It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dental X-rays linked to brain tumors

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
God forbid the evidence and facts don't add up with the fantasy that xrays are safe and should be treated like toys. Giving children brain tumors on an industrial widespread scale is absolutely unacceptable, especially considering half of those kids still have their baby teeth which fall out naturally anyways.

And since ionizing radiation increases the mutation rates of DNA, it is possible that x-ray exposure could actually increase the chance of the bacteria in your mouth mutating and becoming resistant to antibiotics more easily. A few simple experiments could verify that very likely possibility.



Dude, the study itself says there's no link that says these x rays actually caused the tumors. Just that there's a correlation. They also call into question why full mouth x rays showed no correlation at all when said radiation would be the same or more.

I'm not saying x rays are not harmful in any way or don't increase the odds. I am saying that if you spent your entire life worrying about all the different modern day agents that could cause cancer, you'd have to live in a bubble.

And you better hope it's not a plastic one.




posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by camus154

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Go suck up your x-rays dude. But when you have brain tumors and need a saw blade to cut open your skull to remove it, don't complain to me.


Boy, you're just all in a tizzy over dental x-rays, aren't you? I mean, God forbid someone isn't quaking in their boots like you are. God forbid someone thinks differently.

What an asshole I must be, right?


edit on 11-4-2012 by camus154 because: (no reason given)


God forbid the evidence and facts don't add up with the fantasy that xrays are safe and should be treated like toys. Giving children brain tumors on an industrial widespread scale is absolutely unacceptable, especially considering half of those kids still have their baby teeth which fall out naturally anyways.

And since ionizing radiation increases the mutation rates of DNA, it is possible that x-ray exposure could actually increase the chance of the bacteria in your mouth mutating and becoming resistant to antibiotics more easily. A few simple experiments could verify that very likely possibility.



good thread and glad you posted all the info. some people refuse to see the facts because it would upset their world far more than they are comfortable with, sad really. the doctor/ex dental employee especially since she would not be able to sleep at night nor even go to work if she didn't live in a selective world of denial, with big pharma, the failed FDA, big insurance and the corrupt AMA so heavy an influence on her life.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by ~Vixen~

The radiograph type you refer to as a Orthopantomogram, more commonly referred to in dental circles as a panograph, is a specialized type of exposure, and certainly not something that you receive (or should receive) on your annual dental visits. Because it does require that the camera head circle the patients head, it does expose the patient to higher radiation levels, but nothing on the scale that I would consider alarming, much less scandalous.


Referred to as Orthopantomogram by scientists who invented and designed it.

You go on claiming you shouldn't always be exposed to this type of crap but in reality the industry is already implementing it wide-scale.

You then admit that it IS more radiation, but cancer isn't a big deal don't worry right?

They are giving cancer to children in the millions. And people blow it off? It's technically involuntary mass-manslaughter due to negligence.

You cannot prevent cancer by exposing people to low-level ionizing radiation. This is illogical, does not compute.
Ionizing radiation causes cancer.

The worst part about this is, that all of the big Cancer Foundations and the Medical Equipment Industry is totally involved in the cover up of this factual reality. They are giving people cancer to increase the need for their existences, to increase their wealth and influence, etc.

This is one of the biggest conspiracies of all time because it affects vast sections of society, by giving each and every one of us incredible risks for cancer development (which are much higher than had we not been exposed to these things in the first place).
edit on 11-4-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)


What field do you work in? What experience do you have in the dental field?

You see what you want to see, even if those with experience tell you otherwise. You're so desperate to find conspiracy, that you callously attack me for giving HONEST AND ACCURATE information in your thread. Your EU report refers to things that you fail to understand, yet you insist on making broad statements of "fact" that can't be backed up because they're absolutely untrue.

NOTHING I posted was inaccurate.

When you go to the dentist, what type of x-ray do they take?

Option #1
=
= Bitewing

Option #2
=
= Panograph = Orthopantomogram Wikipedia citation - read paragraph #1


If you compare the two, it's pretty easy to discern the differences:

- Digital bitewings are more detailed, and effective at detecting cavities. Standard exposure time is approx 1 second. Standard setting is approx 65 kV.

- Panographs display the entire oral cavity, and are used to determine tooth and bone structure relative to the existing dentition. They're commonly used to predict the position of incoming teeth in preparation for things like braces. They're also used to diagnose location of unerupted wisdom teeth to determine if the toot will be impacted, i.e. "stuck" under the 2nd molar. Standard exposure time is approx 10-15 seconds. I don't have a reference on effective dosage, but feel free to look it up if you doubt my integrity.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

good thread and glad you posted all the info. some people refuse to see the facts because it would upset their world far more than they are comfortable with, sad really. the doctor/ex dental employee especially since she would not be able to sleep at night nor even go to work if she didn't live in a selective world of denial, with big pharma, the failed FDA, big insurance and the corrupt AMA so heavy an influence on her life.


Denial of what? That it's safe? That the health risk from a dentist visit is grossly insignificant compared to the drive from your house to the dentist office?

This is ATS, where the motto is deny ignorance. When people post facts that can easily be verified via google, how can you dispute it with a straight face?

I'm living up to that motto and denying ignorance of fact through presentation of verifiable proof.
edit on 4/11/2012 by ~Vixen~ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Vixen~
 


You are scientifically incorrect about the safety of x-ray exposure/dosage.

If it was so safe, there would be no need for lead shielding.

You can't just post a few pics of x-rays, say a few remarks about them, fail to mention the exact measurements of radiation exposure/dosage people receive, and then act like it's all for your good health.

Your only resort is to ask what are my certifications? I am not the subject, the safety of X-rays is the subject matter and it has NO bearing on my status socially.

Also, in many of these places they claim they are doing "cancer screenings" with the x-ray machines, in conjunction with various cancer foundations to "prevent cancer", when in reality it actually increases cancer rates by significant % rates.

I will not give up until people learn to RESPECT these dangerous machines and use them sparingly only in life threatening situations or with older folks who won't live 40 years to see the brain tumor anyways.

What's so wrong with wanting to stop xraying kids all the time? We should avoid cancer rather than facilitate it.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by ~Vixen~
 


You are scientifically incorrect about the safety of x-ray exposure/dosage.

If it was so safe, there would be no need for lead shielding.

You can't just post a few pics of x-rays, say a few remarks about them, fail to mention the exact measurements of radiation exposure/dosage people receive, and then act like it's all for your good health.

Your only resort is to ask what are my certifications? I am not the subject, the safety of X-rays is the subject matter and it has NO bearing on my status socially.

Also, in many of these places they claim they are doing "cancer screenings" with the x-ray machines, in conjunction with various cancer foundations to "prevent cancer", when in reality it actually increases cancer rates by significant % rates.

I will not give up until people learn to RESPECT these dangerous machines and use them sparingly only in life threatening situations or with older folks who won't live 40 years to see the brain tumor anyways.

What's so wrong with wanting to stop xraying kids all the time? We should avoid cancer rather than facilitate it.


The last I'll say in regards to your thread: If you're afraid of the minimal radiation received from having dental x rays taken, then don't have them done. SIMPLE.

I don't have a problem with your fear of radiation, but I do find your irrational fear mongering to be alarming, especially when you make blatantly false claims based on documents you don't understand, viciously attack people who try to clarify the confusion, and deny the validity of easily verifiable evidence simply because it runs counter to your agenda.

I asked about your qualifications, because you obviously have very little understanding of radiation levels and the amounts required to cause the harm that you are trying to alarm people about. Cancer happens, true, but radiation already surrounds us everyday. You get radiation naturally from simple sunlight, and though exposing yourself to sunlight increases you susceptibility to cancer, I don't see anyone foregoing their trip to Hawaii or cancelling their Bahamas cruise.

I don't deny that radiation is bad, but you're blowing the levels so out of proportion that I would classify it as gross paranoia. Extraordinary precautions, such as lead aprons, are put in place to offer additional protection, but I'd surmise that nothing short of placing you in a 2 foot thick lead bubble would ease your fears.

Phobias happen. Consider getting help and professional advice.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

good thread and glad you posted all the info. some people refuse to see the facts because it would upset their world far more than they are comfortable with, sad really. the doctor/ex dental employee especially since she would not be able to sleep at night nor even go to work if she didn't live in a selective world of denial, with big pharma, the failed FDA, big insurance and the corrupt AMA so heavy an influence on her life.


Tried to get to sleep but this post was bugging the hell ot of me so I had to come back to respond...

Do you know me? Have you ever met me in real life? If not, then how dare you make claims that insinuate that I'm incapable of facing life for what its worth, that I lack morals, and that I'm a mindless drone that has no mind of her own.

You accuse me of being in a selective world of denial, but I think that I'm about the most grounded one in this thread because I'm not blinded by conspiracy theories and am able to separate facts from fiction. You seem to think that denying something is always a bad thing. I disagree. Denying truth is a bad thing.

Regarding "big pharma," I'm not sure where you get your information, but not all doctors are unscrupulous whores who would sell out humanity to make a quick buck. If you've followed some of my other posts you would know that I advocate alternative medical treatments, however just because a treatment is labeled "alternative" doesn't mean that it's a good option.

I've refrained from endorsing treatments that people have asked about, but I've done so because I either don't believe it's the best course of treatment, or I believe that said treatment plan is a scam designed to prey on desperate hopes, or because I'm smart enough to know that giving any professional advice without having full knowledge and patient disclosure can lead to inaccurate diagnosis and jeopardize a persons health and well being. It's a gross violation of medical ethics, and it opens the door to extreme legal liability.

Do you honestly think that I'm in bed with the insurance companies? You have no idea how badly the insurance companies treat doctors. They forcibly extort tens of thousands from us for malpractice coverage, they run us around when we file claims for reimbursement, and they deny claims based on technicalities which is tantamount to stealing the money directly from our pockets.

NOBODY despises those entities more than I do, and I'm infuriated that you would associate me with such groups absent any knowledge of who I am ar what my ethical standards are.

All I've ever done in this thread was offer accurate advice, but I'm coming to realize that people don't want accurate information, just information that fits whatever agenda or conspiracy theory they wish to promote.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Vixen~

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

good thread and glad you posted all the info. some people refuse to see the facts because it would upset their world far more than they are comfortable with, sad really. the doctor/ex dental employee especially since she would not be able to sleep at night nor even go to work if she didn't live in a selective world of denial, with big pharma, the failed FDA, big insurance and the corrupt AMA so heavy an influence on her life.


Denial of what? That it's safe? That the health risk from a dentist visit is grossly insignificant compared to the drive from your house to the dentist office?

This is ATS, where the motto is deny ignorance. When people post facts that can easily be verified via google, how can you dispute it with a straight face?

I'm living up to that motto and denying ignorance of fact through presentation of verifiable proof.
edit on 4/11/2012 by ~Vixen~ because: (no reason given)


i'm unsure making a straw argument about driving a vehicle's dangers as apposed to x-rays is a solid argument.

one of my best friends is a general surgeon and my wife manages a large doctors office, please save the speech, i know how things are these days and that's not a put down on you in anyway.

P.S.

i wrote that reply even before reading yours above ^^

again i'm not putting you down, on the contrary i know exactly what you're saying and how increasingly difficult it is to be a doctor and care for a patient with how completely corrupt and screwed up the system has become.

doctors make a good living and they should, but they're not getting rich, only a few are getting rich at the expense of patients and doctors and that is big pharma and big insurance.
edit on 12-4-2012 by LittleBlackEagle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Dear Vixen,

Thank you for bringing some reality to this thread.

Your posts were well formed and highly informative. It's always a pleasure to see someone with both expertise and good old fashioned common sense attempt to put a stop to the hysteria train.

Your efforts haven't gone unnoticed



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Vixen~
 


You are so afraid that I am right ( and I am 100% scientifically correct about the danger of X-ray machines ) , that you have NO resort but to insult me personally and try to use ad hominem approaches to distract from the true debate about the danger of x-rays??

Am I afraid of a sword? No, but I will start yelling at people when I see little kids running around all over the place with swords. Same with any other dangerous technology that is being misused and endangering children's lives unnecessarily.

Calling me paranoid and saying I need to get help is a very weak and pathetic method of debate.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by camus154
Dear Vixen,

Thank you for bringing some reality to this thread.

Your posts were well formed and highly informative. It's always a pleasure to see someone with both expertise and good old fashioned common sense attempt to put a stop to the hysteria train.

Your efforts haven't gone unnoticed


Dear Camus, please stop being afraid of the truth and reality of the scientifically provable danger posed by x-rays to organic tissues.

Please pick up a physics book.
Please turn to the section on "Ionizing Radiation" and examine the information presented.

I implore you to reject being a follower of the status quo and to take a real stand against cancer and say NO to the pharmaceutical (and radiology equipment) industries who are purposely poisoning people in order to create a steady customer base.

Stop treating X-ray machines like toys and zapping every person that walks in the door.
Use them only for medical emergencies....duh!



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Well, anyway.

I'm off to live my life.

Sorry, guy. But your battle cry has fallen on deaf ears. There are much more important issues at hand!



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
As said earlier, if you're that concerned about radiation, don't have x-rays done.

For those other members who may want to decide for themselves how dangerous the dosages are, I present the following from the ADA website: Source: ADA

In essence:

- full mouth series of bitewing x-rays (18-20 exposures, 1x per year***) = ~0.15 mSv;
- cosmic radiation (natural radiation from outer space) = ~0.51 mSv;
- atmospheric radiation = ~3.0 mSv;

*** Since children have smaller mouths, an x ray covers more area and they require fewer exposures/shots... i.e. less exposure

You get approx 4 times more naturally occurring radiation from outer space than you do from an annual set of 18-20 x-rays.

You get approx 20 times more naturally occurring radiation from earths atmosphere than you do from an annual set of 18-20 x-rays.

If you don't agree with these numbers, or if you don't trust these numbers because they come from the ADA, feel free to provide credible evidence to the contrary.


edit on 4/12/2012 by ~Vixen~ because: thanks for the comment Camus!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join