I didn't know where to post this. I heard about this study, and it's disturbing to me since I have always read that x-rays only pose a 'minimal risk' for cancer.
I guess I'm concerned since I've had several x-rays throughout my life, and the majority have been to get medical clearance for PPDs, due to having had the BCG vaccine when I was a kid.
I wish that I didn't have to have a chest x-ray every so often. Is it a law or requirement to have this done every 2-3 yrs if you can't get a PPD due to a past positive result? The last time I had a positive result was back in grade school, and I was even given meds 'just in case' for a year. I hated them, and the side effects, and the fact that I probably didn't need them. I wonder if I will test positive now or was it just that one time? Or maybe a allergy to the PPD? I have cousins who also had the BCG and they didn't test positive. I've never had anything abnormal show up on x-rays,and I hate getting them.
only reason i think about it is that i have a genetic disorder that causes non cancerous tumors to grow around nerves and they need monitering thus regular scaning. We avoid CT's if possible because of this but if I need it I need it and we will do it, however if there is another way we go for that.
Lack of scientific understanding in general in this thread.
Background radiation a typical human is exposed to on Earth, annually: 2.4 mSv.
Radiation exposure of typical medical x-ray: 0.1 mSv
Radiation exposure of CTs: 1.5 - 6 mSv for most (higher for some tests)
We've known about the cancer risk of extremely short wavelength electromagnetic energy ever since the days of madame Curie.
I don't know the exact figures, but I remember learning in my Environmental Chem class that you get more radiation exposure flying in airplanes (higher altitudes = higher radiation levels b/c there is less atmospheric gasses protecting you) than getting a typical X-ray. I found that fascinating since my mother has always avoided getting us x-rayed (she'd argue w/ the dentist all the time.) but she travels on planes frequently!
Most people don't understand radiation. They hear the word "radiation" and immediately think of genetic defects, and cancer. Light bulbs emit radiation. So does your TV. If you really want to be safe, you should live in a hole in the ground far away from society. The idea with diagnostic imaging is to minimize radiation exposure while finding out as much as possible. If xrays/ct's/mammogram/etc are being ordered to diagnose a problem, chances are that problem is more significant than the possible side effects of the radiation exposure. Of course there are some docs that order tests for anything and everything.
I love when patients insist that they don't want an ultrasound or MRI b/c of the radiation.
You know what else may cause cancer? Sunlight. Gasoline. Smoke- both direct and indirect. Chronic constipation. HPV. Smog.
It's silly for you to worry about x-ray radiation (once per year), when exposure to the above probably happens to you on a daily basis. In fact, those buffoons smoking outside the door will probably get cancer, and by making you walk through it, you might too.
There are so many other things that cause cancer that you have more exposure to. Don't see any threads about those.
No surprise here..it is radiation...hence radiography. If you've had a research class, you've probably been forced to learn that all studies are not created equal.
Exactly. Statistics is so flawed it's ridiculous - "if this test doesn't give you the answer, use this one". Snake oil, in my opinion, and I take it with a grain of salt. All of it.
So in reading the article, all it says that out of 950K people (from which 70% of the people had at least one imaging procedure) they found an increased risk of cancer. As opposed to what? The numbers/rates of those cancers in the general population? What other risk factors did these people have? What types of cancer were found and what are the risk factors for those? Did these people live under power lines/near transformer sites/sit in front of a computer all day/have a history of childhood cancer? Did they slather themselves in baby oil in the 1970s and lay in the sun on Reynolds wrap?
Increased cancer risk? Having sex increases your risk of cancer (HPV infection risk).
Since the one MRI and the one CT scan I've had in my life ruled out an inoperable brain tumor, and the four xrays I've had in my life showed either my broken collarbone, tooth alignment for orthodontics, my double pneumonia at age seven, or confirmed that I didn't have TB, I'd rather shoot craps with the diagnostics than exploratory brain surgery or unnecessary rounds of drugs.
I'm going to take this as meaningless. This isn't science, it's a traveling medicine man.
I worked in x-ray for seven years and I don't glow in the dark. I'm glad someone mentioned the fact that you get more radiation from background sources that an x-ray. Getting a yearly chest x-ray isn't harmful. As far as the yearly thing, every placed I've worked, OHSA mandated a yearly PPD and it was just a known fact that anyone who has ever tested positive skips the skin tests & goes straight for a chest x-ray. I'd rather get a chest x-ray once a year which can identify tons of health problems, than croak from TB that could be laying dormant.
You can't base research from a single group of people in which 70% all claim to have had at least one imaging procedure. It's not a legitimate risk group. I'm sure the 70% also had microwaves in their homes, too! One imaging procedure isn't going to cause cancer and if a reader believes that it does, pigs must be flying.
Most people don't understand radiation. They hear the word "radiation" and immediately think of genetic defects, and cancer. Light bulbs emit radiation. So does your TV. If you really want to be safe, you should live in a hole in the ground far away from society. The idea with diagnostic imaging is to minimize radiation exposure while finding out as much as possible. If xrays/ct's/mammogram/etc are being ordered to diagnose a problem, chances are that problem is more significant than the possible side effects of the radiation exposure. Of course there are some docs that order tests for anything and everything.
I love when patients insist that they don't want an ultrasound or MRI b/c of the radiation.
And the computer we're all sitting in front of right now? SCORES of radiation emitting itself right into your very cells...
.thumb.gif.09f7460d3e1ff8d6732564d77b5465cb.gif){kind=avatar}
lpnstudentin2010, LPN
1,318 Posts
only reason i think about it is that i have a genetic disorder that causes non cancerous tumors to grow around nerves and they need monitering thus regular scaning. We avoid CT's if possible because of this but if I need it I need it and we will do it, however if there is another way we go for that.