Answer to Question #2628 Submitted to "Ask the Experts"

Q

I have a daughter 20 months old, who’s been limping for about a week. She did not take a big fall or anything to explain the limp and had no fever, redness, or swelling on the leg. My wife took her to her pediatrician who was baffled by this and recommended waiting a few days and then coming back in for x rays if it didn't show improvement. The condition didn't improve and my wife took her back in, and my daughter was then given 6 x rays on various points of her left leg. The most significant was of her left hip in which she wasn't able to wear lead shielding over her ovaries and midsection. As it turns out, there was nothing that ever came of the x rays, but I am deeply disturbed by this and feel the doctor ill advised us towards getting x rays done prior to doing other less harmful tests. I've read countless articles on the effects of x rays, but have found very little information relating to infants and reproductive organs. From what I have read it seems for younger cells, the effects can be more dramatic. I am paranoid that in irradiating her young body (especially the reproductive region) it might cause dangers/complications down the road. Am I being too paranoid or overcritical? Was my daughter harmed by this? Did we make a mistake in getting her x rayed? Can you also provide more details on this or point to where I can find more targeted information relating to my concerns? Thanks.

A

Your daughter received a small increment of radiation from her medical x rays, that is added to the dose she (and everyone else) receives every day from naturally-occurring background radiation. She received medical benefit from her exposure, which far outweighs the statistical possibility of harm. You must remember that a finding of normal on an x-ray film is meaningful. You are correct in assuming that most of the exposure came from the hip film. There is little or no radiosensitive organ or tissue in the arms and legs. As to her ovarian dose, there is no information showing a genetic effect in humans from any dose--not even in the offspring of the 100,000 Japanese atomic bomb survivors that have been extensively studied. Any concern about her exposure should be directed at cancer. Radiation-induced cancer is a rare event, even at high doses. Only a few hundred such cancers have been detected in the 100,000 Japanese. At the dose she received, there is now debate among experts as to whether there is any risk at all. No harmful effects have been observed at this dose, so the only risk is an assumed one. As to an alternative test, you must remember that there is some risk associated with nearly every medical procedure. The risk from her x rays is at most small and is more likely zero. It is unfortunate that the media have presented so much inflammatory and misleading information about radiation risks. I know of no responsible authority or agency that recommends cancellation of any medically justified diagnostic x-ray procedure on grounds of radiation risk.

S.Julian Gibbs, DDS, PhD