -- - because induction of Cancer by ionizing radiation has been an established fact for decades.

A Mountain of Solid Evidence That Each Dose Matters

The fact, that x-ray doses are so seldom measured, reflects the false assumption that such doses do not matter. This monograph has presented a mountain of solid evidence that they do matter, enormously.

And each bit of additional dose matters, because any x-ray photon may be the one which sets in motion the high-speed high-energy electron which causes a carcinogenic or atherogenic mutation. Such mutations rarely disappear. The higher their accumulated number in a population, the higher will be the population's mortality-rates from radiation-induced Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease.

The x-ray is a proven mutagen and a proven cause of Cancer, and the evidence in this book strongly indicates that it is also a very important cause of Cancer and a very important atherogen. From the existing evidence, it is clear that average per patient doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology could be reduced by a great deal without reducing the medical benefits of the procedures in any way.

A Prudent Position from Which No One Loses, Everyone Gains

Whether diseases are common or rare, a prime reason for studying their causation is prevention. Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, combined, accounted for 45% of all deaths in the USA during 1993.

If we in the medical professions take the position, that we should not press for reducing doses from medical radiation until every question has been perfectly answered, then we can never undo the harm inflicted during the waiting period, upon tens of millions of patients every year.

By contrast, if we take the prudent position that dose-reduction should become a high priority without delay (and if humans do not start exposing themselves to some other potent mutagen), the evidence in this monograph indicates that we will prevent much of the future mortality from Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, without causing any adverse effects on health. No one loses, everyone gains.

Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/chp1F.html

Dr. Joseph Mercola's comment:

After four years one would think I would have posted a study regarding the relationship between X-rays and cancer. I had not seen a scholarly work like this in the past. Now, now only do we understand that x-rays are highly linked with cancer, but they are also linked with heart disease.

Dr. Gofman's credentials are astounding. Not only does he have a Ph.D in nuclear and physical chemistry, but he is also a medical doctor:

While a graduate student at U.C. Berkeley, Gofman earned his Ph.D. (1943) in nuclear/physical chemistry, with his dissertation on the discovery of Pa-232, U-232, Pa-233, and U-233, the proof that U-233 is fissionable by slow and fast neutrons, and discovery of the 4n + 1 radioactive series. His faculty advisor was Glenn T. Seaborg (who became Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, 1961-1971).

Post-doctorally, Gofman continued research related to the first atomic bombs -- - particularly the chemistry of plutonium, at a time when the world's total supply was less than 0.25 milligram. He shares patents #2,671,251 and #2,912,302 on two processes for separating plutonium from the uranium and fission products of irradiated nuclear fuel.

After the plutonium work, Gofman completed medical school (1946) at UCSF. In 1947, following his internship in Internal Medicine, Gofman joined the faculty at U.C. Berkeley (Division of Medical Physics), where he began his research on lipoproteins and Coronary Heart Disease at the Donner Laboratory.

In 1954, Gofman received the Modern Medicine Award for outstanding contributions to heart disease research. In 1965, he received the Lyman Duff Lectureship Award of the American Heart Association, for his research in atherosclerosis and Coronary Heart Disease. In 1972, he shared the Stouffer Prize for outstanding contributions to research in arteriosclerosis. In 1974, the American College of Cardiology selected him as one of twenty-five leading researchers in cardiology of the past quarter-century.

Meanwhile, in the early 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) asked Gofman to establish a Biomedical Research Division at the AEC's Livermore National Laboratory, for the purpose of evaluating the health effects of all types of nuclear activities.

From 1963-1965, Gofman served as the division's first director and concurrently as an Associate Director of the full laboratory. Then he stepped down from the administrative activities in order to have more time for his own laboratory research on Cancer and chromosomes (the Boveri Hypothesis), on radiation-induced chromosomal mutations and genomic instability, and for his analytical work on the epidemiologic data from the Japanese atomic-bomb survivors and other irradiated human populations.

By 1969, Gofman and a Livermore colleague, Dr. Arthur R. Tamplin, had concluded that human exposure to ionizing radiation was much more serious than previously recognized.

Because of this finding, Gofman and Tamplin spoke out publicly against two AEC programs which they had previously accepted. One was Project Plowshare, a program to explode hundreds or thousands of underground nuclear bombs in the Rocky Mountains in order to liberate (radioactive) natural gas, and to use nuclear explosives also to excavate harbors and canals. The second was the plan to license about 1,000 commercial nuclear power plants (USA) as quickly as possible. In 1970, Gofman and Tamplin proposed a 5-year moratorium on that activity.

The AEC was not pleased. Seaborg recounts some of the heated conversations among the Commissioners in his book The Atomic Energy Commission under Nixon: Adjusting to Troubled Times (1993). By 1973, Livermore de-funded Gofman's laboratory research on chromosomes and Cancer. He returned to teaching full-time at U.C. Berkeley, until choosing an early and active "retirement" in order to concentrate fully on pro-bono research into human health-effects from radiation.

His 1981, 1985, 1990, 1994, and 1995/96 books present a series of findings. His 1990 book includes his proof, "by any reasonable standard of biomedical proof," that there is no threshold level (no harmless dose) of ionizing radiation with respect to radiation mutagenesis and carcinogenesis -- - a conclusion supported in 1995 by a government-funded radiation committee. His 1995/96 book provides evidence that medical radiation is a necessary cofactor in about 75% of the recent and current Breast Cancer incidence (USA) -- - a conclusion doubted but not at all refuted by several peer-reviewers.

Return to June Newsletter

Newsletter Sign-up

We will NEVER sell or distribute your e-mail address, see privacy policy below.