Brent R L
Clin Perinatol. 1986 Sep;13(3):615-48.
The term radiation evokes emotional responses both from lay persons and from professionals. Many spokespersons are unfamiliar with radiation biology or the quantitative nature of the risks. Frequently, microwave, ultrasound, and ionizing radiation risks are confused. Although it is impossible to prove no risk for any environmental hazard, it appears that exposure to microwave radiation below the maximal permissible levels present no measurable risk to the embryo. Ultrasound exposure from diagnostic ultrasonographic imaging equipment also is quite innocuous. It is true that continued surveillance and research into potential risks of these low-level exposures should continue, but at present ultrasound not only improves obstetric care but also reduces the necessity of diagnostic x-ray procedures. In the field of ionizing radiation, we have as good a comprehension of the biologic effects and the quantitative maximum risks as of any other environmental hazard. Although the animal and human data support the conclusion that no increases in the incidence of gross congenital malformations, intrauterine growth retardation, or abortion will occur with exposures less than 5 rad, that does not mean that there are definitely no risks to the embryo exposed to lower doses of radiation. Whether there exists a linear or exponential dose-response relationship or a threshold exposure for genetic, carcinogenic, cell-depleting, and life-shortening effects has not been determined. In establishing maximum permissible levels for the embryo at low exposures, refer to Tables 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9. It is obvious that the risks of 1-rad or 5-rad acute exposure are far below the spontaneous risks of the developing embryo because 15 per cent of human embryos abort, 2.7 to 3.0 per cent of human embryos have major malformations, 4 per cent have intrauterine growth retardation, and 8 to 10 per cent have early- or late-onset genetic disease. The maximal risk attributed to a 1-rad exposure, approximately 0.003 per cent, is thousands of times smaller than the spontaneous risks of malformations, abortion, or genetic disease. Thus, the present maximal permissible occupational exposures of 0.5 rem for pregnant women (see Table 10) and 5 rem for medical exposure, are extremely conservative. Medically indicated diagnostic roentgenograms are appropriate for pregnant women, and there is no medical justification for terminating a pregnancy in women exposed to 5 rad or less because of a radiation exposure.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
辐射这个词会引起外行和专业人士的情绪反应。许多发言人不熟悉辐射生物学或风险的定量性质。微波、超声和电离辐射的风险常常被混淆。虽然不可能证明任何环境危害不存在风险,但低于最大允许水平的微波辐射暴露似乎对胚胎没有可测量的风险。诊断超声成像设备的超声暴露也相当无害。诚然,对这些低水平暴露的潜在风险应继续进行监测和研究,但目前超声不仅改善了产科护理,还减少了诊断性X线检查的必要性。在电离辐射领域,我们对其生物学效应和定量最大风险的理解与对任何其他环境危害的理解一样充分。虽然动物和人类数据支持这样的结论,即暴露低于5拉德不会导致严重先天性畸形、宫内生长迟缓或流产的发生率增加,但这并不意味着暴露于较低剂量辐射的胚胎绝对没有风险。对于遗传、致癌、细胞耗竭和缩短寿命的影响,是否存在线性或指数剂量反应关系或阈值暴露尚未确定。在确定低暴露水平下胚胎的最大允许水平时,请参考表4、5、6、8和9。显然,1拉德或5拉德急性暴露的风险远低于发育中胚胎的自发风险,因为15%的人类胚胎会流产,2.7%至3.0%的人类胚胎有严重畸形,4%有宫内生长迟缓,8%至10%有早发性或迟发性遗传病。归因于1拉德暴露的最大风险约为0.003%,比畸形、流产或遗传病的自发风险小数千倍。因此,目前孕妇职业暴露的最大允许水平为0.5雷姆(见表10),医疗暴露为5雷姆,是极其保守的。有医学指征的诊断性X线检查对孕妇是合适的,没有医学依据因辐射暴露而终止暴露于5拉德或更低剂量辐射的妇女的妊娠。(摘要截取自400字)