Title of Journal

Article:  “Those X-rays, that bone scan…Could all that radiation be harmful to your health?”

Title of Journal:  It’s actually a magazine called “Health”

Volume: June issue   Date ___06___/__01___/___08___ Page Number(s): 84-90

·          What organization is responsible for publishing the journal you chose?

A magazine called “Health” that can be found online, although I found it through the ETSU library website.

·          What is your overall evaluation of this article?

_____Poor          ______Fair            ____X __Good        _______Very Good       _____Excellent

·          Why did you choose to review this particular article?

I chose this article because of its relevance to my career path.  I often wonder about all of the cancer patients who receive many diagnostic radiology exams throughout the course of their treatment and the amount of radiation they are getting.  It was also helpful to find out how much radiation you receive from everyday things.

·          How would you rate this article as a tool for teaching a student about cardiopulmonary physiology, radiography, or another allied health specialty? 

Students:               ____Poor       ____Fair       _____Good     _ X__Very Good      _____Excellent

Teachers:               ____Poor       ____Fair       _ X__Good     _____Very Good      _____Excellent

Patients:                ____Poor       ____Fair       _____Good     _ X__Very Good      _____Excellent

·          Comment on the readability of this article.  I thought this article provided very good information about the amount of radiation people receive from various diagnostic exams.  This article was written in terms the average person could easily understand, even without the education I have from the radiography program.  It explained things risks in ways that let the reader know how imperative it is to be cautious of exams that may not be medically necessary.  

·          Course Topics covered:  Why radiation is scary, knowing your radiation “footprint”, learning the limits of radiation you should not exceed in a year, weighing the risks against the benefits when a diagnostic radiological exam is ordered, avoiding unnecessary exams.

·          Brief Summary: Why Radiation is scary:  The odds of getting cancer from radiation is small, but you need to know the risks of having exams that may not be necessary.  Radiation can damage the most vital macro molecule in the human body; DNA. Damage to DNA can cause cancer in the future.  Getting radiated early in life may also put you more at risk to radiation related damage.  The article encourages readers to “know your radiation footprint.”  This means that you need to be aware of how much radiation is recommended per year.  The non radiation worker usually receives 3 milisievert a year from background sources.  The author also encourages the reader to “learn the limits.”  The article provides a chart that tells how much radiation you receive from various diagnostic exams.  Remember that scientists still say that no amount of radiation is safe, but if you do need medical exams the acceptable limit a year is 20 mSv a year.  Patients should weigh the risks of different exams, evaluating their medical necessity.  For example, mammograms after age 40 may indeed help save lives and are highly recommended.  Mammograms before age 40 carry greater risks and should be avoided unless your risk factor is high.  One way of reducing your exposure is that if your teeth are generally healthy, you should ask your dentist about annual or biannual bitewing X-rays instead of every six months.  Unnecessary CT scans should also be avoided.  The article estimates that nearly 20 million Americans are radiated unnecessarily every year.  It has been suggested that up to 2% of future cancers may be caused by CT scans.  CT scans are no doubt very useful, but it is believed that doctors may order scans to protect themselves from possible malpractice law suits on the off chance they miss an important problem.  Always ask if the CT is absolutely necessary.  Also, try flying  less.  There is less atmosphere at 7 miles above sea level to absorb radiation from the sun.

·           

·          Identify and attempt to explain three (3) terms, procedures or concepts that were unfamiliar to you when reviewing this article. I was not aware that you receive such a significant amount of radiation from flying in airplanes.  The atmosphere is thinner the higher you fly, so you absorb more radiation because it is not absorbed by the atmosphere.  A CT scan of the entire body is a dose of 10-12 milisievert, which is almost 4 times what you should receive in a year.  It used to be a trend to subject yourself to a full body CT scan to detect undiscovered medical issues.  This is NOT recommended.  The amount of radiation you get from living in places such as the Colorado Rockies or Salt Lake City, both of which are at high altitudes, is 6 mSv a year.  This is twice what the average person receives a year from background sources such as radon gas and sunlight.

·          Detail the strengths/weaknesses of this article. This article was good for the average diagnostic exam consumer because it is honest about the amount of radiation you are receiving from different exams.  It encourages people to question doctors about the medical necessity of exams which is great.  I work in CT scan at the Johnson City Medical Center and I see people every day who are getting scanned when it is pretty obvious that it might not be all that necessary.  A plain X-ray would have probably been fine, but I also understand that the doctor is trying to prevent malpractice lawsuits.  This article could have provided the reader with other sources to check out that weren’t such technical sources such as the American College of Radiology and the New England  Journal of medicine.  I also think this article may put a bad name to radiology and make people almost too wary of exams they might actually need.   

·          How might this article be useful to you in your further studies and career?  This article is very relevant to my career, especially because I am interested in becoming a registered CT technologist.  This article could help me put into layman’s terms some of the effects of having radiologic exams so I will be better able to explain to patients the risks of their test.  It could also help me make people more aware of when they should and should not receive radiation. 

·          Does the article include a list of references/citations that can be used to find more information on the topics they cover?  Yes, but not many. 

Your Name: Kathryn Parham Date: ___02___/__20____/__09___