 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / October 2007CT-Scan radiation can equal nuclear bomb exposure
I thought this article was interesting as there seems to be a lack of awareness of the amount of radiation one receives from these scans. I've read where the amount on average is 700 times the amount of a chest x-ray and that is if the machine is properly calibrated. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11827-ct-scan-radiation-can-equal-nuclear- bomb-exposure-.html I also don't think many patients realize how incompetent a large portion of our medical establishment really is when it comes to treating them. My wife,an RN told me yesterday about a patient that she just got in her hospital that had prostate surgery fourteen years ago and it apparently came back recently. Unfortunately she doesn't have his numbers and may not be able to get them but he was complaining of severe pain when he tried to urinate. They did a scan and found at least two spots, one in his spine and the other near his original surgery site. Don't know what all was done to him but his wife said that she took him four days a week for sixty-two radiation treatments and just finished those recently. He was brought to the hospital because he is passing bowel waste thought his urethra. They have called hospice for him. Ron S. On October 14, Ron S wrote: > I thought this article was interesting as there seems to be a lack of > awareness of the amount of radiation one receives from these scans. (snip) As usual in medicine, there is controversy. On this page will be found an exchange of correspondence that is barely civil: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/334/7601/1006#165307 And I find the nuclear bomb analogy to be cheap sensationalism. Just the science, sir, just the science. Regards, Steve J A few minutes ago, I posted: (snip) > And I find the nuclear bomb analogy to be cheap sensationalism. Just the > science, sir, just the science. Hmmm. I find that the author of the BMJ article is named "Roxanne." So in the above sentence I should have addressed ma'm, not sir. Regards, Steve J > On October 14, Ron S wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Steve J Ron S.'s assertion is indeed correct. See the folowing Medscape article http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/545569?src=mp "In fact, one CT scan exposes a patient to the lower range of radiation received by some Nagasaki bombing survivors. Up to one in a thousand patients will develop cancer from this exposure." ...ron Responding to me > Ron S.'s assertion is indeed correct. See the folowing Medscape > article [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > radiation received by some Nagasaki bombing survivors. Up to one in a > thousand patients will develop cancer from this exposure." Correction, please. That is *NOT* from the BMJ article. It is from something composed by a news writer based upon something from this: "What are the Radiation Risks from CT?" at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.html Essentially the article minimizes risk of illness from CT exposure. In the relevant paragraph is this: "The effective doses from diagnostic CT procedures are typically estimated to be in the range of 1 to 10 mSv. This range is not much less than the lowest doses of 5 to 20 mSv received by some of the Japanese survivors of the atomic bombs (Oh really? It's *half* [SJ]). These survivors, who are estimated to have experienced doses only slightly larger (see note above) than those encountered in CT, have demonstrated a small but increased radiation-related excess relative risk for cancer mortality." Hardly the apocalypse. As I wrote, cheap sensationalism by the "reporter." To repeat myself for the umpteenth time, I never never ever uncritically accept a news item or press release on medical subjects. I go to the primary source. And that primary source might not always be reliable. The present matter is a case in point. Regards, Steve J "A man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe." -- Euripides Steve, Steve, I read the article that you linked to and came away with confirmation of my earlier post. The post is addressing repeated whole body scans. The 1to 10 smv is correct but the article refers to repeated testing. Once one has been tested, the radiation effect remains and buils with repeated testing. It doesn't take long before your level is excessive. Also , the article states that the FDA hasn't approved CT-scanning for screening for any diseases. The article was updated in 2002 so don't have anything more current. Ron S. On October 16, Ron S replied to me: > I read the article that you linked to and came away with confirmation of > my earlier post. The post is addressing repeated whole body scans. The 1to > 10 smv is correct but the article refers to repeated testing. Once one has > been tested, the radiation effect remains and buils with repeated testing. > It doesn't take long before your level is excessive. Thanks for the clarification. I don't find the above about serial scans in the initial post. I doubt that there is any question that serial exposures to ionizing radiation can be risky. Regards, Steve J The link that Steve provided is vary informative. If one accesses all the links he will find a wealth of knowledge pertaining to CT tomography screening. The regulation of CT scans is left up to state and local governments which ultimately means the physician. Studies have shown that the effective dose can vary as much as 10 to 40 times the recommended amount from one machine to another and also based upon the physicians technique. Ron S. > On October 14, Ron S wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > science, sir, > just the science. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7439/578 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.