A dose of radiation in exchange for a peek inside our bodies to see what’s happening.
I guess that is the trade off.
I can’t speak for CT since I don’t have much experience with it, but a lot of practitioners scoff at the potential damage of Xrays and perform them anyways “just in case” something could be wrong. That being said, Xrays subject the patient to far less radiation than CT.
“I need a scan; do I have cancer?”
“No.”
“I need a scan; do I have cancer?”
“No.”
“I need a scan; do I have cancer?”
“No.”
“I need a scan; do I have cancer?”
“No.”
“I need a scan; do I have cancer?”
“Well now you do.”
Mmmm…cancer. Yum. I like my fatty red meat grilled on a charcoal grill, just because of that extra layer of charcoal-y fossil fueling carcinogens. Gives the meat added body and taste.
Seriously. You’re gonna biff it from something in this world, and the author wants to pick on CT scans that have literally saved 10s of thousands of lives?
Yeah, okay. Wake me up when there’s something actually worrisome going on.
I’ve had 4 total MRIs for my neck and back over a 2 year span, I get a chest CT scan every 2-3 years, they’re watching something on my lungs. So far so good. I had my sinuses scanned 2 years back. No wonder I glow in the dark…
We are probably in greater danger from what they do to our food and all the plastic water bottles everyone seems to be in love with.
Rob
Well standing in the sun gives you cancer too sooo…
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
I’ve had 4 total MRIs for my neck and back over a 2 year span, I get a chest CT scan every 2-3 years, they’re watching something on my lungs. So far so good. I had my sinuses scanned 2 years back. No wonder I glow in the dark…
We are probably in greater danger from what they do to our food and all the plastic water bottles everyone seems to be in love with.
Rob[/quote]
MRI isn’t x-ray. There is no ionizing radiation. So, your only half as bad off as you may have thought.
And I agree, I worry more about our food than medical imaging, by a long shot.
“Well, your test results are in, and there is good news and bad news. The good news is that before the CT scan, you didn?t have cancer. The bad news is that we need you to come back in a month for another CT scan to confirm that the first CT scan didn?t give you cancer.”
[quote]Dr J wrote:
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
I’ve had 4 total MRIs for my neck and back over a 2 year span, I get a chest CT scan every 2-3 years, they’re watching something on my lungs. So far so good. I had my sinuses scanned 2 years back. No wonder I glow in the dark…
We are probably in greater danger from what they do to our food and all the plastic water bottles everyone seems to be in love with.
Rob[/quote]
MRI isn’t x-ray. There is no ionizing radiation. So, your only half as bad off as you may have thought.
And I agree, I worry more about our food than medical imaging, by a long shot.[/quote]
When I came into this thread I expected the link to be sourcing information about how dangerous our food, city water, products we use on our body, products we store our food in, etc.
could care less if there’s a little radiation in a ct scanner. there’s probably more in my chinese made dishware.
Tell your mom I’m just gonna get a little bit of cancer, Stan.
I work as a nurse in an ER and I see this all the time. The CT scan thing is funny because a lot of physicians are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Scan and miss something, you’re screwed and you have a sit down with quality assurance, the board, and maybe a lawyer or two. Scan and don’t find anything (when there wasn’t much suspicion anyway) and you just cost the system a lot of money and exposed somebody to radiation (more importantly you cost the system a lot of money).
We tend to avoid having CT’s on children unless there’s strong suspicion and even then, they’ll more than likely will try to get the MRI done or base it off an ultrasound. For adults, we have a new protocol in place that if a person has X amount of CT’s done in a year, they’ll have a surgery consult done right off the bat and combine old CT results with that day’s presentation to avoid doing a new CT.
This article does not represent current state of knowledge in this field, and makes many misleading statements. I have presented a line-by-line criticism of the article in my blog which is available at: http://are-we-really-giving-ourselves-cancer.blogspot.com/
CT scans are safe, and the present concerns regarding radiation dose from CT scans are not justified by any evidence.
My wife’s doctor must believe it. He insists on doing manual breast exams on her.
[quote]on edge wrote:
My wife’s doctor must believe it. He insists on doing manual breast exams on her.[/quote]
Problem I think is a combo of factors.
Better detection. We can find cancer really easy right now.
Environmental. North America burns the most fossil fuels on the planet. Has nobody ever wondered what that effect might have on our bodies? Also all the nukes you guys have tested might have more of an impact then you might think. Along with toxic waste and disposal
Food Consumption, crap food and low wages to buy crap food will have a bad result. We all know this.
From all that could get you some higher cancer rates.
[quote]Dr J wrote:
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
I’ve had 4 total MRIs for my neck and back over a 2 year span, I get a chest CT scan every 2-3 years, they’re watching something on my lungs. So far so good. I had my sinuses scanned 2 years back. No wonder I glow in the dark…
We are probably in greater danger from what they do to our food and all the plastic water bottles everyone seems to be in love with.
Rob[/quote]
MRI isn’t x-ray. There is no ionizing radiation. So, your only half as bad off as you may have thought.
And I agree, I worry more about our food than medical imaging, by a long shot.[/quote]
MRI gotta be worth something. They always give me this dosage card after the MRI… you have been exposed to… blah, blah, blah.
I’m not worried at all. I figure that the CT scans I get are worth the risk over lung cancer that gets discovered later than sooner.
But what is driving all the cancers that we now hear of that were non-existent years back? Pancreatic cancer used to be extremely rare, now its commonplace.
Rob
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
[quote]Dr J wrote:
[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
I’ve had 4 total MRIs for my neck and back over a 2 year span, I get a chest CT scan every 2-3 years, they’re watching something on my lungs. So far so good. I had my sinuses scanned 2 years back. No wonder I glow in the dark…
We are probably in greater danger from what they do to our food and all the plastic water bottles everyone seems to be in love with.
Rob[/quote]
MRI isn’t x-ray. There is no ionizing radiation. So, your only half as bad off as you may have thought.
And I agree, I worry more about our food than medical imaging, by a long shot.[/quote]
MRI gotta be worth something. They always give me this dosage card after the MRI… you have been exposed to… blah, blah, blah.
I’m not worried at all. I figure that the CT scans I get are worth the risk over lung cancer that gets discovered later than sooner.
But what is driving all the cancers that we now hear of that were non-existent years back? Pancreatic cancer used to be extremely rare, now its commonplace.
Rob[/quote]
PURE SPECULATION here!!
I have wondered the same thing, as I personally know two people affected by pancreatic cancer. I wonder about the amount of sugar (and simple carbs in general) the “average” American eats and how much insulin that “average” person then has to create. I remember reading recently that the average blood insulin levels today are MUCH higher than in the past (I enjoy reading and remember the jest of the things I read, but I’m terrible at remembering the details); I don’t remember the specific amount but I was shocked. So all this insulin is being produced by the pancreas, and I wonder if people are just working the shit out of the poor thing and if that has ANYTHING to do with increased cancer rate.