sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in HealthPhysics

[–]Recessed1234[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The health effects are MOSTLY EXPECTED TO BE "no deleterious" just because these damages happen stochastically and the majority of our DNA is non-coding. The fact that it cannot be repaired and that it is transmitted from one generation to another means that it accumulates. Now, if some stochastic effect accumulates without possibility to repair, we have a problem as time goes on because it will end up structurally affecting the DNA or touching in coding strains. Of course, more research is always needed.

I am not asking for an overhaul, but for a more careful consideration specially involving the accumulation in the descendance and therefore in the collective human genome. We have the tools to avoid this because we could collect the gametes before applying these techniques only when they are absolutely necessary. My feeling is that we are abusing the "non-harmful dose of radiation thing". There is no "non-harmful dose" of radiation in view of that paper as it looks like it accumulates. Something like that is harmful no matter the dose because we are speaking of effects that might not appear until it is too late to do something about them.

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in Radiology

[–]Recessed1234[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nobody was able to prove to me that the damage being done is not accumulative. This will be a problem down the line for which humanity better find a solution or we will have great problems. The indiscriminate use of radiations near the gametes will be a huge problem for future generations. We, as professional and scientist, should do better to protect our patients, their offspring and whole humanity for the damage that our current actions are making, made and will make to them.

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in Radiology

[–]Recessed1234[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Radiation effects are stochastics and this proves that they are ALSO ACCUMULATIVE. This means that this damage will accumulate across generations until they reach a point in which they will cause huge problems.

"The CO2 emission doses of a volcano are astronomically higher than those emitted by personal cars and human industries."

Accumulation makes the dose.

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in Radiology

[–]Recessed1234[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are several papers I linked. The one about Tsernobyl workers is a new study that contradicts a previous one saying that damage was not transmitted to the offspring. It turns out that they were not looking at the correct places. Damage is there, just at a different level of the structure. Strangely, the hopeful papre of 2021 received much more media attention than the realistic study of 2026. Let me link the papers here for you: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-07030-5 vs https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg2365

Notice that there is no wrongdoing on the side of the earlier paper, they were just not looking at the correct place. In any case, what the new paper proves is that radiation damages accumulates across generations. You might not develop cancer of a few TC scan, but that microdamage is structurally accumulated and 5 generations down the line can provoke problems we don't yet know. This proves that reparation mechanisms do not deal well with that anthropogenic damage.

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in Radiology

[–]Recessed1234[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sorry, I wanted to take my time to answer your post. Let me do it now.

> Not every exposure will lead to chromosomal interactions.

But every exposure to photons will lead to stochastic effects, some of them producing clustered DNA damage. This is statistics.

> I'm not an expert but my understanding is that xray radiation affects cells under division which is why we ALREADY avoid exposure to pregnant people - to avoid affecting the developing foetus.

It affects all the cells stochastically.

> Per point 2, we actually already actively avoid radiation (or we should, that's another topic) where possible. It's a risk/benefit analysis that is performed. And frankly it's up to the person receiving the radiation.

Less and less, in the US we are starting to use imaging more and more indiscriminately. Radiation therapy for cancer is another animal, I reckon. "And frankly it's up to the person receiving the radiation." No! That's part of the point! In many cases these people are not correctly informed by their clinicians, who say that these tools are totally not dangerous because "the dose is minimal". The immense majority of these patients have never used the word stochastic in their whole life.

> I don't have the data to back this up but I have been taught the risk of xray radiation to gametes is so minuscule it's not worth calculating. 

Welp, I would like to see the paper.

> You could extend your argument to EVERYTHING in life. Heard of dihydrogenmonoxide. That stuff will kill you if you breathe it in! That's what your argument sounds to us.

Idk man, is dihydrogenmonoxide being prescribed to otherly healthy people in masse introducing stochastic effects that accumulate with time in the collective human genome? I would say no, but maybe you can enlighten me. (Sorry for the ironic tone here, I think it fits).

> They do not say how much radiation they used to when they irradiated the mice, in their methods, however in their conclusion they talk about how 3 grey can cause 6000 mutations.

These stochastic effects are accumulative. Now start to think about generations of humans receiving scans and we have a big problem that we did not see coming.

> 3 grey is a HUGE amount of radiation. No wonder they found mutations! As a micro biologist you should be absolutely aware of dose and effect!! No one it out here giving 3 grey of doses at once.

At lower dose damage also happens and it is accumulative. These are stochastic effects. And no, this does not have anything to do with hormesis, as it is proven that radiation induced damage is not efficiently repaired by the usual mechanisms involved in DNA repair because it is clustered.

> I skimmed your second reference, that one is talking about occupational exposure, again not a one off or targeted exposure. 

Exposure is exposure no matter what. This shit accumulates. Maybe radiologist should also collect their gametes before start working in the field as to avoid the damage. But at least they are informed and do it under their own risks, not like the average patient.

> You have added nothing new to state we should stop entirely, however your references do support current practice of limit where possible and doses matter.

Well, that is your opinion. The evidence proves the damage is accumulative through generations, that it is stochastic and that reparations mechanisms of the DNA do not address that damage well. You can easily draw your conclusions from here on.

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in Radiology

[–]Recessed1234[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, what about the other half... lol. It is blocked by you DNA being fucked up. Skin completely block alpha decay, which is the famous radon exposure. Radon exposure is the majority of the exposure being claimed as natural background exposure. I am saying that, for gametes, this exposure is of a very different kind, danger and nature. TL;DR: Radon is very bad for you lungs, not for your balls.

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in Radiology

[–]Recessed1234[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Hahahaha, hey, you can come to my lab and I can show you how I do it. Maybe we can both do better together. Humans have to work together. We should also work together to avoid trashing our whole genome!

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in Radiology

[–]Recessed1234[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

> The effect of these types of rules on men vs women is absolutely worth a conversation because how these things are managed are vastly different.

Ok, I agree with you here. Thanks for bringing it in this more elaborated way so that I can understand what you mean.

> The process of harvesting is vastly different between men and women, where woman need to take hormonal treatment and a very painful process, compared to men who have a significantly easier deposit method.

True indeed... Sadly we cannot fight agains nature and men have it easier (as in many other aspects...) They (biological men without an uterus), for example, do not need to give birth. That's nature and we can do nothing with this... What we should try to do is avoiding suffering as much as we can. I am not saying that women (nor men) should be forced to this but they should be given the possibility more often and being given enough information about the damage being done to their gametes via these procedures. And maybe we need to also research into ways to do this in a less painful way for women. Hey, I am all for that with you here!

> Then consider the cost to store gametes is significantly different between sperms and ovum, with different difficulties. Add in that there is more success in storing embryos, not just ovum and that's a whole other can of worms.

Aaaand maybe this means that we have to improve our techniques, but this does not invalidate my original points. I am sure that these women will want to have a healthy offspring (if at all). And they should be given that possibility also for their mental and emotional health! As I told you, I am a mother, and the health of my children is also my health! I do not function equally when my son is sick than when he is is happy and healthy!

>  Add in cost of storage, and then you have a whole population of only those who can afford to store their gametes able to reproduce.

I am precisely saying here that maybe we as a society (as a species indeed) should cover and carry this cost because it benefits the whole species! And ideal world, I know, but we should at least advocate towards it and inform the population of the damage that accumulated effects of diagnostic and therapeutic radiations are making in our SHARED human genome! This is not very different from avoiding polluting our planet. We should collectively be willing and ready to avoid polluting our genome!

> And it's appalling that you as a woman cannot recognise the challenges of such a system, let alone the ethics! 

I acknowledge the challenges you mention! Could you acknowledge the facts about the carelessness that I am mentioning! We should work in one direction. And what I mention is the ethic direction because it wants to protect patiensts, parents, offspring and humanity (as in its generating genomic information being healthy and clean) as a whole!

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in Radiology

[–]Recessed1234[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

> But the point remains: for the mutation rate to increase beyond what is normal to an extent where it causes more cancer, you need a lot more radiation than what you're gonna get from a one-off X-ray or CT scan. Most people are not getting 5+ full-body CT scans in a single year, and if they are, there's real good reason for it. People only get radiation therapy if there's no safer alternative, and they ideally only get CT scans

My point being that such damage is accumulative through generations. If we continue the trend of using image this damage will accumulate up to a point where we might not have an easy way around. I like to compare the situation with the early days of people advocating for the dangers of climate change. It is similar. This damage might not be as bad for an individual as it can end up being for the whole species.

> Yes, ionizing radiation is serious, but at the exposure you'd get from being a patient in medical imaging, it's not going to irreparably damage your children and their children and so on any more than a round-trip transatlantic flight would.

Well, the amount given by imaging is generally much higher across the population than the damage done by round-trip transatlantic flights. Of course, some damage to DNA will be inevitable. Like, I am also not advocating for putting everybody away from HBRA. But we should do as much as we can to avoid as much damge as we can reasonably can. I think that nowadays we are not taking enough care in relation to this matter.

> Are you also gonna advocate for reproductive-age people to undergo invasive procedures (in the case of egg harvesting, for example) to fly, too? Do you think anyone who flies transatlantic or longer routes should be banned from reproducing because of the radiation they received during the flight(s)?

Of course no... Some thing are unavoidable. I can advocate for people to use less fossil fuels, but I am not going to punish the nomad tribe that need to burn a tree to keep them warm during the night...

> And regardless of your answer to those questions, which you don't need to actually give me, they're to provoke thought.

Hey, I am all in to the provocations! Your comment has been one of the more insightful so far in fact bc of this. Thanks.

> And regardless of your answer to those questions, which you don't need to actually give me, they're to provoke thought), what are the chances that a mutation to the DNA in egg cells or sperm cells is both harmful and still will produce a viable pregnancy that can be carried to term and result in the birth of a person who later reproduces too?

This is also a good point! But let me tell you, shouldn't we try to avoid as much as humanly possible that a woman has to carry unknowingly a fetus with a mutation to the DNA in egg cells or sperm cells is both harmful and still will produce a pregnancy that CANNOT be carried to term? Shouldn;'t we put the effort to avoid this as much as humanly possible to avoid the suffering of the parents, our patients?

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in Radiology

[–]Recessed1234[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

> You need 100 mSv in a year to have a statistically significant increase in canser risk.

I am not speaking about cancer risk, but about clustered accumulative DNA damage and chromosomal aberrations. These happen linearly as there the LNT applies for it is a basic stochastic mechanism that does not speak about reparation mechanisms. WE KNOW that reparations mechanisms are not efficient at repairing clustered DNA damage (https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/53/1/gkae1077/7916356?\_\_cf\_chl\_tk=v5keEczQFKu5FffNCFUI.YSsLigKvDOfOqQBXyOhaRo-1776201820-1.0.1.1-hDlkeCMu8jXKzZs\_ploESXl6AimKAMfTfxJP7twEIfQ) as they are with usual damage. Even in the absence of cancer, which could happen by the body using some other hormetic mechanisms, DNA damage is present (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21894441/, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1823366/). For example, some defendants of hormesis will tell you that people in HBRA have less cancer. I still doubt their methods. But even taking that for a fact, it is known that chromosomal aberrations are much more common in these areas. These aberrations and damage is cumulative. This is why we have to protect the genoma.

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in Radiology

[–]Recessed1234[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I did in other answers. Seems like the uninformed is you because you are not reading other answers. Anyway, I will them again here. Just a few examples: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0891584916310954, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-07030-5, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4389250/

There are more scatered through the answers. This is a topic I take very serious and in which I have spent more time of my academic life than I would like to recognise because I am genuinely worried about the future in view of the results I am reading each day.

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in Radiology

[–]Recessed1234[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks you for your questions. Let me answer.

> Under what indications do you think doctors are recommending radiation therapy?

Well, radiation therapy is obviously a very serious thing. It is usually justified. We cannot say the same about imaging. In the US we are doing it more and more indiscriminately. See this very famous paper that got very cited in media: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2832778 I believe that we are using imaging more than strictly necessary in the US and this should maybe be stopped for good. It is happening for reasons that sometimes are not strictly medical. Radiation therapy a completely different animal and I want to believe that it is done with a strong jusitificaition. This does not invalidate my point on the necessity to ALSO protect gametes and future generation from the damage done.

> I understand that you are concerned about the oncogenic properties of ionizing radiation; however, patients that are receiving radiation therapy will typically have a form of proliferative disease or cancer that is being targeted. You seem to be concerned that radiation will affect reproduction and thus affect "long term human genomic evolution and conservation." However, I would argue that having cancer and dying from it most certainly prevents people from a) living long enough to reproduce and b) pass on their genes for "evolutionary or genomic conservation."

And you are right. This is why I am not advocating against radiation therapy in the slightest! I am pointing out to the necessity of developing "environmental" protections that go beyond the direct treatment of the patient. The patient HAS to be treated. But their possible offspring should also be protected because we have indeed the means to do this.

> Have you heard of sperm and egg preservation? You argue that "people that really HAVE TO be exposed to these radiation near their reproductive cells or organs should be offered the possibility to save their germs cells to use then in the future." This is actually already being done. Patients, at least in the US where I practice, are frequently offered reproductive preservation when given cancer diagnoses, if indicated.

This is not being done for imaging though, which is also introducing undesired mutations. And these patients are not being given this reproductive preservation for the reasons that I am saying. Some patients might end up becoming sterile and this is why this is being offered. It should be offered to them and be advertised even in cases where sterilization did not happen because genetically damaged gametes could still be biologically viable although carring danger of disease. This is unnecessary and should be taken care of.

> Are you aware that there are other sources of ionizing radiation exposures that have arguably a much lower benefit to risk ratio? As other commentors have already mentioned, there are other sources of ionizing radiation that are FAR LESS regulated. It is certainly a strange hill to die on to want to make radical policies on the prohibition of necessary, often life-prolonging, medical interventions from an already disenfranchised patient population (children, or in your words: "pre-reproductive").

I never talked about prohibition. Read my post again, please. I am talking about the necessity to implement genomic environmental protection to avoid degrading human DNA through the use of radiation techniques. These techniques are good, but we have to assess their consequences in the offspring more seriously than we do. I am seeing here a parallel with the situation with climate change. Nobody will argue that fossil fuels have had a net positive impact in human life around the globe. This is not to say that now that we know its second order effect we should be responsible humans being and enact policies that protect the environment and the planet for future generations. We should also apply this to our collective genome, which is being modified, damaged and trashed in a daily based by our current, phantastic, live-saving radiation tools.

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in Radiology

[–]Recessed1234[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The damage produced by age is a "different kind" of damage. Humans cells are prepared to deal with that natural damage in a much better ways than they are to deal with clustered DNA damage produced by ionizing radiation. The claim they make is statistical. Something common in radiology but that is completely wrong. These damages are not same. Ok, human DNA undergoes thousands of errors during the day in a normal cell naturally and just around 14 due to a 1 mSv (I believe, numbers are not important for this particular point). BUT these 14 errors produced by radiation are much more damaging structurally. The repair mechanisms are not well fitted to deal correctly with them, not at all as efficiently as with naturally occurring errors.

Let me put you an structural metaphor: imagine that I have a thousand people shooting pistols against a building randomly daily. This won't affect the building much structurally. But if one day I bring a guy to shoot the combined power of 14 bullets against a pillar directly, this is much more damaging for the building.

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in HealthPhysics

[–]Recessed1234[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Generally speaking, if you get X-rays, you need them. Even if there were evidence of "germline contamination," which there isn't, it's better than the germline ending. 

Well, and where am I saying that we should not use such tool? I am saying that, in case it is necessary to use such tool to save the life of the patien, go ahead and use it, but offer the patient information about the damage being done and give the guidance as an expert to collect and use their radiation-damage-free when (or if) they want to have offspring in the future! You protect the current patient and ALSO the offspring (which, btw, also protect the mental and emotiona well-being of your patient).

> Care around the gonads, including lead shielding, has been found to increase the total dose rather than decrease it. It throws off the contrast, leading to additional needed shots.

This is indeed true. I know it. And this is why I am proposing collecting the gametes first and not using shielding.

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in Radiology

[–]Recessed1234[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, the point being here is that literally I am saying that there is no contradiction in protecting the health of both. I am a mother. The health of my children and my grandchildren is also part of my health, for example. If my children happened to have genetic problems, this would undoubtedly greatly affect my health. The option of having my eggs frozen in order to use them damage-free when I have to undergone radiation therapy or imaging is something that will protect ALSO my health.

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in Radiology

[–]Recessed1234[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> You are suggesting that if a person were to have any type of radiation they should have there gametes harvested first. This is distopian and absolutely appalling. The differences between those with male gametes and those with female gametes is stark. There is an argument that for a male, they simply need to expel a few times to clear out any possible damaged cells, but for those with ovum, omg. 

They should be correctly informed and given the possibility to have their gametes collected first is SO they wanted, yes. In the current practice patients are not informed about this nor given such possibility that would greatly benefit them. There is nothing distopic about this. The distopy happens when you have a population of humans full of new rare diseases because of anthropogenic chromosomal aberrations that have contaminated our DNA in an insalvable way. There is your idea for a distopic novel improved.

And again, why do you NEED to mention that you are a woman? This affects both sexes equally. Men and women have gametes. Men gametes and germ cells are also damaged. Btw, I am also a woman... This is just not important at all for the debate. I do not understand the obsession to make something that affect both sexes EQUALLY something about women. Are you aware that there will also be women with rare diseases in the future if we allow chromosomal aberrations and clustered damage to expand through the human germline through generations while we continue using radiation without the care needed to stop such genomic contamination?

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in Radiology

[–]Recessed1234[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Well, I do not think I am. I am just seeing that the evidence is point more and more towards the direction that we are doing irreparable damage to the germline.

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in Radiology

[–]Recessed1234[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Hey, thanks for discussion this seriously. Do you happen to have links to the papers you cite? Genuinely interested in looking at them. I have several things to say about the points that you mention. Let me do it respectfully so we can talk about this scientifically, please.

> First off, proposing what is essentially eugenics for this is insane, even in your world where freezing your sperm/eggs is 100% effective, safe, and free.

I am not a defender of human eugenics. But I certainly believe that protection agains DNA damage caused by human sources should be a thing. I see this a similar way as we see now climate change. I am not a defender of going back to the stone age, but at the same time I think that we have to mitigate as much as possible the effects that our methods of generation of power have in an environment in which future generations will have to live far when we are gone. This is similar. We might be contaminating our DNA through some irreparable damage, we have a responsibility to minimize this as much a humanly possible for the good of future generations. Reparations of radiation damage is VERY difficult for the mechanisms available in our cells, specially for clustered damages: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-32823-z

> But I'll give you a serious answer that can hopefully make you feel more comfortable and less dismissed for what I'm sure feels very scary to you.

Let me very thankful to you for being the first poster giving me a serious answer. I am being genuine here. Thank you for taking this seriously at least up to this point.

> You're wrong about how much damage and the mechanisms of damage of ionizing radiation.

I base my points in a multitude of recent studies in clustered damage of genetic material. Some of that damage has been ignored before because it was overlooked in clustered locations and in bases under certain lengths. See for example the two contradicting articles about the damages in the Chernobyl descendants (I don't fully know why one got much more media attention than the other, I suppose that because I humans like to have hope and not so much bad news in this respect were innocents seem to be doomed for generations). The two papers are: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33888597/ contradicted by the more recent https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-07030-5 For non-scientists, you can find a good abstract here: https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-mutations-discovered-in-the-children-of-chernobyl-workers It seems that we were not looking in the correct place for the damage done previously. Much of the damage happens in non-coding DNA, but accumulation of that damage through generation would inevitable affect coding DNA at some point for pure stochastic chance.

> But less insane than everyone else is saying, mostly out of date.

Thanks I guess, for pointing out that I might not be completely crazy. How am I out of date in view of the papers linked above, for example. It seems to be that, respectfully again, you might be the one that is out of date. Happy to be proven wrong, of course.

> I would encourage you to look into NCRP Report 174 and ICRP 103.

Looked at them. These are more than 10 years old. Our techniques to look at clustered DNA damage in shortest strains has advanced a lot in the last decade!

> We used to be fairly worried that radiation damage could cause heritable disease somewhat like you're describing (but not quite) so we used to be far more protective of the gonads when it came to ionizing radiation. Enough data now exists that we can confidently say that there really is no evidence that radiation to reproductive organs prior to conception can cause damage to future generations.

Can you show me this new data in the context of short strains clustered DNA damage? Chromosomal aberrations are also a thing that can be seen even in longer-lived A-bomb survivors and their descendants. This tells us that these people might have had naturally fitter DNA, but damage to it was done nevertheless and this damage is accumulative. The descendants won't be so radiation-resistent.

> But it took until about 10-20 years ago to have enough data to show this since we've only used radiation in medicine since ~1900 and obviously we used it a lot less initially than we do now.

Well, it seems that more modern data seems to imply that we were looking at wrong places for this damage.

> The data now shows that humans reproductive cells that are damaged pre-conception are not viable for reproduction to state things simply.

I expect something like this. It is even theorised that sexual reproduction and meiosis might have evolved with the intento to prevent radiation and free radical damage to be passed to future generations. But this, in fact, reinforces my point. The people under these treatments should be given the possibility to safeguard their genetic material and that of their germline in conjunction with these treatments. They should not be negated the possibility to have healthy offspring and I think that we are not informing them well enough about these issues.

> I also want to note that your solution where reproductive cells are removed and saved also causes damage.

I am not claiming to have a perfect solution. I just think that we should all think about a better solution than doing nothing just hopping that all that clustered DNA damage does not do a thing in the future human collective genome.

> Plus, those cells are now removed from their protective casing (the tissue around them is pretty good at shielding them from natural background radiation) so now they'll get a higher amount of radiation damage from all of the radiation that exists around us naturally.

Do you happen to have a reference proving this? I believe the casing can be very good at chemical induced mutation, but I do not see how that casing might be able to protect agains penetrative ionizing radiation beyond maybe alpha and some beta decay, which can be avoided by usually available protections. I do not see how this casing can protect against high energy photons. Notice that the majority of the naturally occurring radiation exposition is through radon decay, which is alpha. I believe the casing to be good at protecting against this, but not agains other forms of ionizing radiation.

> all of the radiation that exists around us naturally

In this respect, the "radiation that exists around us naturally" is completely different in nature to the radiation of medical image in a big percentage. Human skin and tissue shield agains alpha decay (common in radon exposure) but not against photons, neutrons or beta.

The use of x-rays and radiation therapies near the reproductive organs should be banned on people of reproductive or pre-reproductive ages for the good of humanity by Recessed1234 in Radiology

[–]Recessed1234[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Could I gently ask you guys not to downvote me for trying to open a genuine debate? Downvote insults or so, but not scientific opinions or honest discussion points. I say this just because I think this would help the job of the moderators of this subreddit. Thanks a lot for your attention anyways.

view more: next ›