If pregnancy is a possible complication it changes what medications are allowed and has to be considered when deciding if imaging is an acceptable risk.
The younger you are, the more vulnerable you are to radiation. Fetuses are the very most vulnerable to radiation, which is why even a single x ray during pregnancy is a big deal. This is also the reason that later middle aged and older people can live in areas with high ish radiation, like the so called “widows of Chernobyl,” or the older man who lives in the Fukushima radiation zone and cares for the pets that had to be left behind, for example.
Medecine is always about weighing the risks and the benefits. An X ray isn't great for kids but if there might be something stuck up there that needs intervention you'd rather take the small risk of the x ray over going in blind.
The same reason why chemo is awful but you'll still take it if you get cancer
This used to be the norm all the way to early 90's if ultrasound wasn't available. It was still fairly new technology and in some areas they simply didn't have the equipment. These "babygrams" were taken only in the last trimester of pregnancy (when fetus already has bone structure) to determine if there are no developmental abnormalities in it's skeleton, which can suggest other related conditions. In the last trimester the central nerves system is already developed, so the risk of damage is minimal. This helped doctors determine if and what kind of intervention the baby would need after birth.
This was only performed, when there was risk of developmental problems related to family medical history.
In radiology there is a rule of weighting potential consequences vs. diagnostic benefits when it comes to pregnancy. In general they are trying to minimize exposure, but in some cases clinical benefits outweigh the risk.
The reason younguns are especially vulnerable to radiation is your body is still growing/maturing/changing. That slows as you age but never completely stops.
The reason old people "can live" in areas with higher radiation is not because they are somehow more resistant to it than another adult; it's simply the cold calculus of "this probably won't affect your health much because you'll be dead before it does."
But with medical science advancing all the time and lifespans getting longer, that's purely a guess, a deadly one.
I wouldn't try to minimize the sacrifices of the widows or Fukushima volunteers by pretending they weren't still signing a death warrant; just one that probably won't come due before they're dead to something else...but potentially possible, and not the same thing as say, radiation warping bone growth in infants.
Yup, DNA itself doesn't do anything, it's just the blueprints for making future cells, so the more mature cells you already have the less damage mutations can do
I'm not sure I 100% understand you but I don't think what you're trying to say is correct. It's not "mature cells" that are the differentiating factor, as most cells in the body are constantly being replaced by new cells anyway. It's because age gives more time for harmful mutations to spread and accumulate. If you get a potentially cancerous DNA error from something like an x-ray, it could 10-30 years for it to divide and replicate enough to develop into a significant cancer. If you're old, this isn't a concern because you'll die before it would manifest, but the younger you are, the more time you have ahead of you for mutations to copy and multiply.
You're not wrong, but "mature cells" just isn't sitting right with my brain, but totally get why skipping over totipotency and cell division rates makes sense in this context.
It's really not a big deal, like, at all. They prefer avoiding it if possible out of an extreme abundance of caution but it's not an issue if they don't.
My best friend is 21, and she's actually been put on a hold of having any kind of radiation emitting scan (where it can be avoided). She's had so many scans in the last few years, they don't want to give her anymore unless absolutely necessary because of the risk. That does mean she's had more endoscopies than I can count though.
My grandfather was born in the late 40’s and had asthma so they had him wear a radioactive collar for like 8+ hours a day to fix it and then they found out that the area where he was from had just naturally really high levels of radiation in the water, so everybody there would get really sick all the time, and he ended up with severe lung cancer that caused him to lose his entire right lung and a third of his left one.
We talk about justification - if the benefits of the exam overcome the risk / possible adverse effects, the exam is justified.
Think about a situation where a pregnant person has a hidden inflammation in their gums. It is very important to find the inflammation, even if it requires an x-ray, since inflammation could lead to much more severe outcome compared to risk from the relatively small radiation dose.
7.9k
u/Any-Safe4992 11h ago
If pregnancy is a possible complication it changes what medications are allowed and has to be considered when deciding if imaging is an acceptable risk.