Posted on 12/15/2009 10:56:22 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Yet another story essentially saying “less medical care is for your own good.”
How else can tumor activity be monitored?
I believe exactly NONE of this.
What’s the BEST way to get you to stop using an expensive and effective diagnostic technique?
Scare you into refusing it.
LINKING is not proving. LINKING, in fact, isn’t even indication of a positive correlation between cause and effect.
I’d call this some of the most irresponsible journalism this side of global warming hogwash.
In otherwords, this is pure bullshit. I would LOVE for actual scientific methodology to come back into vogue for just three months in this country.
It would mean that low-does radioactivity use in killing cancers would also cause a ton of other spin-off cancers. It isn’t. (There’s a technique in which very small open sources are placed inside of tumors to kill them, which they do.)
As expected.
The Model A Ford and Safety pins were invented and released the same year, PROVING that safety pins cause auto accidents.
Prior to the safety pin, there were NO Auto accidents. The Science is settled and not open to debate.
Journalist fool. Those were inhaled/ingested nuclides incorporated into tissue. I suppose everyone living in Denver or the Four Corners region is "gonna catch cancer and die" because they are a few times background from cosmic rays or natural gamma? This article needs a good shredding.
Government says decrease CT scans, Government says decrease mammograms. Government says no need for vaccines in certain groups. What is the common thread?
That logic holds that since we know that if one person swallowed 100 aspirin tablets, they will die. Therefore if 100 people each take one aspirin tablet, one of them will die.
Enter not into distress, nor hysteria. Notice the lack of any numbers for exposure. None. This is, as noted, hype to get people to not want the diagnstic tools available, as they are expensive and would cost FedGov many dollars to use IF you needed and wanted it.
>> This is a ruse to prepare you for rationed health care. <<
1000% correct!
For those of us more familiar with rem (Roentgen Equivalent Man) measures, 1 sievert = 100 rem, so 1 millisievert = 100 mrem.
In past, US government standards for nuclear industry workers was a maximum annual exposure dose of 6 mrem to known radiation sources, as determined by a radiation badge. This was not much, but took into account exposures from other sources. For example, a chest X-Ray would give a person from 5-10 mrem, ordinary background radiation would give you about 300-350 mrem, and one and a half packs of cigarettes would give a person about 1300 mrem a year.
So, according to the article, the conversion factors would be:
“2 mSv (200 mrem) for a routine head scan to 31 mSv (3100 mrem) for a multiphase abdomen and pelvis scan.”
Doses of radiation less than 100 rem are regarded as “subclinical”, but can cause changes in the blood, and can inhibit the immune system about a month after exposure. The assumption that it might cause cancers in the long term is probable, but accurate estimations are difficult.
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.