5 Seine:
WO apie MpUiTet an TEE oe
Ag alias, se ke
Dt
e
Mian
Si e
Abtindaiatraacitai
wee
.
.
ae
Se lie,
a ae
—
lle mashes attentionMt wale ae loboCade wa
aR er
emt
ee
GONADAL DOSE I] ROENTGEN EXAMINATIONS
A Literature Search
by
Hanson “latz and Wayne M. Lowder
Yadiation Branch
Health and Safety Laboratory
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission
The recent report to the public on the Biological Effects of Atomic
Radiation prepared under the sponsorship of the National Academy of
Sciences contains certain recommendations which if generally accepted
and followed will have a profound effect on the practice of medical and
dental radiology, The report was prepared from data compiled by several
subcommittees made up of many of the mst distinguished scientists in
the field of atomic radiation and related radio=biological fields, such
as genetics, hematology, pathology, meteorology, oceanography, agriculture,
and waste disposal.
Public reaction has already been strongly felt, and it appears that the
medical profession will be obliged to consider the exposure of patients
to radiation resulting from radiological examinations.
The first recommendation of the NAS report is as follows:
"Records should
be kept for every individual showing his total accumulated lifetime
exposure to radiation."
No suggestion is made as to whom this responsi-
bility is to be assigned. The three possibilities are (1) the radiologist
or dentist, (2) a central azency to which reports should be sent, or (3)
the patient himself. There are serious objections to each. Since any
individual may be exposed to radiation by manyphysicians and dentists
over a long period of time during his lifetime, the assembly of all the
data when needed would be difficult.
In addition, it would subject the
professional men involved to the necessity of furnishing a cumlative
record of exposures whenever a patient mayrequest it.
The central agency solution would require a very large organization with
all the inherent administrative problems that go with such a system. The
third alternative appears, at present, to be least objectionable.
When the NAS report was first issued, the professional reaction was mixed.
A distinguished spokesman of the dmtal profession (1) stated that the
report "was unfortunate and misleading and had caused needless apprehension in hundreds of dental patients."
A spokesman for the New York State
(1) Dr. Herbert L- Taub, President of the Dental Society of the State of
New York, aS reportec in the New York Times, June 1h, 1956.