Publications overestimating the medical and ecological sequels of a slight anthropogenic increase in the radiation background have been reviewed recently with examples of different organs and pathological conditions. The overestimation contributed to the strangulation of atomic energy. The use of nuclear energy for electricity production is on the agenda today due to the increasing energy needs of humankind. Apparently, certain scientific writers acted in the interests of fossil fuel producers. Health risks and environmental damage are maximal for coal and oil, lower for natural gas, and much lower for atomic energy. This letter is an addition to previously published materials, this time focused on studies of cataracts in radiation-exposed populations in Russia. Selection and self-selection bias are of particular significance. Apparently, the self-reporting rate correlates with dose estimates and/or with professional awareness about radiation-related risks among nuclear workers or radiologic technologists, the latter being associated with their work experience/duration and hence with the accumulated dose. Individuals informed of their higher doses would more often seek medical advice and receive more attention from medics. As a result, lens opacities are diagnosed in exposed people earlier than in the general population. This explains dose-effect correlations proven for the incidence of cataracts but not for the frequency of cataract surgeries. Along the same lines, various pathological conditions are more often detected in exposed people. Ideological bias and the trimming of statistics have not been unusual in the Russian medical sciences. It is known that ionizing radiation causes cataracts; however, threshold levels associated with risks are understudied. In particular, thresholds for chronic and fractionated exposures are uncertain and may be underestimated.

Definitive diagnosis of Craniosynostosis (CS) with computed tomography (CT) is readily available, however, exposure to ionizing radiation is often a hard stop for parents and practitioners. Lowering head CT radiation exposure helps mitigate risks and improves diagnostic utilization. The purpose of the study is to quantify radiation exposure from head CT in patients with CS using a ‘new’ (ultra-low dose) protocol; compare prior standard CT protocol; summarize published reports on cumulative radiation doses from pediatric head CT scans utilizing other low-dose protocols. A retrospective study was conducted on patients undergoing surgical correction of CS, aged less than 2 years, between August 2014 and February 2022. Cumulative effective dose (CED) in mSv was calculated, descriptive statistics were performed, and mean ± SD was reported. A literature search was conducted describing cumulative radiation exposure from head CT in pediatric patients and analyzed for ionizing radiation measurements. Forty-four patients met inclusion criteria: 17 females and 27 males. Patients who obtained head CT using the ‘New’ protocol resulted in lower CED exposure of 0.32 mSv ± 0.07 compared to the prior standard protocol at 5.25 mSv ± 2.79 (p < 0.0001). Five studies specifically investigated the reduction of ionizing radiation from CT scans in patients with CS via the utilization of low-dose CT protocols. These studies displayed overall CED values ranging from 0.015 mSv to 0.77 mSv. Our new CT protocol resulted in 94% reduction of ionizing radiation. Ultra-low dose CT protocols provide similar diagnostic data without loss of bone differentiation in CS and can be easily incorporated into the workflow of a children’s hospital.