Medical Forum / General / General / July 2005
National Academy of Sciences says even very low doses of dental radiation increase your risk of cancer
|
|
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?
|
|
|