Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / General / July 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

National Academy of Sciences says even very low doses of dental radiation increase your risk of cancer

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Tim Campbell - 01 Jul 2005 02:10 GMT
Full mouth dental x-rays have been defended by some dentists, who say
that patients are exposed to more radiation from sunlight. But the
National Academy of Sciences says even very low doses of radiation
increase your risk of cancer over a lifetime; even very low doses.

Paul Harvey News
30 June 2005
carabelli - 01 Jul 2005 03:28 GMT
> Full mouth dental x-rays have been defended by some dentists, who say
> that patients are exposed to more radiation from sunlight. But the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Paul Harvey News
> 30 June 2005

That's why I put sunscreen on my teeth.  You can't be to careful.

carabelli
The Webby - 01 Jul 2005 04:06 GMT
In article
<WS1xe.1057798$w62.236432@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,

> > Full mouth dental x-rays have been defended by some dentists, who say
> > that patients are exposed to more radiation from sunlight. But the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> carabelli

For some patients, this is very important (x-ray exposure).  Not to
dwell on my own situation; but, as a matter of example/interest related
to this matter, I was exposed to excessive diagnostic levels related to
covered-up complications during orthognathic surgery.  My (academic)
radiologist tallied my exposure related only to the search for what
existed in my skull that caused my losss of jaw function in an effort to
figure out what could be done for me and that alone, in his opinion, was
equivalent to "high risk" for the development of tumora in the head and
neck.  His caution was that I should *not* be exposed to any studied
that were not absolutely necessary.  I can't remember the number
assigned to his findings; it doesn't really matter.  What matters was/is
that studies must be ordered only when absolutely necessary for my
health.  The point being that over the course of one's lifetime, the
exposure accumulates and no one actually knows how much is too much.  
This new report drives that point home.

FYI, my packet of x-rays is so heavy that I can hardly lift/carry it.  
That is a whole lot of exposure....

I prefer to let the whole thing go, advising any new doctor about my
situation and then deciding risk v benefit of any study ordered.

Webby
P.S. I noted the five groups this is cross-posted to and figured that it
was okay to allow the post to go to all five.
Tony Bad - 01 Jul 2005 05:16 GMT
> Full mouth dental x-rays have been defended by some dentists, who say
> that patients are exposed to more radiation from sunlight. But the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Paul Harvey News
> 30 June 2005

...and people used to die from tooth decay and related infections. Life is
full of risks.

T
Steph - 01 Jul 2005 06:47 GMT
>> Full mouth dental x-rays have been defended by some dentists, who say
>> that patients are exposed to more radiation from sunlight. But the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> T

They still do...........
Tony Bad - 01 Jul 2005 13:16 GMT
> >> Full mouth dental x-rays have been defended by some dentists, who say
> >> that patients are exposed to more radiation from sunlight. But the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> They still do...........

Not so much if you have had dental radiographs!...hey we could send that to
Paul Harvey...dental radiographs prevent death by dental decay. Just the
kind of scientific conclusion that might make sense on his show.

T
Vaughn - 01 Jul 2005 11:25 GMT
> Full mouth dental x-rays have been defended by some dentists, who say
> that patients are exposed to more radiation from sunlight. But the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Paul Harvey News
> 30 June 2005

    Much as I enjoy Paul Harvey, he is not the place that I go for my science
news.  Assuming that we are talking about the same article, it did correctly say
that there is no absolutely safe dose of radiation, but that was a minor point.
Actually it concludes that medical x-rays are a good bet.
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/living/health/12019866.htm

"The health risk posed by radiation from X-rays and other medical procedures is
so small that it should not deter people from seeking needed medical care,
according to senior scientists who examined risks of low-level radiation."
"While the risks from such radiation are small, the panel assembled by the
prestigious National Research Council also concluded there is no dose of
radiation that can be deemed completely safe."

    As I said in another thread a few days ago, it is all in how you write the
headline.

Vaughn
clifffreeling@yahoo.com - 01 Jul 2005 13:26 GMT
>      Much as I enjoy Paul Harvey,

sh.t, is he still alive?

>he is not the place that I go for my science
> news.  Assuming that we are talking about the same article, it did correctly say
> that there is no absolutely safe dose of radiation,

Correct.  I love it when medical/dental/imaging folks pull out those
catch-alls
for the gullible masses, e.g. "you get more radiation exposure from the
bricks
on your house...from sunlight...from breathing," etc.  There is no
threshold,
below which there is no increased risk, this has been known for
decades.
I never submit to x-rays unless I decide they're necessary.  MD's and
dentists love 'em for their patients!

--
Cliff
Vaughn Simon - 01 Jul 2005 14:55 GMT
> >      Much as I enjoy Paul Harvey,
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Correct.

    Yes, Clifford, you are sort of correct.  In fact, because of my
background in the nuclear power biz, I have always limited my own medical
dose.  That said, don't forget "The Rest of the Story":

 "The health risk posed by radiation from X-rays and other medical
procedures is
so small that it should not deter people from seeking needed medical care,
according to senior scientists who examined risks of low-level radiation."

Vaughn
clifffreeling@yahoo.com - 01 Jul 2005 15:07 GMT
>      Yes, Clifford, you are sort of correct.  In fact, because of my
> background in the nuclear power biz, I have always limited my own medical
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> so small that it should not deter people from seeking needed medical care,
> according to senior scientists who examined risks of low-level radiation."

The "rest of the story" sounds fine to me.  It agrees with what I said:
I never submit to any x-rays unless I feel they are justified.  If
they are justified, I have no problem getting them, as the risks from
the ionizing radiation is small compared to the benefit.  But there
is no risk-free level of exposure, and the medical industry plays it
too fast & loose in this area, IMO.

--
Cliff (BS in physics)
Steph - 01 Jul 2005 17:25 GMT
>>      Yes, Clifford, you are sort of correct.  In fact, because of my
>> background in the nuclear power biz, I have always limited my own medical
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> they are justified, I have no problem getting them, as the risks from
> the ionizing radiation is small compared to the benefit.

Which is an eminently sensible point of view.

> But there
> is no risk-free level of exposure, and the medical industry plays it
> too fast & loose in this area, IMO.

Which is possibly true in some circumstances

> --
> Cliff (BS in physics)
Steven Fawks - 02 Jul 2005 13:51 GMT
  It agrees with what I said:
> I never submit to any x-rays unless I feel they are justified.
> Cliff (BS in physics)

I will agree that some medical and dental professionals 'zap' you
more than is probably necessary (medical doses are usually much,
much larger than dental).

However, how do *you* determine 'justification'?  (I don't think many
of my patients can make an informed decision about this)

Fawks
clifffreeling@yahoo.com - 02 Jul 2005 14:36 GMT
> I will agree that some medical and dental professionals 'zap' you
> more than is probably necessary (medical doses are usually much,
> much larger than dental).
>
> However, how do *you* determine 'justification'?  (I don't think many
> of my patients can make an informed decision about this)

I don't know what kind of people make up your patient pool.
Are they illiterate coal miners, or inner-city crackheads, or
some other variety of people who may not have the mental gear
to make an intelligent decision after being informed of their
situation?  I highly doubt it.

I think most people out there in society are intelligent enough
to make a logical and good decision about x-rays, if they are
properly communicated with by their dentist or MD.

I read recently of a tragic case where a woman who sustained
a back injury in '96 was subsequently given over 100 x-rays
of her back.  About three years later, she came down with
acute myelogenous leukemia (about the worst type of all).
(I think the backbone is where a lot of the blood-producing
marrow is.)  Most in-the-know believe these x-rays most likely
caused her terminal leukemia.  This case happened to be from
Australia, but I have heard of similar abuses here in the States,
though this one did sound extreme to me.

--
Cliff
clintonz@prodigy.net - 02 Jul 2005 16:32 GMT
.

> I think most people out there in society are intelligent enough
> to make a logical and good decision about x-rays, if they are
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> a back injury in '96 was subsequently given over 100 x-rays
> of her back.

The article mentions that a full body CT scan
is equal to 100 chest x-rays. I wonder how much a CT scan
(and panorex) of the jaw would correspond to and how you would compute
the relative risk factor.
Steph - 02 Jul 2005 19:12 GMT
>> I will agree that some medical and dental professionals 'zap' you
>> more than is probably necessary (medical doses are usually much,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> to make a logical and good decision about x-rays, if they are
> properly communicated with by their dentist or MD.

You should try dealing with the patients who demand CT scans all the
time..........

> I read recently of a tragic case where a woman who sustained
> a back injury in '96 was subsequently given over 100 x-rays
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> --
> Cliff
clifffreeling@yahoo.com - 02 Jul 2005 22:37 GMT
> You should try dealing with the patients who demand CT scans all the
> time..........

Yep, their ignorance of the risk shows, I guess.  Some people
love the whole medical process, and they also love to abuse
the hell out of their insurers.  I'm the type insurance companies
love...pay, pay, pay premiums and *rarely* file any claims at all.

--
Cliff
carabelli - 03 Jul 2005 06:43 GMT
>> I will agree that some medical and dental professionals 'zap' you
>> more than is probably necessary (medical doses are usually much,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> to make a logical and good decision about x-rays, if they are
> properly communicated with by their dentist or MD.

A BS in physics is admirable, however you did not answer the question.  If I
have a patient that tries to dictate what diagnostic procedures are needed
they leave untreated.  Granted there are times that a proper review of a
health history may indicate keeping x-radiation at a minimum - but letting a
patient choose from the diagnostic procedure menu???  That would be gross
malpractice, period.

> I read recently of a tragic case where a woman who sustained
> a back injury in '96 was subsequently given over 100 x-rays
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Australia, but I have heard of similar abuses here in the States,
> though this one did sound extreme to me.

Maybe this happened, maybe not.  It sounds like something I would have read
waiting the in line at the grocery store.

carabelli

> --
> Cliff
clifffreeling@yahoo.com - 03 Jul 2005 16:29 GMT
> A BS in physics is admirable,

Thank you, but I did not write that for admiration; only because I know
a little about ionizing radiation.

> however you did not answer the question.  If I
> have a patient that tries to dictate what diagnostic procedures are needed
> they leave untreated.  Granted there are times that a proper review of a
> health history may indicate keeping x-radiation at a minimum - but letting a
> patient choose from the diagnostic procedure menu???  That would be gross
> malpractice, period.

Whoa Whoa WHOA!  You're putting words in my mouth.  I never claimed
that patients should dictate what procedures are needed, or that
they choose from the "procedure menu" for themselves.  If you are
any kind of professional who's job it is to deal with living, thinking
patients, you should be capable of informing your patients of the
potential risks and benefits of any procedure, and letting them
decide for themselves.  This is generally the way it works now
with most good health providers (who have an intelligent, informed
patient pool).

> Maybe this happened, maybe not.  It sounds like something I would have read
> waiting the in line at the grocery store.

You've got to be kidding.  If you don't believe that ONE HUNDRED
x-rays of the backbone (esp. when over a short span of time) can
induce leukemia, you're living in a coal mine with no lights.
I'd say a little education is in order.

--
Cliff
carabelli - 04 Jul 2005 01:02 GMT
<clifffreeling@yahoo.com> wrote...................

> You've got to be kidding.  If you don't believe that ONE HUNDRED
> x-rays of the backbone (esp. when over a short span of time) can
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> --
> Cliff

Just questioning if this really occured at all.  Over 100 radiographs sounds
like National Inquirer material.  That was my point.

carabelli
clifffreeling@yahoo.com - 04 Jul 2005 02:09 GMT
> <clifffreeling@yahoo.com> wrote...................
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Just questioning if this really occured at all.  Over 100 radiographs sounds
> like National Inquirer material.  That was my point.

Sorry, I was thinking you meant that 100 of them of the back couldn't
have induced the leukemia, when they likely did indeed do.  But
remember
that I also said this happened in Australia, and that it did sound
extreme to me.  But over the years, I've heard of some real abuses
by doctors here in the States too (such as excessive--and unnecessary--
x-raying of babies and small children), but I think such abuses have
lessened in recent years.

--
Cliff
carabelli - 04 Jul 2005 04:18 GMT
>> <clifffreeling@yahoo.com> wrote...................
>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> --
> Cliff

Fair enough

cheers

carabelli
Terri - 03 Jul 2005 17:17 GMT
>>>I will agree that some medical and dental professionals 'zap' you
>>>more than is probably necessary (medical doses are usually much,
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> have a patient that tries to dictate what diagnostic procedures are needed
> they leave untreated.

Which probably explains why you don't have any patients who are
intelligent enough to ask questions and make their own decisions,
sometimes concurring with you and sometimes not. Fortunately, doctors
like you, if you really are a doctor are slowly disappearing from the
medical profession either because they're retiring or because they're
changing with the times and changed patient attitudes and expectation.

  Granted there are times that a proper review of a
> health history may indicate keeping x-radiation at a minimum - but letting a
> patient choose from the diagnostic procedure menu???  That would be gross
> malpractice, period.

It would be a very cold day in hell before I submitted to a diagnostic
test *I* viewed as inappropriate, whether because it's unnecessary or
dangerous or too expensive or all three.

>>I read recently of a tragic case where a woman who sustained
>>a back injury in '96 was subsequently given over 100 x-rays
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Maybe this happened, maybe not.  It sounds like something I would have read
> waiting the in line at the grocery store.

> carabelli
>
>>--
>>Cliff
Steven Fawks - 04 Jul 2005 15:31 GMT
For routine dental care, most patients listen.  Some don't.
Luckily, it isn't as significant as 100 X-rays & scans of one
persons back.

It is not uncommon for me to see a patient for the first time and
have them balk at X-rays that I need for an accurate diagnosis.
Some are just worried about spending more money.  Some think I'm
just trying to get more profit.  Some are concerned about the
added radiation.  I hear, "I just had X-rays 6 months ago".  Then
I find out it was really 2 years ago and the copies of the films from
another dentist are unreadable.

I try not to over use X-rays.  Taking films every 6 months is
not warranted for most patients.  However, once in a while I
can find a problem that I wish I would have discovered earlier.
When I try and space X-rays, the patient can miss a check up or
two and find that X-rays haven't been taken for 4 years!  Sometimes
everything is OK.  Sometimes it isn't.

Just enough without too much is not as easy as it sounds,

Fawks

> I think most people out there in society are intelligent enough
> to make a logical and good decision about x-rays, if they are
> properly communicated with by their dentist or MD.
>
> --
> Cliff
james - 01 Jul 2005 16:38 GMT
> "The health risk posed by radiation from X-rays and other medical procedures is
> so small that it should not deter people from seeking needed medical care,
> according to senior scientists who examined risks of low-level radiation."
> "While the risks from such radiation are small, the panel assembled by the
> prestigious National Research Council also concluded there is no dose of
> radiation that can be deemed completely safe."

Are the people who are afraid of a dental x-ray also afraid of a glass
of water?

Hey, it's just a small amount of water, but water CAN kill you.  Be
afraid!
clintonz@prodigy.net - 02 Jul 2005 00:01 GMT
> > Full mouth dental x-rays have been defended by some dentists, who say
> > that patients are exposed to more radiation from sunlight. But the
> > National Academy of Sciences says even very low doses of radiation
> > increase your risk of cancer over a lifetime; even very low doses.
> >
> > Paul Harvey News

"Richard Monson, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of
Public Health and the chairman of the science panel, said people should
consult with their physicians before choosing optional medical services
"

I like how they also say to "consult your physician" about
the risks of x-rays. So doctors have degrees in physics and
have done studies on the longterm effects of radiation?

the problem with this article and others like it is they don't
say how the results where reached. it follows the same lame
formual as most other nuggets of medical wisdom doled out by
the media.

The article notes that an offical sounding committe was formed
with the term "National", the national reasearch council or other,
the article then goes on to note that somebody with a degree from
harvard participated in the study, the schools, harvard princeton
or yale are mentioned repeatedly to leave no doubt as to the credablity
and veracity of the results to the gullible public.

Finally with absoultey no details given about study itself the  the
final authoritative statistcal result is dramatically revealed in
surprising vague terms. I.e the national research council, co-chaired
by Dr. So and so from harvard has determined that EXACTLY 1 in 100
people are at some increased risk due to radiation according to the
available data although there is "no evidence" to suggest any x-rays
have actually been observed causing harm. And you know what, in another
5 years they will come out with another study showing how wrong this
study was and how eating red MM's
really does give you cancer after all when they need another research
grant. It's all just a bunch of baloney.
Steph - 02 Jul 2005 07:26 GMT
>> > Full mouth dental x-rays have been defended by some dentists, who say
>> > that patients are exposed to more radiation from sunlight. But the
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> the risks of x-rays. So doctors have degrees in physics and
> have done studies on the longterm effects of radiation?

Some of them

> the problem with this article and others like it is they don't
> say how the results where reached. it follows the same lame
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> really does give you cancer after all when they need another research
> grant. It's all just a bunch of baloney.

Red M&Ms quite likely are more dangerous than diagnostic xrays..............
james - 01 Jul 2005 16:26 GMT
> Full mouth dental x-rays have been defended by some dentists, who say
> that patients are exposed to more radiation from sunlight. But the
> National Academy of Sciences says even very low doses of radiation
> increase your risk of cancer over a lifetime; even very low doses.

Sure.  What did the researchers do, zap a mouse about a 10,000 times a
day with a dental x-ray machine until the little rodent developed a
tumor?
 
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.