Worries about radiation exposure during ablations.

Some years ago there were contentious discussions on this site regarding whether the ionizing radiation absorbed during ablation (x-ray imaging) was damaging to future health. The discussions expanded to include the potential damaging effects on future health of non-ionizing radiation (power line, radio, cell phone, and computer monitor radiation).

I haven't been a regular visitor here for years and apolgize if the fallacy of the linear model of radiation risk assessment has been further exposed on this site.

But, if the linear model of radiation risk assessment has not been discredited here, the following article should make a-fibbers/flutterers more skepical about the danger associated with exposure to low level radiation, and should specifically relieve anxiety about the ionizing radiation absorbed during an ablation.

The article doesn't prove whether the specific short term exposure to ionizing radiation during an ablation is dangerous.

However, the fact that the ionizing radiation level during an ablation is governmentally approved based on an incorrect theory, which grossly overestimates the risk created by low level short term exposure to ionizing radiation, the information contained in the article should relieve anxiety about the danger of ionizing radiation absorbed during an ablation.

The likelihood is that the radiation absorbed during an ablation will actually be beneficial to future health.

[www.americanthinker.com]

Wil

Good to see you back here. I have missed your posts which kept us all focused on facts, logic, reason and evidence.

Gill

The author stated "If cancer is proportional to mass times lifetime, as the LNT theory suggests, then elephants should have about 4 million times as much cancer as mice. "

Does the LNT theory really suggest this? I don't think so.

The author makes bold assumptions to support his position. Not all high energy particles penetrate deeply enough to saturate all tissues - the smaller the animal, the greater the relative penetration, no? There is a reason the sun's emmissions (for example) can cause skin cancer but not likely cause pancreatic cancer.

I have read that precancerous cells can be brought about by single-strand DNA breaks - higher energy particles such as X-rays can break those strands in deeper tissues very easily.

Do what you want, mmmm, gotta love those X-rays and CO2.

Tom B:

I've read your message several times, trying to determine what your point is. The best I can come up with is that you are mocking both the author of the article and his message. If I am misinterpreting your intent, I apologize.

The author's article presents summaries of the results of four large well-constructed studies which show that low, but larger than normal levels of ionizing radiation, actually are beneficial to humans. He also noted that, "The evidence for hormesis is vast, going far beyond the few examples given in this article."

By contrast, the LNT (Linear with No Threshold) theory is simply an assumption (that tissue damage, and the resulting negative health effects, are proportional to absorbed radiation). There are no large well-constructed studies which support the validity of the LNT assumption.

The author of the article is simply pointing out that all governmental programs, which are based on the validity of the LNT theory, are based on a theory which is inconsistent with the results of all the large well-constructed published studies.

This situation contributes to both: (1) unnecessary fear of low level radiation; and (2) the promotion of policies and programs which can be detrimental to human health, and to the economy .

No, you weren't misinterpreting my intent. The article is produced within a polarized political online magazine with anti-government and anti-establishment-science as a common theme. In that article, the author also refutes (rightly or wrongly) the current majority thinking of the effect of CO2 atmospheric gas on global warming -

Your title "Re: Worries about radiation exposure during ablations." might imply to some that the ablation process is a low-level radiation generating procedure, when, in fact, if a heart CT scan is used, the radiation is significant. A single heart CT scan generates 16 mSV of radiation. For comparison, a full year of normal radiation exposure for the average person is about 2 mSv.

So the cited handful of studies are a better source of decision-making than all the internationally gathered data on radiation effects, both short and long term, that are the basis for today's conservative practices within the medical industry?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2012 07:56PM by Tom B.

Will

So good to see you here again. You always had such good information to share. I am going for my fourth ablation July 18 so I am glad to see your research results. Thank you. Will post more later after my procedure.

christy

Will: Welcome back. I've missed you sharing your research, your thinking rocesses and your detailed presentations. I hope you'll become a regular contributor again.

Gordon

I used to work at Sellafield Nueclear power station and reprocessing plant in Cumbria Northern England and I was led to believe that one flight from England to the USA would give me more exposure to radiation that one years exposure to radiation at Sellafield working in the area that I was. The more theroctical radiation you may receive on the job the less time you spent in that enviroment, i.e less than the flight to the USA.

I consider my exposure to radiation from having 5 ablations a total none event.

I am discustingly fit for some one my age (62) after at least 17 hours under the ablation proceedure primarily at Bordeaux France.

AFIBBERS don't care about radiation.

P.S. We need the bad cop on the block again, tell it like it is ;-)

Barry G.

I've had 3 ablations in in just under a year and a half. I consider that to have been a necessary exposure. When I go for teeth cleaning they always want to take xrays to monitor any bone loss. This I consider unnecessary and don't do. Why expose ones self unnecessarily to radiation. Having said that I work for the electric utility company and often do ongoing work in Highly charged electrical fields That can reach strengths of 60 to 70 microteslas. Of course some substations are worse than others. In one of the worst if you take a voltmeter and touch one lead to a structure pole and hold the other in your hand about 4 to 5 feet away the voltmeter reads 280 volts. Although I am an afibber none of the other 40 or so people who work in my area are. Draw your own conclusions.

Barry, maybe that should be Good Cop "Just the facts"

Adrian

Tom B:

I believe experiments which deliberately increase a person's exposure to ionizing radiation are considered unethical because of the possibility of the experiment actually doing harm to the study group. Only accidentally created situations: (1) which involve large numbers of people; (2) which involve known increased levels of ionizing radiation; and (3) for which a suitable control group exists, can possibly qualify as the basis for a study on the effects of additional low level radiation on humans, and only if many other statistical conditions are also met.

All of the studies referenced in the article were of this type.

Your statement, "the internationally gathered data on radiation effects, both short and long term, that are the basis for today's conservative practices within the medical industry", puzzles me. Are you saying there have been international studies: (1) which systematically have studied short term and long term effects of additional low level ionizing radiation on humans; and (2) are the basis for the government's continued use of the LNT theory?

If so, I'm sure we would all like to know more about these studies. This is a subject of great concern to many a-fibbers/flutterers here. We obviously all need to know as much as possible about the effects of exposure to low level ionizing radiation, such as we experience during an ablation. I think we would all appreciate you sharing your knowledge about the "internationally gathered data on radiation effects", you mentioned, with all of us.

I am confident that the LNT hypothesis is based on long-term cumulative data available to government agencies (don't worry, I am not a blind follower of any group, governmental or otherwise) - since studies on the effects of radiation have been conducted repeatedly for many decades on other forms of life, which combined with information from wars, accidental and medical radation circumstances, gives a pretty good basis for caution. I remember reading a study done by Russia on radar (microwave) operator cancer levels well over forty years ago. Both human case histories and fruit fly experiments were used - what was then considered low-level radiation (the operators studied were unshielded) was later found to be very dangerous. The effects of radiation is a concern for virtually all governments of developed nations, and those with the resources to do so, certainly continue to develop information regarding that subject. The LNT hypothesis is used by the NRC and , by their own admission, is a conservative approach - which is no doubt due to our continued learning regarding high energy emmissions. No one is saying don't get an ablation because you might get too much radiation... but a cautious-minded individual would not normally expose themselves to unnecessary risk. Here is a link to their statement on radiation dangers.[www.nrc.gov]

Your conclusion... "This situation contributes to both: (1) unnecessary fear of low level radiation; and (2) the promotion of policies and programs which can be detrimental to human health, and to the economy .' seems a bit over-dramatic given the alternatives.

So the fear-ridden person doesn't get dental x-rays every year? How does being conservative regarding radiation exposure hurt the economy - other than improving sun-screen sales...LOL...

The problem I have with articles quoted from politically-based sources such as yours, is that the political agenda (usually) brings about the common tactic of tailoring article sources to produce an imbalanced but plausible perspective. I sense that has occurred here, hence the dual statements in that article regarding both radiation and global warming; the latter being a contentious topic among many so-called "conservative" types (what that term means anymore is a wonder to me, LOL). And now more than ever, it is very easy to find a study or a group of studies that can support any position...experts often prostitute themselves for money or societal influence. The global warming issue has recently shown us that both sides of that argument are capable of lying and hiring experts who readily distort information. Many affibers have been around long enough to see how easily groups and individuals can distort issues for gain - ever seen a "paid expert" at a civil trial?

Context...a powerful tool to judge information.

Hi Adrian.

My dad worked in exactly the same field - must be a pun there - of work as you and he lived to age 84 without any Afib whatsover even though he was retired at 62 due to massive heart attack (too many cigarettes????), so so much for fields of electrical currents flying around starting AF.

BTW if the Bad Cop gets the slightest impression that he is thought of as a Good Cop he will be out of here soonest and we don't want that given the wealth of knowledge and practical observations to be gained from the Bad Cops posts ;-)

Barry G.

Tom B.

I said, "I've read your message several times, trying to determine what your point is. The best I can come up with is that you are mocking both the author of the article and his message."
You said, "No, you weren't misinterpreting my intent."

Why would you chose to distract attention away from the studies referenced in the article by mocking the article and the author? Such behavior constitutes a classic ad hominem fallacy.

Adding to the distraction away from the studies referenced in the article you stated, "The article is produced within a polarized political online magazine with anti-government and anti-establishment-science as a common theme."

Smearing the web site the article appeared on, is another form of ad hominem fallacy.

Largely because of your posts there has been no discussion of the content of the article. The a-fibbers/flutterers who come to this web site need candid discussions of all the available data. They deserved better than they've received in this thread.

That said, everyone interested in the subject of low level ionizing radiation was able to access the original article and draw their own conclusions as to the value and applicability of the studies reported there.

Wil

It is so good to have you back! Please, do stay around.

Gill

Wil Schuemann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom B.
>
> >
> Why would you chose to distract attention away
> from the studies referenced in the article by
> mocking the article and the author? Such behavior
> constitutes a classic ad hominem fallacy.
>
>
>
> Smearing the web site the article appeared on, is
> another form of ad hominem fallacy.
>
> Largely because of your posts there has been no
> discussion of the content of the article. > the studies reported there.


I didn't smear the web site, I said it was politically-biased.which I believe is a factual statement.

Why bother to give credence to an article from a biased source - that's my point. Other affibbers can do what they want.. I choose to rely on my past experience with such "information" sources.and find better information elsewhere.

Tom B.

If I were to follow your logic, I would cease to believe anybody.

Liz

LIz,
That's probably about where I am right now - sadly, the experiences of my life lead me to believe that humanity is essentially duplicitous by nature. Let the buyer beware, as they say, especially when it comes to tribal behavior - politics and religion are the bastions of that behavior.
Tom

Tom B. has posted 5 messages in this thread clearly stating his objections to even examining the content of the article referenced, plus stimulating 4 messages responding to his messages. Now that Tom B. has clearly and forcefully expressed his objections to examing the studies examined in the referenced article, I hope he will voluntarily refrain from posting further messages in this thread, so the other thousands of users, who access this web site more or less frequently, will be able to use this thread to examine the low level ionizing radiation exposure studies contained in the referenced article.

The article referenced five studies of non-intentional experiments where large numbers of humans were exposed for extended periods of time to ionizing radiation levels higher than normal background radiation (3mSv per year). The average long term increased ionizing radiation levels experienced by the test populations varied between approximately two times normal background radiation up to over 50 times normal background ionizing radiation.

In approximate order of increased above average ionizing radiation exposure, the studies referenced are:
(1) US housing radon radiation study involving over 90% of the US population.
(2) 30,000 ship yard workers exposed long term during construction of nuclear powered ships (3 to 5 times normal background radiation).
(3) British radiologists compared to British physicians not exposed to radiation (100 years of data).
(4) 10,000 people exposed long term to radioactive steel bars used to reinforce concrete in 180 buildings located in Taiwan (over 100 times normal ionizing radiation background for a fraction of the study population - average radiation level for the total test population was 17 times the average background).

In this latter study, Taiwan government data predicted that among a test population of that size a total of 232 deaths were to be expected (without consideration for their elevated ionizing radiation exposure), while for the test group only 7 deaths actually occurred. Taiwan government data predicted that among the test population 46 birth defects would have occurred (without consideration for their elevated ionizing radiation exposure), while only 3 were found.

The birth defect reduction is particularly meaningful, as the LNT theory postulates that ionizing radiation should damage cells. The increased level of ionizing radiation was associated with a reduction of the experienced rate of birth abnormalities by 15 times.

(5) Localized areas of Iran and India have background ionizing radiation levels which are over 50 times higher than what we regard as the normal background ionizing radiation level. No ill effects are observed to the elevated long term exposure to ionizing radiation.

This latter study provides the data most similar to the short term radiation exposure we experience during an ablation cycle (total ionizing radiation exposure both from radiologic ionizing radiation exposure before an ablation, combined with ionizing radiation exposure during the ablation).

In studies (1) through (4) significant health benefits were associated with increased levels of ionizing radiation. This data clearly contradicts the premise upon which the LNT theory is based.

A 2009 study ( [www.aafp.org] ) gave a total ablation cycle ionizing radiation exposure of 16.6 mSv per ablation cycle. This is equivalent to living in one of the localized areas of Iran and India mentioned in study (5) for about one month.

Certainly, the total radiation exposure for an ablation does not occur over the same time span as a month. However, the difference between the total short term ionizing radiation exposure experienced during one ablation, and a month of ionizing radiation exposure, for people living at the higher level of ionizing radiation noted in study (5) for a lifetime, should reassure us that the radiation exposure experienced during an ablation is probably not going to cause us a short term or long term problem.

Minimizing xray exposure is always a good idea particularly for young patients. Tje benefit probably outweighs risk for us oldtimers. Make sure they have the latest xray machines and 3D mapping systems. My dad died of cancer resulting from angioplasty 30 years ago back when they were still on the learning curve. The CABG was a great success though and gave him 10 good years then the cancer killed him. Xray systems now are pulsed so exposure is much reduced. certain 3D mapping, ICE and robotics systems reduced the need of Xray further.

Researcher:

I certainly instinctively agree with your assessment, but we need to recognize that the studies described in the article do not support the idea that a somewhat increased level of ionizing radiation is detrimental to health. It seems the reality is that a somewhat increased level of ionizing radiation exposure stimulates the body to repair more problems than the radiation causes.

Barry said, Afibbers are not worried about radiation…

I am concerned to some degree... Worried? No. Aware? Most definitely.. Having worked with ionizing radiation for 25 years, I have definitely been made aware of the cumulative risks and try to avoid exposure when possible. Therefore, I don’t think casually about any radiation exposure. Having also been exposed annually to ionizing radiation by mammography for 40 years, I definitely have concerns about adding to my cumulative lifetime exposure/burden considering the diagnostic CT scans and the requisite chest Xrays that used to be standard procedure for hospitalizations have added to my cumulative burden.

While the exposure from fluoroscopy ionizing radiation during ablation may be relatively minor… ie, my ablation procedure reports indicates 39 minutes of fluoroscopy time, it still counts in one’s life-time cumulative total of milliseverts (mSv).of exposure.

If another ablation was needed, the added radiation exposure would certainly be a concern and a consideration, but not the only factor and I would most likely not avoid a second ablation based solely on ionizing radiation exposure.

However, I don’t buy into the statement that ionizing radiation may actually be good for the body. DNA damage is never good.


Here’s a reference chart where you can calculate your radiation accumulation burden
[www.new.ans.org]

Jackie