Month: April 2011
Yo le digo tío-,
I call him uncle
Lo digo pa’ joder.
Just to piss him off.
Yo era forastero, solitario,
I was a stranger, alone,
Un poco amargado, resentido-
Quite bitter, resentful.
Pero me trató con sencillez,
But he treated me with openness,
Con cariño como si fuera digno de respeto,
And affection as if I merited respect.
Como si no hubiera cagado mi vida.
As if I hadn’t fucked up my life.
Cuando no soñaba, él me alimentó con sueños suyos.
When I couldn’t dream he fed me his own
Sueños Gonzalez, raros, bellos,
Gonzalez dreams, strange, and beautiful,
Con vitaminas de locura.
With vitamins of insanity.
Todavía sueño con la vida más que la muerte,
I still dream of life more than death.
Puedo dar y recibir, soy sano, fuerte.
Can give, receive, am whole, strong.
Y todavía le digo tío,
And still I call him Uncle,
Porque no tengo nombre suficientemente grande,
For there’s no word great enough,
Ni profundo, ni ancho,
Or deep enough or wide,
Para este hombre que le digo tío,
For this man I call Uncle,
Aunque no es tío mío.
Who is no uncle of mine.
A few years later Tío got prostate cancer and I advised no aggressive treatment. Eight years after a dense stroke, he is alert, diapered, and walks with difficulty, preferring to be wheeled about; he loves his bed. He still radiates good cheer, but sometimes in a moment of weakness confesses an ineffable sadness. After the dreaded cancer diagnosis, I had promised to interfere personally if he ever requested it. He has never asked. Neither have I; and the dreaded cancer has never spoken a word.
Today , I feel inundated. Outside, the rain, life blood of California, continues. Inside, on the Tube, the mindless flood of misinformation about potential nuclear disaster continues. While hundreds of thousands of Japanese are displaced from their ruined homes, and thousands are dead and dying from the tidal wave and the toxic wasteland it created, our free press professionals inject yet another dose of hyped news into the jugular vein of a fright addicted public:
MSNBC feed 3/27/2011 :14:48 AM ET, this appears; the precise date and time offer a patina of pseudo science:
RADIATION 10 MILLION TIMES NORMAL AT JAPAN NUCLEAR PLANT!
Then, with no coherent attempt to provide perspective or describe ‘ normal’ the radiation is asserted to be 1000 mSv per hour, the equivalent to (sic) “29 CT scans according to NBC News Experts.” Nowhere does it suggest that the 1000 mSv dose requires sitting in the contaminated pool for an hour. The Expert comparison to 29 CT scans is simply absurd. It seems clear that scandalous, out of context, ridiculous statements, like vague, mindless comparisons to past nuclear accidents, sell newspapers, magazines, and TV time, but do not inform.
On the other hand, we are rarely told much about radiation from medical imaging. Perhaps our national dosing of medical ionizing radiation is something we are willing to accept for value received. Perhaps it is excessive. But whichever the case, we generally remain as ignorant of one sort of radiation risk as the other. How infuriating! And how unfortunate that our public comprehension of ionizing irradiation is so little better than it was three generations ago at the dawn of the nuclear age. Was it reasonable to expect our media to inform rather than to merely profit through clever exaggeration? If so, they have failed. “Nucular” or “nuclear,” who cares! Ignorance and fear are the same no matter what its name! No wonder we may rush to buy gas masks, iodine or KI on our way home from a whole body scan.
We cannot rely on ‘experts’. And fortunately we no longer have to. The net is there, all the information is there. As we might infer from significant books like ‘The Wisdom of Crowds’ , people can collectively be less stupid than individuals; now, thanks to the net, we can be well informed about ionizing radiation even if we are not nuclear physicists. We can have, or quickly find, the best available pertinent facts. Moreover, an order for a CT scan is a prescription for irradiating ionization. It well may be worth the exposure. But both physicians and patients can and should thoughtfully consider the risks versus benefits of prescribed radiation, and avoid unnecessary exposures.
My introduction to nuclear warfare, thanks to the US Navy, dates back decades. Although the more practical facts of the physics haven’t changed that much, my knowledge of it, I fear, has gone through quite a few half-lives of attrition. So I had to look to the net for help. The information is all there. I won’t claim that the material to be found is coherent; it is sometimes conflicting and often confusing. But that is true of all pronouncements including those of experts, because no one puts information out anywhere without a particular view, or even at times a particular self interest. We live in a time when it is within reach of every person, every tweeter, every web surfer to uncover as many facts as exist! I found the information below to be readily accessible and pertinent:
Tissue doses of radiation are often measured or stated in ”milli sieverts” (mSv), a quantity of ionizing radiation dose absorbed and affecting body cells. While ionizing radiation resulting from nuclear explosions is quite variable due to the number of isotopes and other factors, X-ray irradiation is comparatively uniform, so that mSv are a reliable and useful estimate of risk of most common radiation to people. The numbers are very useful even when open to argument because of the many variables. Here are some mSv comparisons with an older tissue dose radiation measure, REMs, or Roentgen Equivalents, Man. (Sorry, women; you have Madam Curie):
• 1 rem = 0.01 Sv = 10 mSv
• 1 mrem = 0.00001 Sv = 0.01 mSv = 10 μSv
• 1 Sv = 100 rem = 100,000 mrem (or millirem)
• 1 mSv = 100 mrem = 0.1 rem
• 1 μSv = 0.1 mrem
(In this essay I use only mSv to make comparisons cleaner.)
Comparative risk of radiation exposure is important and useful both to physicians whose decisions determine the dosages prescribed to patients and to those of us who are exposed to otherwise confusing information and misinformation. It helps to have perspective, which is valuable even when ‘experts’ argue about precise numbers. In the much maligned airport screenings, for example, it may help to know that one would undergo:
400 airport screenings to absorb the same mSv as one chest X-ray;
12,000 screenings compares to one mammogram;
20,000 screenings compares to one abdominal CT scan;
40,000 screenings is comparable to one whole body scan;
60,000 to one barium enema; and,
80,000 screenings to one neonatal abdominal CT scan.
Estimates of relative radiation risk from medical imaging, and procedures, are extremely variable. Yet it is clear that cumulative doses are increasing, and that medical radiation exposure can be significant; whether people disagree by 10 or even 30 percent matters little. The following is a conflation of my remote memory and the harvest from the net today. Here are a few net.ferences:
But the sources are so many, and so easy to access, that for more I will ask readers to jump into the net and flail about on your own. I found the accompanying dose estimates of interest. These doses are all in mSv.
Estimated irradiation for medical procedures; Dose in mSv
each dental X-ray ________ 0.2
head CT________________ 1.5
mammogram ____________ 3
CT abdomen ____________ 5.3
chest CT ________________5.8
heart CT and angio________ 6–13
barium enema ___________12–15
infant Abdomen CT________ 20
angio/cardiac study ________70
Estimates of average yearly radiation exposure Dose in mSv
background radiation (earth sun, etc) __________________2–3
living within 50 miles of a nuclear power generating plant__ 0.009
living within 50 miles of a coal powered generating plant___ 0.03
daily use of a computer screen or other CRT____________ 0.1
commercial full time occupational high altitude air travel____ 2
maximum allowed annual dose for nuclear plant workers _ 50
lowest one year dose clearly related to cancer___________ 100
Estimates of acute (or per day) radiation dose Dose in mSv
living within 10 miles of the 3 Mile Island accident____ 0.01
Sacramento to Paris commercial air flight__________ 0.085
dose limit for workers in a life saving emergency ___250
one hour next to the Chernobyl meltdown ________300
dose causing transient symptoms______________ 400
dose causing severe radiation sickness or death_ _ 2000
After combing the web, and collating information from diverse sources, surely I have made errors. So please call them to my attention, dear reader. Let us hope that airport screening will become more rational, and less driven by political nonsense; that unwise dosing of people with medical X-rays will cease; and that the media will act and report responsibly. But hopes are not always fulfilled; we are wise to maintain an informed perspective in case hope fails us.