BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (1981) 54, 719-730
© 1981 British Institute of Radiology
doi:

Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wall, B. F.
Right arrow Articles by Kendall, G. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wall, B. F.
Right arrow Articles by Kendall, G. M.

The British Journal of Radiology, Vol 54, Issue 645 719-730, Copyright © 1981 by British Institute of Radiology


ARTICLES

A reappraisal of the genetic consequences of diagnostic radiology in Great Britain

BF Wall, S Rae, SC Darby and GM Kendall

The National Radiological Protection Board has recently carried out a reappraisal of the annual genetically significant dose (GSD) to the population of Great Britain arising from the practice of diagnostic radiology. The current value of 120 muGy (12 mrad) is indistinguishable from the value determined 20 years ago despite a 48% increase in the number of X-ray examinations performed per head of the population. This is mostly due to a large decrease in the contribution from obstetric radiology and to a marked reduction in the gonadal doses delivered to children for nearly all types of examination. The GSD and the frequency of X-ray examinations in Great Britain would appear to be considerably lower than those found in other industrialized countries and seem unlikely to result in more than 100 cases of serious hereditary ill-health per year at genetic equilibrium. On the other hand, diagnostic radiology is responsible for 87% of the GSD from all man-made sources of population exposure in Great Britain and there is evidence from the data collected for this reappraisal that radiological protection measures could be improved so as to reduce significantly this large contribution without detriment to patient care.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
BMJHome page
D. Kendrick, K. Fielding, E. Bentley, R. Kerslake, P. Miller, and M. Pringle
Radiography of the lumbar spine in primary care patients with low back pain: randomised controlled trial
BMJ, February 17, 2001; 322(7283): 400 - 405.
[Abstract] [Full Text]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 1981 by the British Institute of Radiology.