Cancer from CT Screenings?, page 1


Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 14-12-2009 @ 09:27 PM by wycky
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


reply posted on 14-12-2009 @ 09:30 PM by Johnmike
reply to post by Clearskies



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


reply posted on 14-12-2009 @ 10:10 PM by jjjtir
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.


reply posted on 14-12-2009 @ 10:18 PM by wiredamerican
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.


reply posted on 15-12-2009 @ 02:28 PM 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.


reply posted on 15-12-2009 @ 07:45 PM by Clearskies
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?


reply posted on 17-12-2009 @ 07:04 AM by wycky
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!.


reply posted on 17-12-2009 @ 08:50 AM by sickofitall2012
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.


reply posted on 19-12-2009 @ 08:06 PM by Maybe...maybe not
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.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Cooking With Aluminum Foil Should Be Avoided
  Posted 16 days ago with 43 member flags
"US teen invents advanced cancer test using Google"
  Posted 17 days ago with 38 member flags
A virus that kills cancer: the cure that\'s waiting in the cold
  Posted 6 days ago with 21 member flags
Stem cells bring back feeling for paralysed patients
  Posted 7 days ago with 7 member flags
Gruenenthal\'s thalidomide apology \'insulting\'
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags