Radiation From CT Scans Linked To Cancers, Deaths

[Purveyor]

Source: USA TODAY

By Liz Szabo

CT scans deliver far more radiation than previously believed and may contribute to 29,000 new cancers each year, along with 14,500 deaths, suggest two studies in today's Archives of Internal Medicine. One study, led by the National Cancer Institute's Amy Berrington de Gonzalez, used existing exposure data to estimate how many cancers might be caused by CT scans.

Another study in the journal suggests the problem may even be worse. In that study, researchers found that people may be exposed to up to four times as much radiation as estimated by earlier studies. While previous studies relied on dummies equipped with sensors, authors of the new paper studied 1,119 patients at four San Francisco-area hospitals, says author Rebecca-Smith Bindman of the University of California-San Francisco. Based on those higher measurements, a patient could get as much radiation from one CT scan as 74 mammograms or 442 chest X-rays, she says.

Young people are at highest risk from excess radiation, partly because they have many years ahead of them in which cancers could develop, Smith-Bindman says. Among 20-year-old women who get one coronary angiogram, a CT scan of the heart, one in 150 will develop cancer related to the procedure.

Not all doctors agree about those risks. Scientists have not yet determined whether low doses of radiation really increase cancer risk, or if cancer risk goes up only after exposure levels reach a certain threshhold, says James Thrall, chair of the American College of Radiology.

He says it's also tricky to compare cancer rates between people who've had CT scans with those who haven't. People undergoing scans may have underlying health problems that predispose them to cancer, he says.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-12-15-radiation15_st_N.htm

[rfranklin]

1. What a bargain! It only cost me $1250 and I got a cancer with it!

Can't beat it!

[bemildred]

2. Well heck, who knew radiation was bad for people? nt

[Downwinder]

5. Madame Curie

[girl gone mad]

10. sadly, not until it was too late.

lots of people who worked on the Manhattan Project also didn't understand the risks well enough.

[Downwinder]

12. nor did my family downwind of the Nevada tests.

[enlightenment]

3. Well, that bites.

Not that I've had many, but I can't have MRI's so on those (rare) occasions when they wanted that sort of diagnostic tool, they've shuffled me off to CT instead.

*mutter*

edited to add:

Something else to add to my "things to worry about when I wake up at 3 am and can't get back to sleep" list.

[Posteritatis]

4. Something linked to something. Film at 11. (nt)

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. An earlier report said it was because of improper operation of the machine.

Quoth Mr. D. who says he read said report some time ago.

So, the MRI dyes have been found to contain a deadly chemical that will kill you, and the
CT scans will over radiate you.
and we pay how much money to hospitals to use these things on us???

[doc03]

7. Oh that's great news, the doctor discovered a spot

on my lung 1 1/2 years ago and he has me going for a CT scan every 6 months to see if it changes. So what they are saying is eventually if they give me enough CT scans it will change. He claims I have to have one every 6 months for 2 years then if nothing changes I can have an x-ray once a year. Something tells me on my last CT scan he will claim the spot has changed. My CT scans cost $2265.65 each, so 5 of them is $11328.25, then in the end they will most likely get another windfall from surgery.

[Wilms]

15. The stress involved can't be that good either.

:scared:

[WriteDown]

21. I'm surprised he did not give you a PET scan?

Maybe you should ask about that.

[doc03]

22. Probably because it is either more expensive or

not available locally.

[WriteDown]

23. They are insanely expensive even with insurance...

but usually the frontline of diagnosis if you have a hotspot. They are pretty widespread these days though.

[SharonAnn]

30. They are MUCH more expensive.

[kimmerspixelated]

25. Yep that's just one reason to avoid MSM

Mainstream Medicine is dangerous to your health. It really is an evil system.

[ThomCat]

8. Yay. Something to look forward to.

:(

I've had so many CT scans I don't really remember how many it has been over the years any more. The same for X-rays.

Cancer already runs in my family, hitting 5 people so far, including both of my parents. I don't need anything increasing my risk. With all my existing health issues I really wish I didn't have to worry about shit like this too. :(

[whathehell]

11. Right there with ya......This sucks.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. Most expensive AND best healthcare system on the planet if you

can stand a few side effects from the cure.

[mbperrin]

13. Sounds like insurance companies need a "good" reason to deny

expensive care.

"My gawd, man, don't take a chance with a scan! Your HMO has authorized us to tell you to take two aspirin and don't call back any more."

[DainBramaged]

14. Great, it's bad enough having TWO brain tumors removed in my lifetime

but thanks to the hospital I was at for my last one. couldn't do an MRI with all the tubes and shunts hooked up (they didn't have an open MRI just the old-fashioned torpedo tube) to me my brain was hit with a CT scan........If my head explodes you'll know why.

[hedgehog]

16. I don't have time to read this now. I'm late for my annual mammogram.

[JCMach1]

17. crap

:(

I don't need cancer with that kidney stone

[chimpyisstillsatan]

18. That which does not kill you...

The risks described in the OP are very poorly understood, hence the need for this study in the first place. These findings are major extrapolations from relatively variable data. This means that the estimates are highly error-prone. In other words, they're almsot certainly wrong in terms of the absolute risk.

It remains to be seen, but I'm open to the possibility that these findings may even be the complete opposite of Truth.

There is a poorly understood phenomenon in biology called "hormesis," where low doses of stressors actually lead a system to become more resistant to higher, subsequent doses of later stressors, regardless of the nature of either stress. It sounds paradoxical, but low level radiation can cause a predictable and measureable effect (i.e., it's not homeopathy) that includes resistance to subsequent, higher exposure to radiation.

http://tinyurl.com/ydejec9

It's paradoxical, I know, but the evidence in support of diagnostics like CT scans in extending life is well established, while the new data is...well, new. If you have a family history or unambiguous symptoms that call for a scan like this, think carefully about foregoing it.

[bemildred]

19. Well, how it affects you all depends on dosage and frequency.

Which is true of almost anything in life when you think about it. I can certainly agree that the medical community is fooling with "treatments" that are not well understood at times.

[Tracer]

20. I've had more CT scans than I can count.

And a couple of PET scans too.

I'm due for another one in January and will keep the appointment.

CT scans have caught my recurrent cancer EARLY, at a point where it hadn't spread and could be removed surgically.

This detection is fine by me!

[doc03]

24. It's good to hear it has worked out for you, but

what if they are just observing what they call a lesion to see if it changes? They discovered one on my lung about 1 1/2 years ago about the size of a pencil eraser, now they give me a CT scan every 6 months. The doctor says he doesn't think it is cancer but he wants to observe it. I am concerned about how much radiation it is going to take to make it cancer. I don't trust doctors I wouldn't be surprised if they do this just to get more money out of insurance companies.

[chimpyisstillsatan]

32. wow. really?

If that's how little you trust your doctor, maybe it's time to find a new one?

[Brother Buzz]

26. I'm having my biannual CAT scan on Tuesday on the biggest, fastest, newest machine in my area

I consider the tech a friend and will be asking more questions even after he volunteered the radiation dose on his 'baby' was safer than the older machines because of the shorter exposure time.

[skoalyman]

28. That could be true maybe they were using an older machine

for the study.

[Brother Buzz]

29. The other machines aren't necessarily old

They are basically the work horses in the industry, but you may be correct. I'll have my questions answered on Tuesday.

[skoalyman]

27. So an mri doesnt use radiation hm sounds safer unless you have metal in your body.

Wikipedia search results for: Magnetic resonance imaging
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (redirected from mri scan), or nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, is primarily a medical imaging technique most commonly used in radiology to visualize the internal structure and function of the body. MRI provides much greater contrast between the different soft tissues of the body than computed tomography does, making it especially useful in neurological, musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and oncological imaging. Unlike CT, it uses no ionizing radiation, but uses a powerful magnetic field to align the nuclear magnetization of hydrogen atoms in water in the body

[SharonAnn]

31. Unfortunately, with spinal fusion and rods, hooks and screws along my spine, no MRIs for me.