How risky is radiation?

Most of us don't have any way to judge the hazard to us from a variety of things that may adversely affect us as we go about our daily life. Many things are widely accepted as hazardous but few of us have the expertise to judge just how dangerous they may be. It is especially difficult when the things that we are concerned with are measured in unfamiliar units with the person telling us about them jumping wildly among milli, micro, Curies, Becquerels, rad, rem, Sievert, Gray or other arcane (to the listener) descriptions of the thing being discussed. This is compounded by the problem that many people have thinking about what big numbers really mean. Comparison of risks to other risks is often doomed to failure. Very few people can relate the hazard of a cigarette to the risk per mile of a car trip let alone the risk of exposure to quantities of something unfamiliar expressed in completely alien units.  

There is however one hazard for which we all have a good intuitive sense. That is the hazard of high places. That is, any location that is at an elevation that is greater than an adjacent location.

Everyone recognizes that if a person were to step off the top of an eight story building there would be a severe health effect ... very soon. There are radiation doses that are large enough to produce as severe an effect except that "very soon" is days to months rather than seconds. If someone stepped off something 1/1000th as high as that building the effect would be much less. (At this point I'll ask you just how high that would be and you can take a moment to think about it.) If you were here with me I would provide the answer by gesturing about 1 inch (a couple of centimeters). We all accept the risk of changes in elevation of an inch or more many times a day and in very nearly every case there is no adverse effect. When someone does stumble because of a small difference in the height of the surface that they are walking on, they probably are not hurt or may very infrequently scrape an elbow, break an arm or suffer some other unpleasant but repairable injury. The same is true with radiation. Exposures to moderate doses usually produce no injury to the person and if there is an injury in the vast majority of cases the injury is repairable. (The damage from radiation, if it occurred, would be at the cellular level and wouldn't be noticed by the person and the repair or replacement of the damaged cell would also be undetectable.)  

In very exceptionally rare cases one of these lower "high places" could result in a severe injury which could be non repairable. The individual could stumble on a minor irregularity in the pavement and strike their head, leading to a concussion, or a hemorrhagic stroke, possibly leading to death. This all would probably take place over hours to days. In the case of radiation there may be cellular changes which develop into benign or cancerous tumors which may be treatable or may lead to death. With radiation this takes place over 10 to 50 or more years. In either case we don't expect the most severe outcomes except in very rare circumstances and even then we expect that medical intervention will provide a favorable outcome in many cases. 

Now consider drops 1/1000 as high, that is 1/1,000,000 of that 8 story building. How high is that? (Again I'll let you try to figure it out.) An image may help, it's a fraction of the thickness of a sheet of paper. It is incredibly unlikely that such a drop would cause anyone to have an accident but even if we believed that a tumble was because of a drop from that height there would be no way that we would be able to prove that or demonstrate just which of the extraordinary large numbers of irregularities that high or higher that are in every surface we traverse is the cause of our fall.  

Now how does all this talk of falls from high and not so high places relate to radiation doses. The 8 story building is equivalent to about 1000 rads (10 Grays). Tumors are often given doses larger than this during radiation treatments. (By restricting the highest dose to the tumor, it can be killed while the rest of the person receives a lower dose).  A radiation worker's annual radiation dose limit corresponds to a few inches. One year's natural background most places on earth is comparable to a fraction of an inch though some locations are as high as half a foot. A chest X-ray is similar to stepping off something as high as a pile of a few sheets of paper. A single coast to coast flight will be one sheet or so. A full abdominal series of X-rays on a overweight person could be like a drop of half a foot or more. Some radiation therapy treatments can expose the whole body to doses equivalent to a fall of more than one story. These points of comparison let a person think about the risks involved in a reasonable way. It also gives a jumping off point (pun intended) for a discussion of many other aspects of radiation risk. Check back to this paragraph (it is the meat of the analogy) as you read on to see how these values fit with the ideas below.  

The following paragraphs give some directions that our discussion may go from here. I have never used them all when talking with one person and it would have done more harm than good if I had tried to. Based on the questions that you have you can jump to any of the points below. There is little dependence of any one on any of the others.

-------------------------

Measuring radiation exposure

Variation in effect for the same exposure

Differences between individuals

Differences within an individual

Partial body exposure

Multiplication of effect

Exceptional circumstances

Benefit and risk

Legal limits

It's natural

Shielding

Stochastic?? Deterministic??

Linearity of effect

Thresholds

Could it be good for you?

Real radiation units

Some final thoughts
----------------------------------------------------

Measuring radiation exposure
Our ability to measure either the height or the radiation dose is not a problem. Both radiation and height are physical quantities and can be measured very accurately. Depending on the situation either can be measured to several significant figures. Measuring height uses simpler tools but both can be accurately determined. Uneven surfaces that a person fell from or onto could make it more difficult to precisely determine the height of a fall just as dosage that is varies from one location to another would make that measurement harder.
Back to list of topics
 

Variation in effect for the same exposure
The accuracy with which we can determine the size of either the fall or a radiation dose is far better than our ability to predict the health effect in any particular case. Individuals could be exposed to falls from exactly the same height and have radically different outcomes. The same is true of radiation. The small chance of injury normally doesn't keep us from moving around on surfaces where we are exposed to changes in elevation that range from minuscule to a foot or so. It would seem that radiation could be viewed in the same way if it were as familiar and we could see it as easily.
Back to list of topics

Differences between individuals
There is considerable variation in the effect of a fall that depends on who is falling. An elderly woman who suffers from osteoporosis is much more likely to be injured by a fall than a healthy child or young adult. The response to radiation also varies among individuals. However, for radiation, age has the opposite effect. Because nearly all mechanisms of radiation damage require cell division to make themselves apparent, they may not appear for many years making them much more likely to be seen in the younger individual.
Back to list of topics

Differences within an individual
Even within the individual there is a wide variation in the effect of a radiation dose. The most radiosensitive tissues are those with rapidly dividing cells (blood forming and intestinal lining) and the most resistant are those that divide rarely or not at all (brain and bone). Since there isn't any way for a part of the body to fall without the rest of the body I have a problem with this part of the analogy but I will make an attempt. (If you can suggest a better way of explaining this point please let me know.)  Consider that rather than dropping a part of the body on a fixed surface we drop something the same size and weight as that part of the body on a person. It is clear that if a hand-like object struck your hand after a fall of several stories it would hurt but it would be far less significant than your head being struck by a head-like object dropped from a similar height. In a similar way there are parts of the body in which radiation is more likely to cause injury.
Back to list of topics

Partial Body Exposure
Different parts of the body can be exposed to different amounts of radiation.  In fact in both accidental and intentional exposures it is impossible to avoid because of the variation of dose due to distance from the source, reduction in dose to one part of the body because of absorption in another part and in the case of internal sources, such as radioactive iodine, selective uptake by different cells in the body.  In most cases this variation can be taken into account in determining the effect of the exposure.  During cancer therapy the doctors try to deliver a does to the tumor that will kill all of its cells while limiting the damage to cells in the rest of the body.  With current medical procedures it is impossible to completely spare healthy tissue during therapy.  External radiation beams of X or gamma rays will often produce reddening of the skin where they enter and leave the body.  Radiation scattered from the primary beam will expose radiosensitive tissues.  Internal sources will also deliver dose to nearby cells that are not cancerous.  As a result the dose to the tumor can be less than optimal in order to avoid life threatening doses from exposure to other parts of the body.
Back to list of topics

Multiplication of effect
A fall because we unexpectedly stepped off a curb can multiply the effect of that small change in elevation by increasing the impact of the event resulting in more damage than simply stepping down. In the case of the fall any injury is highly dependent on just which part of the body absorbs the energy. Landing on your hands, shoulder or backside is likely to result in much less significant damage than taking the whole force of the impact on your head. You can see a similar effect in radiation. If the radiation hits particular points in the cell there will be a higher probability of harm than if other places are hit. Points that can cause this sort of increased damage are rare just as are falls from curbs that cause serious injury.
Back to list of topics

Exceptional circumstances
In the case of both radiation and falls there have been cases where people have survived when most people would not have. Children have fallen from fifth floor windows with their fall broken only by shrubs and survived with little medical intervention. In Fort Lauderdale May 11, 2005 a 69-year-old woman survived a nine-story fall with only shoulder injuries when she landed on a first floor canopyLike these exceptional cases, people have been exposed to doses that would be expected to kill most of us but yet recovered.  In those cases they usually have had the advantage of accidental shielding that protected some of their blood forming organs providing a supply of undamaged cells to help them through the critical period following exposure. Bone marrow transplants can provide another source of undamaged cells which could improve their chances. Having an identical twin helps a lot if you are exposed to doses that would be expected to be lethal.  In either the case of a fall from a very high places or exposure to a very high dose it takes a very fortunate set of circumstances for a favorable outcome.
Back to list of topics

Benefit and risk
For an activity or situation to be reasonable it is important that its benefits should outweigh its risks. It is apparent that not everyone agrees on where the balance point might be when we consider activities like rock climbing and skydiving. However I think that few would argue that the benefits of a curb separating the road from a sidewalk, providing a clear demarcation between vehicular and pedestrian areas as well as helping to control rain water flow, is greater than its risk due to its elevation. Similar risk benefit considerations should enter into the evaluation of activities that involve radiation. An x-ray for diagnosis of a possible broken bone is very likely to be justified while the same dose to see how your shoes fit, as was done in the 1950's, is probably not.
Another way activities can be evaluated is risk vs. risk. If two activities both accomplish a particular goal is one safer or otherwise better than another.
Back to list of topics

Legal limits
In the United States and throughout much of the rest of the world there are limits to the heights and the amount of radiation to which a member of the public can be exposed and there are less stringent limits for radiation workers. One obvious difference in terms of height is that store employee can be required to climb a ladder as part of their job while a member of the public in that same store is restricted to stairs or ramps. Workers can be required to work on a stage, loading dock or the back of a truck where a fall of several feet (a meter or so) is a distinct possibility and those doing residential roofing often work, with little or no protection, a couple of stories above the ground.  Regulations require that in public places people must be protected from the possibility of falls from much lower heights. In the case of radiation there have been water and air quality standards promulgated that ensure that members of the public receive doses that are less than 1/300th of those to which a worker could be legally exposed.  Part of the justification for the difference is the voluntary versus involuntary nature of the exposure. An employer is required to keep worker informed of his or her radiation dose and actions by both the employer and employee can be taken to limit further exposure. The members of the public however are usually not aware of radiation to which they are exposed and therefore have no way to take action to reduce it.
Back to list of topics

It's natural
We are all exposed to radiation from a variety of natural sources just like the changes in the roughness of the surfaces that we cannot avoid in the course of our daily lives. You would expect that different locations (a cobblestone street or a basketball court) would not be equally smooth. Radiation levels also vary with location. You should expect to find lower radiation levels in a boat on the ocean than high up a granite mountain. It is important to realize that we are exposed to a variety of sources of radiation both natural and man made and it is impossible to sort out whether an effect was caused by one or the other (or something else entirely) for any particular case.
Back to list of topics

Shielding
A very minor point that may be obvious, a handrail or wall is analogous to a radiation shield in preventing an individual from being exposed to possibly harmful situations.
Back to list of topics

Stochastic?? Deterministic??
Some people with whom I have discussed this analogy have complained that I have confused the issue by freely mixing stochastic (random response to low doses of radiation) and deterministic (guaranteed effects for high doses). What they fail to recognize is that in the case of a fall from various heights exactly the same is true. This correspondence often helps people see radiation effects more clearly. They recognize that when a person falls from some great height death is virtually certain. However, a fall of 1 story or so, a healthy adult could reasonably expect to be hurt but wouldn't expect to be killed. This would correspond to about 100 rads (1 Gray), of radiation where we would expect to see changes in blood counts and immune response but not the more serious reactions that would likely lead to death. For much smaller drops, say off a curb or a radiation workers maximum allowable annual dose, we are talking about negative effects only very very rarely. When the dose or height is much less than that there are a lot more verys than in that last sentence.
Back to list of topics

Linearity of effect
It may seem reasonable that the further you fall the more likely you are to be injured and for reasonably large values this seems to be the case. For radiation the assumption is often made, in the context of establishing regulations, that a dose 1/10th as great will produce an effect 1/10th as great. This is usually referred to as linearity. But, if we consider only those drops of less than a few millimeters, a quarter inch or so, it is much more difficult to establish the truth of this apparently reasonable assertion. In fact it may be impossible to prove it even for drops of a foot (30 cm.) or more. When we understand this problem for height it is likely that we will have an appreciation with the difficulty of proving, or even expecting, linearity for low radiation doses. As a side effect of this assumption, one would expect to get the same result from many small "impacts" (from elevation or radiation) whether those "impacts" are to one or many individuals, as would be obtained by the same total "impact" given to one person. The assumption of linearity also makes no provision for the possibility that there will be recovery from damage that may have been caused by the first events before later ones occur. Whether or not these views seem reasonable to you with respect to elevations that are less than the height of a curb, they are equivalent to the assumption on which many radiation regulations are based.
Back to list of topics

Thresholds
I am not talking about the thing that you step over when you leave a house. What I would like you to consider is the possibility that there is some height that we all can deal with that has no possibility of harming us. That would constitute a threshold for an effect (if we don't ever go past a change in elevation that exceeds that small value we will never be exposed to injury from changes in elevation). If you accept the possibility that this may hold for some small value of elevation changes you may be open to the possibility of a similar effect for radiation (that is, there is some small dose below which there will be no adverse effect.)
Back to list of topics

Could it be good for you?
The minor bumps, jars and stresses that we are exposed to in the normal course of our lives when we deal with the stairs, curbs, and just walking around do seem to be good for us. Studies of people who have been limited in their exposure to these minor impacts, by enforced bed rest or during space flight, find significant negative changes in them especially in the strength of their bones and muscles. This analogy doesn't prove that the same is true of radiation. But there are scientific reports that seem to demonstrate for some situations (animal or group exposed, amount of dose, duration of exposure) that low doses could be beneficial. After reading many of those reports and considering the proposed mechanisms I consider the jury to still be out.
Back to list of topics  

Real radiation units
This section gets technical and is not part of the high places analogy so feel free to skip it.   It is included for those who want to know more about how radiation is measured.

The physical units, Roentgens, rads and Grays.
There are differences between the Roentgen and rad but the numeric values for each are nearly equal for most materials and common radiation energies. 
The Roentgen is defined as the amount of gamma or X-ray radiation (only) that releases a particular charge in one kilogram of  air (only).  The rad is the quantity of radiation (of any sort) that deposits an energy of 100 ergs per gram of material (of any sort).  In the early days of radiation the Roentgen was something that a physicist could measure so it was the standard.  Later a more universal unit was needed so the rad was defined.  Still later when SI (International System, metric) units were adopted, by nearly everybody but the US, the Gray was defined as a secondary unit equal to 1 Joule per kilogram.  Converting units shows it to be equal to 100 rads.   All of these units were defined independently of any consideration of biology.

The biological units, rems and Sieverts
In studies of many different biological systems (cell cultures, insects, animals, plants ...) there is some consistency in the relative effects of the same dose of radiation but with different linear energy transfer (LET) characteristics.  A definition is in order here.  LET is the rate at which a particle loses energy along its path.  It is defined only for particulate radiations not X-rays or gammas.    An electron or beta particle only ionizes an occasional atom it passes, spreading its energy over a relatively long path.  An alpha particle of the same energy ionizes many more and deposits its energy over a much shorter distance and protons are somewhere in-between.  The LET depends on the energy of the particle as well as what kind.  Because X-rays and gammas deliver their energy by knocking electrons out of atoms and those electrons have a low LET the effective LET for X-rays and gamma radiation is the same as that of electrons.  
Because of these differences the effect on an organism is usually much larger from a high LET radiation dose than that from an equal dose delivered by low LET particles.  The ratio of doses that produce the same effect for different radiations is called the relative biological effectiveness (RBE).  The RBE for a particular pair of radiations is not the same for all biological systems but it tends to be similar.  After a large number of experiments involving a variety of biological systems and radiations were conducted a relationship between LET and RBE was noted.  From that relationship a set of values ,known as Quality Factors (QF), were developed.  They are 1 for X-rays and gammas, 20 for alphas, and intermediate values for other radiations.  Now it is easy to get the dose in rem or Sieverts (the effective dose).  Just multiply the dose in rads by the QF appropriate for the radiation field.   The SI unit for effective dose is the Sievert which like the Gray is 100 times as large as its counterpart in non SI units.  Because most of the penetrating radiation to which we are exposed is low LET, the dose in rems is normally very close to the dose in rads.
One caution, the values of QF are only approximately true and then only for relatively low doses.  For doses above 10 rads or so the dose in rads is a much better predictor of biological effect than the dose in rem.

Radioactive material units, Curies and Becquerels
The quantity of radioactive material is measured in Curies.  It was originally defined as the number of disintegrations taking place in 1 gram of radium but it was later redefined as exactly 3.7E10 (37,000,000,000) disintegrations  per second when it became easier to do the necessary physics than the chemistry.  The corresponding SI unit is the Becquerel.  It is 1 disintegration per second of any radioactive material. 
Each disintegration releases photons and/or particles that carry energy (measured in units of eV or MeV).  How much dose results from the disintegration depends on where that energy is deposited.  Each radionuclide produces its own mix of particles and photons of various energies.  If the disintegration produces only high energy  gammas the energy will be spread over a large volume and the dose from that event will be low.  The same energy released in the form of particles with shorter ranges (higher LET) will concentrate the energy in a smaller volume and make a higher dose there. So a particular quantity of a high energy gamma emitter inside the body is less significant than the same number of Curies of an alpha emitter since some of the energy from the former won't remain in the person while all of that from the alpha emitter will.  If each of the radiation sources is outside the body the short range of the alpha particles makes them very much less significant  than the gammas.  When trying to understand the effect of radioactive materials inside the body this gets very complicated but if the same amount of energy is deposited in the same parts of the body over the same time it doesn't matter whether the source of the radiation is inside or outside.

Multipliers
Any of the units that are mentioned in this section can be modified by a prefix multipliers.  "Milli" (as in millirem for example) refers to an amount that is 1/1000th as large as a rem.  "Micro" means the unit is 1/1,000,000th of the basic unit.  When you see "kilo" the quantity is 1000 times as large as the unmodified unit and "mega" is 1,000,000 times as large.  There are lots more prefixes for both larger and smaller multipliers but those are the common ones.
Back to list of topics

Some final thoughts
Over the past 40 years or so I have used this analogy many times and it has grown steadily more complete and more complex. I have found that in most cases the first part of this explanation gives you the opportunity to recognize/explain that the dose that is the source of their concern is equivalent of a sheet of paper or half an inch or wherever it falls on this scale. That image seems to be accepted much more readily than other ways of explaining it. 

Some people may be concerned about using this analogy to explain the risks of radiation exposure because it leaves open the possibility that very small doses may lead to death. And it does leave that possibility open, but most people will recognize that just as the tiny irregularities on a hardwood floor may cause a person to stumble which may result in a fall, and that fall could cause a person to strike their head, and that blow may cause a blood clot to form, which might be in a critical part of the brain, and that could cause a person to die, that chain of events is so unlikely that it isn't worth much consideration as we walk around and I find that most are willing to accept that the same may well be true of equivalent amounts of radiation. 

One can clearly try to use this analogy beyond where it is applicable but if you recognize its limits I hope that you will be able to use it to help explain to yourself and to others one way to look at the risks of radiation
Back to list of topics


For more about what my wife and I have been doing since retirement:
Go to our Science Fun page
Go to our Travels page
Go to our Personal home page
Go to our Community page

or
E-mail
Nancy and Alan