开云体育

This refers to full body scans and radiation as shown on the American Cancer
website.
Clearly the part about the radiation being equal to some of the survivors
at Hirshoima and Nagasaki is not very comforting.

Maria

()


People who opt for a full-body CT scan as a way to screen for cancer may be
getting a bigger dose of radiation than they bargained for.

Full-Body CT Scans: Too Much Radiation? Study Finds High Potential Doses, but Other Scan Dangers Likely Worse Article date: 2004/09/03
Those full-body CT scans advertised at some health care centers may be
delivering as much radiation as a low-dose atomic bomb, according to a new study.
And that means people who get them could be raising their cancer risk,
researchers from Columbia University report in the journal Radiology (Vol. 232, No.
3:735-738).
"The radiation dose from a full-body CT scan is comparable to the doses
received by some of the atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where
there is clear evidence of increased cancer risk," said David J. Brenner,
PhD, D.Sc, lead author of the study and professor of radiation oncology and
public health at Columbia University in New York.

Scans Not Suitable Screening Tool

The study is sure to add fuel to the already hot controversy over full-body
computed tomography scans.
The scans are marketed as a way for healthy people to find diseases like
lung cancer or colon cancer before symptoms become apparent. But many experts
say there's little evidence the scans actually work as a screening tool. No
studies have been done to determine whether screening for disease in this way
actually saves lives or improves people's outcomes.
"Leading scientific and medical organizations not only do not endorse
full-body CT screening, but also caution against use of this test," said Robert
Smith, PhD, director of cancer screening for the American Cancer Society.
For one thing, the scans may show a person has nothing wrong when in fact
there is disease present. Because the patient thinks he's healthy, he may not
get other screening tests that could find his disease early.
Another problem: The scans may wrongly identify normal areas as suspicious.
To know for sure, though, the patient must undergo costly and potentially
risky invasive procedures to get a definitive diagnosis.

"The risk-benefit equation changes dramatically for adults who are referred
for CT scans for medical diagnosis," Brenner said. "Diagnostic benefits far
outweigh the risks."

I had a full body scan, the type that they are criticizing. It found
tumors in my liver. They referred me to another doctor who did
another scan and determined I had colon cancer. Anyway in my case the
full body scan was not a waste.

I don't think many are spouting 'no' diagnostic tests, but rather the constant repeated tests.

Might it be to fund the enormous costs of the equipment followed by a tremendous source of income? Sort of the kind of income generated by the hundreds of thousands of unnecessary hysterectomies done over the years............perhaps multiple millions?

Let's face it, Allopathic medicine is a money tree with big pharma the fertilizer that makes it grow. Big pharma is creating enough illness as to guarantee doctors they will never run out of bodies to treat.

Joe C.

Yes, Bunz.

Joe is correct. No one is saying CT scans are "a waste" nor that no one
should ever get one. The points I am making are:

1) Physicians should know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how much
radiation is being delivered to the client in any CT scan they
prescribe, and they should INFORM the client how much radiation they
will be subjected to. NO physician would EVER tell a client to go get
800 or 1000 chest x-rays, would they? Yet, from everything I have read
on the internet, one full-body CT scan contains at least that much
radiation. So point 1 is that doctors ought to know how much radiation
their clients will be subjected to, and should tell inform their
clients of it.

2) Physicians should be very careful and selective as to HOW MANY CT
scans they have their clients get. What I am criticizing are the
physicians who think nothing of having their clients get 10, 15 or 20
or even more CT scans.

3) Whenever possible, a person should ask a doctor who orders a CT Scan
whether there is any type of scan that will subject them to less
radiation than a CT Scan. In my case, I might, at some point soon, want
to have a scan to see if there is lymphoma anywhere else in my body
besides in my neck. I am researching thermography, to see if perhaps
that might "light up" and other tumors in my body. I also looked up PET
scans, to see if they deliver any less radiation than CT scans, but
what I found said they are comparable to each other. It is scandalous,
by the way, how many sites there are that say "the dose of radiation
received from a CT Scan or a PET scan is "negligible."



Best wishes,

Elliot