Mortality from XXXX and all causes among British radiologists.

@entity1 @entity788 @entity5 @entity1778 @entity204
The mortality of @entity1 who joined a British radiological society between 1897 and 1954 has been compared with that of (i) all @entity1 in England and Wales, (ii) @entity1 in social class 1, and (iii) male medical practitioners. Radiologists who entered the profession before 1921 suffered a @entity204 rate from @entity5 75% higher than that of medical practitioners. Among these @entity1 there was a statistically significant excess of @entity204 from @entity788 (6 against 1.9 expected), lung (8 against 3.7), and skin (6 against 0.8), and from @entity1778 (4 against 0.7). There were 72 @entity204 from @entity5 among @entity1 who entered the study after 1920 and 68.6 @entity204 were expected, based upon rates among medical practitioners. For no individual @entity5 site did the observed number of @entity204 exceed the expected number. There was some evidence however, that the ratio of observed to expected @entity5 increased with the duration of time that @entity1 were included in the study. Among those followed for more than 30 years there were 30 @entity204 against 22.1 expected. It is not possible to make a close estimate of the dose of radiation received by the @entity1 in this study, but those who entered between 1920 and 1945 could have received an accumulated whole-body dose of the order of 1-5 Gy (100 to 500 rad). For all non- @entity5 causes of @entity204 combined, the @entity204 rate among radiologists is lower than that among all @entity1 in England and Wales, @entity1 in social class 1, and male medical practitioners. The data offer no support for the concept of a non-specific aging effect of radiation.
