Cancer from CT Screenings?

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I found this article interesting and worrying, thought I would share.


A new study finds that radiation from the commonly perform CT scan are higher than generally thought, raising concerns about increased risk for cancer.



Compared to other imaging procedures, the median effective dose delivered through a single CT scan was as high as 74 mammograms or 442 chest x-rays, according to Smith-Bindman.



WOW 1 CT scan is the equivalent of 442 x-rays! and i had one done a few months ago TWICE! because the lost the first one.

Edit - Source - www.cbsnews.com...


[edit on 14/12/2009 by wycky]




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Good heavens. I have had about one done year for the past four of five years. Digestive problems. If I did not have cancer I probably will get it.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I´ve had maybe 6 in my life plus x rays and upper and lower gi´s...what in the world? Are we in danger?? I thought they knew what they were doing! How could this not be regulated???? Isn't it obvious to doctors and hospitals that radiation is something to be careful with? I think someone is bulling, because you can't tell me they didn't know it was equal to some 400 xrays before this...that's preposterous. Things have to be tested before they are used. Not to mention all the workers or technicians that are around it all the live long day. This is bull. I'm angry.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
This way we
1. Go to the Doctor pay them to tell us we need a X-ray.
2. Then go get the X-ray and pay the radiologist to take the scan and right a report.
3. Then go back to the Doctor to read the report and tell us the X-ray shows nothing you should get a CT Sacn , and pay the doctor again.
4. Repeat the above steps 1-3 until a conclusion is reached.
5. Purchase drugs from chemist / do physio / surgery what ever is required.
6. Start to feel better
7. Get sick again
8. more CT scans (repeat steps 1 -3)
9. Find out you have cancer
10. chemo for a year
11. every body has made a lot of money from you
12. you may live



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Radiation is good for you.
Stand REALLY close to your microwave, till you can feel the heat.
Power stations are great places to live next to,
There is NO RADON.

I am being extremely sarcastic!!!!****
Radiation even comes from the computer!
What are you going to do about it?
Salt lamps are kind of good, also copper screening.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Don't LCD screens give off a lot less radiation then the old CRT monitors??
I have spent a lot of time in front of a computer, even as a kid and i am fine i have no side effects
dirfililflobble
I have spent a lot of time in front of a computer, even as a kid and i am fine i have no side effects



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Microwaves and radiation from power lines are not ionizing radiation and are nothing like x-rays.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   


Cancer from CT Screenings?


I can see right through this propaganda. I was curious and searched google for just how much money is spent on CT scans, I found one number that stated Currently $158,500,000 is spent on CT scans and MR imaging scans . And that dollar number is just for prostate scanning.

This is the part of the start of propaganda to try and talk people into not getting expensive treatments. Just like the mammogram story a couple weeks ago.

Expect much much more propaganda on procedures that will be frowned upon by a "New study".

This is all a part of Health Care Reform. I will predict that many many more common procedures are going to be shunned within the next year.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by wiredamerican



Cancer from CT Screenings?


I can see right through this propaganda. I was curious and searched google for just how much money is spent on CT scans, I found one number that stated Currently $158,500,000 is spent on CT scans and MR imaging scans . And that dollar number is just for prostate scanning.

This is the part of the start of propaganda to try and talk people into not getting expensive treatments. Just like the mammogram story a couple weeks ago.

Expect much much more propaganda on procedures that will be frowned upon by a "New study".

This is all a part of Health Care Reform. I will predict that many many more common procedures are going to be shunned within the next year.


I don't understand?
who would benefit from not getting scans? everyone is making money

or are you referring to the government ?
to deter people from getting scans so they don't have to pay for it under the new Obama care??



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by wiredamerican
 


Why do you think this isn't true?

The fact that CT scans give out alot more radiation than common x-rays was known already.
It was discussed in old threads, but because the amount of evidence was limited and obscure, it was shunned by many sceptical members.

Now, this new study was done by a radiologist herself from UCSF, adding more evidence to the lack of standards in medicine.

Regarding mammograms, did you know it is possible today for women to get an alternative exam?

It is done by ultrasound, the detection accuracy in diameter is 5 milimeters.

See the details here, it was announced in august 2008 Physicists Develop Ultrasound Alternative To Mammograms

Not that great considering the chances of dying, but physicists are working on less toxic options that do not emit any radiation.

Thumbs up for ultrasound, often the less invasive option as demonstrated in kidney stones shattering and dental plaque/tartar weakening.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by wycky
 





or are you referring to the government ? to deter people from getting scans so they don't have to pay for it under the new Obama care??


Who would benefit is the insurance companies that lobbied for the current changes in health care being passed right now.

The less money the insurance companies have to pay for expensive procedures, the more profit they make. The shareholders of the insurance companies demand profit. The more the better.

If insurance companies had their way, they would take your monthly payment, and not pay any claims at all. But buisness does not work that way after all.

I do not have an opinion either way on this though, on one hand I want people to get the best state of the art care any time they wish it. On the other hand people who get expensive procedures when they are not needed drive up costs for all of us. I am in the middle somewhere.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by wycky
This way we
1. Go to the Doctor pay them to tell us we need a X-ray.
2. Then go get the X-ray and pay the radiologist to take the scan and right a report.
3. Then go back to the Doctor to read the report and tell us the X-ray shows nothing you should get a CT Sacn , and pay the doctor again.
4. Repeat the above steps 1-3 until a conclusion is reached.
5. Purchase drugs from chemist / do physio / surgery what ever is required.
6. Start to feel better
7. Get sick again
8. more CT scans (repeat steps 1 -3)
9. Find out you have cancer
10. chemo for a year
11. every body has made a lot of money from you
12. you may live


13. Or doctor gives you 6 months.
14. 6 months later you have not paid doctor
15. doctor gives you 6 more months



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Routine x-rays, including CT scans, are unnecessary and dangerous.

That said, I absorbed 250 rads a day (with rest periods) over a period of 6 weeks while undergoing radiation therapy. A total of 4,000 rads. I lost hair in the exposed areas but other than that and mild anemia, I really didn't notice a lot. Of course, that was 27 years ago and I was younger and stronger then. I did have a recurrence 5 years later which was treated with chemotherapy.

I don't think there's a lot of reason to panic over 6 or even 10 rads once a year.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by wycky
 


Yes, old CRTs are worse monitors than newer LCDs in radiation emittance.

Although just speculation, some people believe that the CRT radiation cause the infamous computer myopia/nearsightedness.

It can take a while longer to get myopia with LCDs.

I myself am a computer addict, spending like 6 hours in front of a monitor daily.

I have 2 degrees myopia in one eye and 1.75 in the other according to my last ophthalmologist examination.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Microwaves and radiation from power lines are not ionizing radiation and are nothing like x-rays.


Sorry for my lack of technical specificity;
How are they so different when you can get cancer from them all?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjjtir
reply to post by wycky
 


Yes, old CRTs are worse monitors than newer LCDs in radiation emittance.

Although just speculation, some people believe that the CRT radiation cause the infamous computer myopia/nearsightedness.

It can take a while longer to get myopia with LCDs.

I myself am a computer addict, spending like 6 hours in front of a monitor daily.

I have 2 degrees myopia in one eye and 1.75 in the other according to my last ophthalmologist examination.


That's interesting i better be careful, as far as i know my eyes are fine. From about the ages of 7-9 i got my first PC i have spent a bit of time in front of the computer, the last 8 years i have been working at least 8 hours a day in front of my PC, the i come home and jump on ATS LOL.
I better start eating some carrots!.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
This is a complicated issue. I am a radiographer with a BS in Radiology. This report is somewhat correct.

One of the problems in this field is that there are too many lax regulations on who can take xrays and do scans. I went to school 4 years at one of the countries top Radiology programs, and I am certified. There are programs out there that allow people to work under a limited license in as little a 8 weeks. The problem with this is that Dr's are looking for cheap labor so they hire these NCT's (non-certified technologists) and allow them to work beyond their scope of practice. They have no education in radiobiology or physics. So you end up with people taking xrays that have no idea how to use mA to reduce pt. dose. Same goes for some CT techs. People should only allow technologists that are ARRT certified take their xrays or scans. Most hospitals require this, but a lot of clinics do not.
However, the motivation behind this report I believe is once again about money. Recently, insurance companies have come to mandate that in order for facilities to be reimbursed for cat scans, they must be ACR (American College of Radiology) accredited. This costs each company approx. $8000. I agree there needs to be regulation, but this does nothing to stop unqualified techs operating the scanners (sounds like cap and trade huh?). Just because you are ACR accredited, doesn't change the fact the techs doing the scans don't know how to minimize pt. dose and still produce quality scans. Interestingly, this new mandate will cause many clinics to close, because they have old single slice scanners and would have to purchase new muti-slice scanners that run into the hundred of thousands of dollars to get ACR approved. Well, guess what? The muti-slice scanners require much higher doses of radiation to produce the images. It's pretty much a risk vs benefit thing. A higher quality scan can show more detail, but require higher doses while the single slice is not as detailed but give lower doses. Another problem is that Dr's are practicing defensive medicine in order to keep from being sued. This in turn causes them to order scans for ridiculous reasons.
Cat scans have saved millions of lives, again, risk vs benefit.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
As some other members have posted, it's a "risk vs benefit" problem.

CT scans have saved a multitude of lives.

However, the dose rates can add up over time.

There is x-ray imaging technology around that can dramatically reduce radiation dose rates (by a factor of approx 100 times) with significantly superior imaging results, but it is presently very expensive & not available to patients.

It's called phase contrast imaging.

The problem is that you need a monochromatic x-ray imaging system with the brightness of a medical beam-line at a synchrotron.

Here's a link to some interesting info from the Advanced Photon Source (the synchroton in Chicago).

www.biomedcentral.com...

It also appears that a monochromatic x-ray beam can achieve K-edge based imaging & K-edge based therapy, both requiring thousands of times less radiation & chemical/pharmaceutical enhancement.

There are 3-4 ongoing research projects that are trying to build small monochromatic x-ray devices that can be used for imaging & thereapy in a medical setting.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Maybe...maybe not]

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
this is not very shocking.

every time (even as a child) i got an xray (dental or er) i knew there would be some level of risk. i mean, give me a break ONE lead VEST is going to prevent all that radiation from getting to you...i mean, they have to walk out of the room and behind a wall just to give it to you.

but sometimes (as they always say) the need outweighs the risk. but come on, EVERYTHING gives you cancer and people only get these scans for emergencies, no? so even with the risk, without the scan there is a risk of something else?!

geez.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by double_frick
 

If the positioning is correct & the primary beam is well collimated, the lead protection works quite well.

The staff stand behind a screen or leave the room because if they don't, the extremely minor exposure they receive during each patient examination could accumulate to a problematic level over an imaging career of many years duration.






top topics



 
3

log in

join