Posted on 12/15/2009 10:56:22 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Radiation doses from computed tomographic (CT) scans are higher than previously thought and vary widely, even among the same types of examinations, two studies showed.
Radiation from medical tests is generally measured in units called millisieverts, or mSv. One mSv is equivalent to the estimated dose of background radiation the average American absorbs in a year.
In the first study, based on information from four San Francisco-area hospitals, median effective doses ranged from 2 mSv for a routine head scan to 31 mSv for a multiphase abdomen and pelvis scan, according to Dr. Rebecca Smith-Bindman of the University of California San Francisco, and her colleagues.
Radiation doses as low as 10 mSv have been linked to an increased cancer risk among survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb blasts, the researchers reported in the latest issue of the journal Archives of Internal Medicine.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
How many CT scans? 1..2..15?
Cue the lawyers . . .
No. The new health care police just don’t want you to have the procedure. They can’t stop you now, but they can spread lies. Just like the mammography lies.
Exactly what I thought. Interesting that this “information” comes out just as the Obamacare science flunkouts attempt to convince us that these darned CT things are dangerous.
I didn’t notice any info on how much radiation in excess of that 1 mS unit that one receives when living at high altitudes (such as Colorado) or during one 2 hour airline trip. (Hint...it can be a bit more than a CT scan, I believe.)
Great my boss just got a cat scan today for headaches...I don’t like hearing this at all. He is a great boss.
I had one done about a year and a half ago. A urine test found blood that wouldn’t quite go away so my doctor ordered a CT scan. The blood was caused by a bruised kidney so it was no big deal. All was well.
However, I found that due to the glow that emanates from the lower part of my body, I can read at night w/o turning on a light!
Not only that, it helps me save on my electrical bill!
Great. I’ve has at least 5 CTs of chest, abdomen and pelvis over the last 2 years. My next one is next month. Then I get 1 a year for 5 years. Wouldn’t it be ironic to survive pancreatic cancer and get some other cancer because of these? I probably glow in the dark.
As soon as ObamaCare passes, we will hear that going to the hospital to have babies is unhealthy and our expectant mothers should squat in the backyard as millions of women in other countries do. There will all kinds of helpful hints to keep us from accessing HellCare in the future.
This is an exaggeration based upon the LNT, Linear-No-Threshold, Model, which has been called into question by more than one study. Many scientists believe that the effects of exposure can be graphed in a J-shape, where low doses of radiation are actually beneficial, with risks from exposure developing somewhere between 100mSv and 1000mSv.
Get you CT scans when needed.
Don’t worry about it. The risk is minimal.
Then why does not Denver have the highest cancer rates in the nation? Nuke plant workers get more than that. This is another scare tactic to accomplish two things, scare people into refusing CT scans, so the government can cut costs when they take over, and get radiation scares back in the public eye to keep everyone scared of nuclear power.
The estimate of cancers is based upon the LNT (Linear, No-Threshold) theory that is official gospel, but is quietly being questioned by health physicists. This is the same theory that predicted hundreds of thousands of cancer cases in residents of the Chernobyl area by now.
‘Not only that, it helps me save on my electrical bill!”
And if your “electric bill” stays on for more than 4 hours, you should see an erectition.
....Bob
I just echoed you.....
First it's breast exams, then pap smears, now it's CT scans.
Next we will hear that going to the dentist more than every other year is bad for your teeth, artificial joints cause cancer, etc. everything medical that barely, if ever, raised a blip as being "risky" will now be deemed as life-threatening.
“Just like the mammography lies”
The first thing I thought of was the mammography data. Two revelations about “unsafe” medical practices right when the health care bill is about to pass.
You`re dead on! They`re just trial floating another rationing scheme,since they`re running into resistance,they`ve decided to do it piecemeal.It worked for their leftist agenda,which not the centerpiece of their socialist health-care agenda,rationing.
I agree with you that there may be a hormetic effect of low dose radiation, based upon animal experiments. Furthermore, risk varies inversely with age, so that the older you are, the less risk there is of radiation carcinogenesis. The risk of future breast cancer in young girls receiving "Mantle" radiation for Hodgkins Disease is significantly higher than in 30 year old women receiving the same treatment.
As in all aspects of medicine, the risks must be weighed against the benefits. I order quite a few CT scans on my oncology patients after treatment, but not doing so would risk not finding a recurrence when it is potentially treatable, before symptoms develop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.