One CT scan = 400 x-rays!

[golden]

Higher contrast ct scans can be as much as 700 x-rays.

Medics are violating patients informed consent again - oops.

https://nwhn.org/getting-burned-radiation-exposure-ct-scans

" The cancer-causing effects of CT scans are not well-known, even among physicians who regularly order or interpret these scans. One study interviewed patients who came to an Emergency Department (ED) with abdominal or flank pain and who had received a diagnostic CT scan. The patients were asked if the risks and benefits of CT scans had been explained to them, if radiation doses had been mentioned, and if they believed that CT scans increased the lifetime risk of cancer.(8: Lee)

Participants were then asked to estimate a CT scan’s radiation dose, compared to a chest X-ray. ED doctors (who routinely order diagnostic CT scans) and radiologists (who interpret the scans) were also asked variations on these questions.

Only 3% of patients and 9% of ED docs knew that CT scans increased the lifetime risk of cancer; amazingly, only 47% of radiologists surveyed answered the cancer risk question correctly. On estimates of radiation doses from CT scans vs. chest X-ray, most believed that CT scans provided 2--10 times the radiation dose of a chest X-ray (64% of patients, 44% of ED docs, and 56% of radiologists chose this answer from five options)

. In truth, CT scans provide a radiation dose 100--250 times higher than a chest X-ray. Only 22% of the ED docs and 13% of radiologists got it right (none of the patients guessed that high). Understandably, patients were not informed of risks unknown to their doctors: 78% of the ED docs stated that they had not outlined risks and benefits of CT scan radiation to patients. Almost all (93%) of patients reported that CT scans’ risks and benefits had not been outlined to them.(8: lee)

Ironically, patients are routinely asked to sign a consent form that tells them about rare but serious complications and deaths (1 in 400,000) caused by the iodinated contrast material often injected during CT scans. The forms usually do not mention cancer risk, which is probably far more common (although it may occur many years later).(9: Martin) "

 

[golden]

"http://kidneysteps.com/2012/07/do-you-really-need-that-ct-scan/

What are the alternatives? This Nurse wishes patients would ask.

" A June 2012 study published in Archives of Internal Medicine suggested that cancer risk in children who receive a CT scan is especially high. The study covered 23 years and evidenced that otherwise healthy children who received CT scans after falls or accidents or to diagnose infections were three times as likely to develop brain cancer and four times as likely to be diagnosed with leukemia as those not receiving the scans. "

My friend is looking into Medical Thermal imaging.

I have just changed my views on ct scans since i did not know this.

 

[WillowJ]

Some of my docs are aware of this (that CT has lots of radiation). There was a campaign to have doctors think about total life exposure to radiation, but I don't know how prevalent it was (did it not get to UK at all?)

I try to ask for MRI instead. In addition to the radiation problem, I do react to the CT iodine-based contrast agent, and this is potentially life-threatening.

 

[soulfeast]

That's a bit sensationalist. I've been looking into cat scans because have to have to follow up for lung fibrosis and for sinus disease that has to be dealt with. There are low dose high contract machines.

http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/?pg=sfty_xray

http://www.xrayrisk.com/calculator/calculator.php

 

[taniaaust1]

Only 3% of patients and 9% of ED docs knew that CT scans increased the lifetime risk of cancer; amazingly, only 47% of radiologists surveyed answered the cancer risk question correctly. On estimates of radiation doses from CT scans vs. chest X-ray, most believed that CT scans provided 2--10 times the radiation dose of a chest X-ray (64% of patients, 44% of ED docs, and 56% of radiologists chose this answer from five options)

All I can say to that is WOW. One would expect the doctors and esp the radiologists to know. and WOW I would of never guessed it was so much either.

This kind of thing demonstates why I so little trust doctors as I know as most of the time they knowledge about treatments and other stuff they do eg vaccination is another example, is quite low.

 

[Martial]

I have only ever had one CT scan, seems unnecessary too with the use of MRI technology and the like now. MRI has its own lesser known issues though, the most ironic thing is people getting CT the most are those with cancer, either to track tumor growth, remission status, etc..

 

[golden]

Some of my docs are aware of this (that CT has lots of radiation). There was a campaign to have doctors think about total life exposure to radiation, but I don't know how prevalent it was (did it not get to UK at all?)

I try to ask for MRI instead. In addition to the radiation problem, I do react to the CT iodine-based contrast agent, and this is potentially life-threatening.

I have looked at the UK situation but its lagging behind - it was covered via the media and the NHS stated it was correctly reported.

However, certainly no Doctor has ever mentioned these risks when i have accompanied seversl people over the years for CT scanning.

Yes, the chemicals, i cant find any safety studies done on it for those with M.E. Chemical sensitivities.

The doctors were very good at highlighting this risk of death - 2 in a million. interestingly no mention Ever of this:

Whilst the evidence seems to be 1 in a thousand patients get cancer from ct scan

a study was done to suggest in some patients with varying conditions, the real figure is 1 in 80 chance of cancer.

Whilst the figures do vary slightly, they are ALL so far out the ball park of acceptability to me.

I am just learning - i didnt realise it was a can of worms!

 

[golden]

That's a bit sensationalist. I've been looking into cat scans because have to have to follow up for lung fibrosis and for sinus disease that has to be dealt with. There are low dose high contract machines.

http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/?pg=sfty_xray

http://www.xrayrisk.com/calculator/calculator.php

Mercola has written on this subject. And he does conservatively say :

One CT scan is 100x more dangerous than a chest x-ray:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/09/25/high-ct-scan-radiation-is-deadly.aspx

Nearly 30,000 Americans are getting Cancer from the procedure every year. Is that sensationslist? i dont think so.

It seems its all under reported in fact and toned down.


Whilst one third of Cat scans are medically unecessary - the alternatives for me (not you), seem more appropriate.

Mis-diagnosis can be high from ct scans leading to more scans etc. Plus Radiation Accidents seem to be a factor too....

In general radiation will harm women more than men.

But there is also this new 3-D CT scan for breasts now which could be very dangerous.

 

[golden]

All I can say to that is WOW. One would expect the doctors and esp the radiologists to know. and WOW I would of never guessed it was so much either.

This kind of thing demonstates why I so little trust doctors as I know as most of the time they knowledge about treatments and other stuff they do eg vaccination is another example, is quite low.

'Trust' has been violated between consumer and their employees (docs).

If one was to continually be short changed by the cashier - you would sack them. What happens when you are continually being short changed and mis sold products from the whole gang of cashiers and they are all patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

Medical proffessionals have abused the word 'trust' so much that they have a distorted view of what it means now.

 

[golden]

I have only ever had one CT scan, seems unnecessary too with the use of MRI technology and the like now. MRI has its own lesser known issues though, the most ironic thing is people getting CT the most are those with cancer, either to track tumor growth, remission status, etc..

Yes, thats exactly what my friend said.

what are the little known issues with MRI?

 

[soulfeast]

Mercola has written on this subject. And he does conservatively say :

One CT scan is 100x more dangerous than a chest x-ray:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/09/25/high-ct-scan-radiation-is-deadly.aspx

Nearly 30,000 Americans are getting Cancer from the procedure every year. Is that sensationslist? i dont think so.

It seems its all under reported in fact and toned down.


Whilst one third of Cat scans are medically unecessary - the alternatives for me (not you), seem more appropriate.

Mis-diagnosis can be high from ct scans leading to more scans etc. Plus Radiation Accidents seem to be a factor too....

In general radiation will harm women more than men.

But there is also this new 3-D CT scan for breasts now which could be very dangerous.

Did you read the links I referred to? CT scans vary in amount of radiation per body part/region and density of that region. There is no one size fits all dose of radiation. There are also now low(er) radiation CT scans newly on the market. The hospital nearest me has one but one a bit further away does not. They are new.

 

[golden]

Did you read the links I referred to? CT scans vary in amount of radiation per body part/region and density of that region. There is no one size fits all dose of radiation. There are also now low(er) radiation CT scans newly on the market. The hospital nearest me has one but one a bit further away does not. They are new.

What is the make and model number of these new 'lower dose radiation' CT scans, please? How much lower are they? Have you been offered any info or just been told they are lower?


Natural background radiation is NOT comparible to a CT scan. Whilst amusing looking at a table stating these CT scans are equivalent to 3, 8 years or 3 hours etc of 'natural' radiation, its also misleading. How many X-rays are they equivalent to?

 

[Hanna]

Yes, thats exactly what my friend said.

what are the little known issues with MRI?

MRI may be problematic for EMF hypersensitive patients.
I had terrible reaction during my last head MRI in 2009 and han't renewed the experience. Several minutes into the procedure I began to experiment strange agitation in brain, then terrible heat and sensation that my head was going to explode.
It wasn't anxiety at all, (since I've had an MRI in 1998 and everything was OK).
I had to activate the emergency button as I couldn't stand further the procedure. The technician stopped immediately and were afraid to see how red my skin was (neck and face) and swollen too.

Before you undertake the procedure here, they make you sign a declaration that mentions you don't have any metals inside the body. I thought about a possible "negligeable" presence of heavy metals since as an artist I have been manipulating a lot of lead pigments and it may have built in the body.
I had a test done later to verify if there was some heavy metal load and it was a big YES for lead (and also mercury).
So there may be here some link between body heavy metals load and strong "allergic" reaction : magnetic resonnance with them.

In my case, I havn't much alternative than using CT...

 

[golden]

@Hanna,

Gosh, thats food for thought. Sorry to hear of your experience. Thanks for sharing it.

Best Golden

P.s. - If keeping radiation at a minimum - and need to fly (i dont) - apparently can reduce radiation by 99% by Flying at Night or next best thing - as far away from noon as possible.

 

[alex3619]

Absolute risk, or relative risk? The risk of cancer from a CT scan is about 1 in 1000 in children and adults. CT scans increase risk, but the risk is very low, so a big relative increase is still very low.

See for example: http://www.acpsem.org.au/index.php/...ion-exposure-risks-from-ct-scans-in-childhood

People can also have adverse reactions to MRI, and it costs more, but ultrasound I think is very safe.

 

[Hip]

How Xray radiation affects you can depend on your antioxidant status:

I watched a very interesting documentary about the cancer rates in animals living in the radioactive countryside around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Researchers thought they would find high rates of cancer in all the wildlife living in the Chernobyl area, but were surprised to find that animal cancer rates were much lower than expected. The only creatures that had a high rate of cancer were the birds that migrated into the Chernobyl region. This seemed paradoxical at first, because these birds only lived in the Chernobyl area for a fraction of the year, unlike the other animals that permanently resided in that region.

The researchers then came up with a theory to explain why only the migrating birds had high rates of cancer in Chernobyl: they surmised it was because the long journey of migration had used up the antioxidants in the birds, so that when they arrived in Chernobyl, these antioxidant-depleted birds were not protected from the effects of radiation. Antioxidants are known to be protective against ionizing radiation.

So this suggests that anyone undergoing a CT scan, or any other Xray involving radiation exposure levels for that matter, would do well to ensure their antioxidant status was good.

The following articles discuss antioxidant protection for medical Xrays and radiotherapy:

Antioxidants Could Provide All-purpose Radiation Protection
This article says that the antioxidants inositol and inositol hexaphosphate (IP6) can protect healthy cells during radiotherapy, while simultaneously boosting the efficacy of the radiotherapy against tumor cells.

Antioxidants may protect the body from CT radiation
Reduction in DNA injury in blood samples treated with vitamin C and glutathione compared with control samples.

Hey Doc, Can I Take Antioxidants During Chemo and Radiation?

Antioxidant formula prior to radiation exposure may prevent DNA injury

 

[alex3619]

Not just antioxidants matter, DNA repair is folate dependent, so anyone with methylation issues might have increased risk. At this point we do not know what that risk would be.

 

[golden]

Absolute risk, or relative risk? The risk of cancer from a CT scan is about 1 in 1000 in children and adults. CT scans increase risk, but the risk is very low, so a big relative increase is still very low.

See for example: http://www.acpsem.org.au/index.php/...ion-exposure-risks-from-ct-scans-in-childhood

People can also have adverse reactions to MRI, and it costs more, but ultrasound I think is very safe.

There are some more explanations in this, including where the 1 in 80 risk comes from. Plus an interesting story from Dr.Len

http://m.cancer.org/aboutus/drlensb...ans-and-cancer-risk-been-there-done-that.aspx

There are several troubling points!

 

[alex3619]

My point is that the risks are not high, not that they are zero. I do not think we should be cavalier about any kind of radiation, even regular X-rays. Minimizing risk is important. The risk of not having a CT scan if its the best choice also have to be taken into account.

Now here are a few problems. Your doctor, who is advising you, doesn't really know the risks either. In some cases they might have financial incentives to push the test. This does not just mean making more money, it might mean reducing the chances of a law suit. Some immediate problem might be misdiagnosed, and then they have legal trouble, but an eventual cancer case can't be attributed to them, even if their treatment caused it. So its a risk they can pass on to the patient without assuming one themselves.

I think routine dental X-rays fall into the category of an abused technology, for example.

Now both you, and your doctor, have to make decisions about things they largely guessing about, even if its an educated guess. This is not easy. Its easy to get wrong. It can however be wrong both to do such tests, and to not do such tests. How do you decide?. There is a new thread on this topic somewhere here (started by ? @MeSci). I hope to post a link later but I have something else to do that just came up.

 

[golden]

Here are some reasons I wont be getting Mammography screening when invited. I believe it addresses a lot of your points alex3619:

http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=1420