[Trampled by Lambs]

So the CT scans I have to do every 6 months to make sure my kidney cancer is not recurred could give me cancer...


Hmmmmm....

[NonValueAdded]

The radiation dose from a full-body CT scan is comparable to the doses received by some of the atomic-bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

OK, but what does that mean? People 100 feet from ground zero? 1,000 yards? 100 miles? Can anyone express the dose in something the layman can understand like "the same as n,nnn chest x-rays"? Are they talking about the equipment in use now or the earliest models? Is there a different way of getting a full body scan? is there a method we should be asking for? or a method we should be refusing?

[Born Conservative]

Ping

[prion]

Grain of salt time.

Doctors absolutely hate the advent of shopping mall CT scans. It reduces their product to a mere commodity (in a shopping mall! Next to the Orange Julius!) and gives consumers control of their own medical investigation.

[Boundless]

> ... full- body computed tomography (CT) scan,
> could increase the risk of cancer mortality.

OK, so why not get a full-body MRI instead?

And why doesn't the article mention this?

[lightman]

The medical-industrial complex is more insidious than the "military-industrial complex".

[azhenfud]

Is the associated cancer incidents due to more effective searches or due to the CT procedures itself?

I would propose the success of CT tests are more the reality.

[elbucko]

However, a 45-year-old who has annual full-body CT scans for 30 years would accrue an estimated lifetime cancer mortality risk of about 1.9 percent or almost one in 50.

But if it saves just ONE life it's worth it. right?

Huh! That theory only applies to banning guns?

Never mind. (/sarcasm)

[Peach]

Just terrific. I've had 3.

[Paradox]

I had a couple of torso scans for a kidney problem, I had always suspected that this would be the case.