by Leif Kullman
Showy headlines
This month I will briefly discuss some
radiation matters.
Particularly how these matters are often described in our daily
newspaper.
Today we know that the radiation doses to which we expose our
patients in Maxillofacial Radiology are very minimal. There have
been estimates suggesting at a very small percentage of the total
dose which diagnostic medical radiography imparts to medical
patients. When considering total population figures, diagnostic
medical radiology in its turn imparts only a small amount of the
total absorbed dose in comparison with the exposure from all
possible radiation sources (i.e. background radiation) during any
particular year. More precisely, Medical and Dental sources
contribute about one fifth of total absorbed dose of all that man
(within Industrial Countries) is subjected to. In comparison, dental
sources as compared with domestic environment radiation is of a
factor of one third.
Nevertheless, dental radiographic examinations seem to attract a
lot of publicity and a popular subject for journalists, who are short
of a story, to write about in newspapers. Thus, we dentists often
find ourselves positioned in the headlines and often in a very
poor light. After each rather uninformed publicity, patients
become more inquisitive than usual.
Only some few weeks ago I received a newspaper from a
colleague with a headline like this:.... "Your dentists' radiography
can give you gene damage". This was in an University Union
paper for university trained engineers. If talking in absolutes, this
statement is not easily refuted - or rebutted. It is more realistic
though to consider imaging risks against those risks associated
with everyday life, flying, trains and other land and sea transport.
Flying, for instance will especially give the international traveller a
higher exposure to cosmic radiation and thus increase the total
background radiation. But that is whole body, and not restricted
to the small maxillofacial region.
I am not sure why this unnecessary apprehension to intraoral or
dental radiography has occurred and seems to be maintained,
and has initiated periods of virtual hysteria! Perhaps it has to do
with the obsession that humans have with their mouths.
Sometimes the eyes are called the soul of the body and the
mouth the mirror of the body. Is it that the mythological attitudes
about body parts from the early dawning of man still pervades the
psyche of humans today? It is interesting that mammography for
example does not attract this same reaction.
Next month I will continue to discuss some radiation physics
matters.
