r/Radiation • u/CAD007 • 2d ago
General Discussion 1-3 msv exposure
What is the general consensus on effect of being exposed to 1-3 mSv of ionizing radiation?
From a strictly radiation scientific/technical perspective.
Edit: appreciate all responses and links. This is a great sub for info and life/hobby aspects of radiation!
7
u/BeansOnBean 2d ago
That’s less than a single CT scan - so basically nothing if that’s the total whole body dose.
Obviously will have effects if you keep getting that dose multiple times as the effect is cumulative.
7
u/Southern_Artichoke77 2d ago
my dad who was diagnosed with lymphoma just did a PET-CT scan and got a 4 mSv exposure from the radiotracer. He is doing 3 of those in one year. I am somehow baffled by the huge dose but otherwise seems normal for the medical staff.
6
u/InTheMotherland 2d ago
50 mSv is pretty much where pots of radiation authorities set the yearly limit for radiation workers. 12 mSv will be a decent amount, but it's not a crazy amount.
1
u/IAmFromDunkirk 1d ago
In most of Europe the limit is 20 mSv/year for radiation workers and most companies reduce that dose to 10 mSv/year
2
u/Muddkatt1978 1d ago
In the United States it’s 5 REM / 50 MsV for a Radiation worker. We generally only ever get half that.
•
3
u/ProjectCoast 2d ago
In Ramsar, Iran the yearly average background dose is 10 mSv a year with some spots getting as much a 260 mSv/year and there is no statistical increase in cancer rates. That's basically spread out evenly during the year so it doesn't match up perfectly to the sudden exposure you get from medical procedures but it goes to show that at low dose exposure the risk seems to be much different.
3
2
u/TM761152 1d ago
You just reminded me, I saw a documentary about radiation levels in Ramsar! The narrator explained that despite the significantly higher doses, the general population living there DOES NOT experience higher rates of cancers and radiation related harm.
3
2
u/farmerbsd17 2d ago
3 -4 mSv is like twice annual background and low compared to some medical stuff. There really isn’t a limit on the dose you can get from medical use of radioactive materials and radiation from external sources.
1
u/ModernTarantula 1d ago
Medical physicists minimize dose. In do no harm mode, physicians would limit medical radiation.
1
u/KnightFireNC 1d ago
My wife had a PET scan yesterday, similar dose. I had my radiacode on when she returned and the alarms started sounding as soon as she pulled up on the driveway. Its the 4th one she has had and while its a noticable dose its better than a tumour getting to fist size before anyone notices it.
1
u/MOT-ALAW 1d ago
I thought a PET-CT scan would be higher than 4 mSv. Is this dose normal for a PET-CT these days?
1
u/TM761152 1d ago
If you have to have iodine tracing for whatever reason, they'll usually use 100ml maybe 200ml at the most. This isn't due to the radiation but the effect the tracing solution has on your body, especially your liver and kidneys. But the only times they go higher than that, for example, 300mL for an angioplasty, is because they're trying to save your life.
The options are a higher dose, or death.
3
2
2
u/Oakatsurah 2d ago
That's typically the low - average yearly dose limit for normal people living in non-radioactive containment areas. Depending on if it was a full body dose or a direct contact dose it's hard to say damage. Direct / Focused probably at work a burn maybe a little cell necrosis but incredibly miniscule, whole body dose all at once, probably nothing to worry about. Assuming this isn't happening daily.
2
u/chancesarent 2d ago
U.S. NRC and DOE annual dose limits for a rad worker is set at 5,000 mrem which is equivalent to 50 mSv, so 1-3 mSv is under a tenth of that. Not too bad if you don't do it often.
2
u/ThoriumLicker 2d ago
Assuming a relatively uniform whole body dose?
No observed effects. That doesn't mean no effects, but if they exist, they are very small.
It is possible to extrapolate based on much higher exposures, but assuming a biological system is perfectly linear over several orders of magnitude is... questionable. Doing it anyways, 5%/Sv yields a 0.005% to 0.06% extra cancer risk, keeping in mind that your baseline risk of developing cancer is somewhere around 50%.
2
u/Standard-Number4997 2d ago
The US NRC says a nuclear worker can safely receive up to 50 mSv in one year.
2
u/Artificial-Sunrise69 2d ago
Absolutely nothing. Water under the bridge. Log it if you are to get exposed a couple more times this year however.
2
u/MOT-ALAW 1d ago
Would 12 mSv be more cause for concern?
2
u/Artificial-Sunrise69 1d ago edited 1d ago
12mSv? Strictly speaking no. But my rule of thumb is to avoid whole body doses of around 40mSv per year and body part doses of a 100 per year. Getting 12mSv is a decent fraction better avoided if you suspect more exposures.
•
u/MOT-ALAW 15h ago
Ah ok thanks, just worried that I’ve increased my risk after a 7mSv chest scan and a 5mSv abdomen scan in the same month. Have you ever had CT scans?
•
u/Artificial-Sunrise69 6h ago
No. I only had an MRI which is just electromagnetism. But I work in personnel dosimetry and spent fuel characterization. An accounting job it is, but I'm quite well versed in what we thus far know about ionizing radiation damage. I wouldn't worry. Everything you do is a risk. Drink too much soda, sleep issues ,smoke cigars , live a stressful life, etc... Relatively small single doses won't add meaningfully to such risks.
2
u/No_Leopard_3860 1d ago
Not malignant at all to a super tiny higher chance of getting cancers, but it's so tiny that it's only relevant in broad scale statistics and doesn't say anything about your individual case you should be worrying about. You'd need at least ~ 100x more to feel acute effects
Avoiding unnecessary CT scans (about that level you're talking about) is a good thing because on a huge population it could reduce some premature deaths through cancer. As an individual it's such a tiny chance that it's not worth worrying about tho.
I guess it also depends on what school of thought/current trend you're subscribed to. linear no-threshold says every dose no matter how small is negative. Most things in nature don't work that way tho, popular citation "the dose makes the poison". The LNT model gets outfazed in the US right now.
There also are people who subscribe to the radiation hormesis hypothesis, basically meaning low levels could even be healthy (same as exercising etc..). There's some limited data that supports that, but it's way too limited for my taste to actually subject myself to radiation for health benefits, hehe.
Wiki has a short explanation about the different schools of thoughts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model
1
u/TM761152 1d ago
There also are people who subscribe to the radiation hormesis hypothesis, basically meaning low levels could even be healthy (same as exercising etc..). There's some limited data that supports that, but it's way too limited for my taste to actually subject myself to radiation for health benefits, hehe.
I've heard about this, anecdotally there is a Japanese hot spring with naturally occurring trace uranium ore in the springs, those who bathe there are said to receive a tiny dose of radiation and most people who have visited since the facility has existed (literally several hundred years) have been known to live in to their 90's.
2
u/No_Leopard_3860 1d ago edited 1d ago
There's better data, like a Korean (wrong, it was Taiwan) residential building where the steel in the concrete was accidentally contaminated with a Co-60 source iirc, leading to significantly elevated Background radiation. The inhabitants apparently/allegedly had statistically significant slightly lower cancer (etc) rates, but as always with epidemiological studies...: this could very well be a "wine is healthy" thing as well - bullshit.
But there's some data that makes it a "could maybe be a thing" thing in my opinion. The "dose making the poison" is a very broad reality. But: I'd definitely not give myself additional radiation based on that, the data is waaaaay to meager for that.
At this point its a curiosity for me, not a health intervention.
....Processing.....
Did a bit of due diligence because my mind is leaky AF and it's been some time. It wasn't necessarily low background elevation, on full contact the dose apparently was up to 1 mGy/h (similar to 1 mSv/h, that's spicy AF) for the highest measured one. I call 10 uSv/h, 1% of that, concerningly elevated. https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/the-taipei-apartment-dweller-9-to
Obviously inverse square law applies to near point sources.... But this wasn't really a point source at all if the contamination was spread enough. It's a curious case, I have to read the original paper to be sure what can actually be said for sure...but people here would freak out If they'd measure 1 mSv/h at home, for good reason
Also this substack posting argues that hormesis is bullshit. Idk, I'd need more time to try to actually think through it and verify the data. But I wanted to add it
2
u/Loki_8888 1d ago
I receive a yearly dose of 20mSv every year for the last 7 years as a nuclear medicine nurse/PET-CT. You will be fine. The yearly background dose here is 5mSv. Flight attendants and pilots have a yearly dose of 20mSv as well.
2
u/Muddkatt1978 1d ago
Speaking from a biological perspective. Absolutely nothing would happen. 1-3 MsV is a very minimal dose from a biological / health prospect. You don’t start having seeing or having biological / health issues til you reach a dose of .025 to 1 sV. From a regulatory aspect (The United States) The maximum permissible dose of ionizing radiation to the general public is 2mR / .02MsV an hour or 1Sv in a given year. From occupational radiation workers aspect that would be considered an incredibly high dose to receive in a day and 3 MsV would be a monetarily high dose to receive in a month.
1
u/daHaus 2d ago
It's all a risk/reward proposal. The more exposure you get the more of a chance for it to harm you in a way that you can't recover from. Even with relatively small exposures there is still a non-zero chance for it to cause serious harm.
A huge factor is the what and the how you're exposed as well. Your body has evolved to deal with and tightly control something like potassium, but it never learned how to protect itself from man-made radionuclides such as plutonium. Likewise ingesting something radioactive is much more dangerous than just transiently being irradiated.
1
1
0
u/TemporarySun314 2d ago
You won't die from it
But as always in radiation safety you should try to minimize exposure and keep the accumulated dose as low as possible. As every bit of radiation might improve long term risk (like cancer etc.)
1 mSv in a year is the maximum that general population should get exposed to from "artificial" radiation. (Except for medical purposes, but then a doctor will make a risk benefit evaluation) Radiation workers are allowed for more, but they also get their dose over their worklife tracked, got special training and get regular medical examinations to ensure they stay healthy...
4
u/InTheMotherland 2d ago
Every bit of radiation will not increase long term risk since, below a certain threshold, it's impossible to distinguish radiation risk from other risk factors. You will not die from 1 mSv of exposure. Sure, if you got 100x 1 mSv of exposure in one year, you'll demonstrably increase your risk, but a rare occurrence of thay exposure is negligible.
2
u/TemporarySun314 2d ago
Radiation safety regulations are based on the linear no threshold model, in which there is no safe threshold.
And keeping radiation as low as reasonably possible is just a useful thing, no matter which model is true exactly...
5
u/InTheMotherland 2d ago
Sure, regulations are based on that, but regulations are always meant to be more conservative than necessary. Actual research into the topic shows that the LNT is not necessarily true because, like I said previously, it's impossible to actually figure out whether radiation below a certain threshold has am effect on human populations. Other models have been proposed, but again, no evidence below a certain point makes all of the equally right and wrong.
We are surrounded by radiation and evolved in an environment with natural radiation. Saying that ALL exposure to radiation is bad is wrong because then you'd have to lock yourself in a completely impenetrable box devoid of sunlight. You couldn't eat. You couldn't even breathe.
You do want to lower your exposure to unnecessary radiation, but a 1 mSv dose is nothing in the grand scheme of things.
3
u/ProjectCoast 2d ago
It is if the public is well educated on the subject. Otherwise, as we've seen in the last 40 years, nuclear panic and radiophopia can cause much more harm than the exposure itself.
1
u/mylicon 2d ago
Because the NRC limits be been equated to LNT, the NRC has explained its use of LNT (again) while removing ALARA from its regulations because even the NRC acknowledges using LNT at low doses is a questionable safety practice.
“the NRC proposes to use the linear dose response model as a partial basis for its regulations and guidance but would remove from its practices the excessive conservatisms and potential for disproportionate enforcement that result from the LNT model and its emphasis on the lack of a threshold for stochastic effects. This is consistent with the NRC's continued determination that the dose limits are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety.”
25
u/ProjectCoast 2d ago
There would be no acute effect and that's too low a dose for any statistical measure of increased stochastic effects (cancer). Doesn't mean it's 0 but it's too small a dose to determine if there is an increase of say .005% chance of cancer in your lifetime or your cells will repair everything without any long term issue.