Re: What radiologists don't tell you (CT scans)
From: Mark Probert (Probert_at_lumbercartel.com)
Date: 11/29/04
- Next message: MackŪ: "Re: Coca Cola Causing Diabetes."
- Previous message: Mark Probert: "Re: Infants die; reaction to polio drops feared"
- In reply to: listener: "Re: What radiologists don't tell you (CT scans)"
- Next in thread: David Wright: "Re: What radiologists don't tell you (CT scans)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:07:06 -0500
"listener" <listener@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95AF83828D47Dsome1outthere@38.144.126.67...
> David Rind <drind@caregroup.harvard.edu> wrote in
> news:cod1d3$id$1@reader1.panix.com:
>
> > john wrote:
> >> This is probably just as well because new data reveals that the
> >> patient who undergoes a full-body CT (computed tomography) scan is
> >> being exposed to a radiation level equivalent to that from the atomic
> >> bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> >
> > I don't usually bother replying to John's posts, but this one is sort
> > of
> > funny. There was no new research that radiation from a full-body CT
> > is
> > equivalent to that from an atomic bomb. (Could anyone really believe
> > that such a statement was true??).
> >
> > Someone published a study that attempted to predict the long-term
> > radiation effects of full-body CT by comparing the radiation levels to
> > the lowest levels seen in atomic bomb survivors and for whom the
> > authors had long-term cancer risk data. Note that this is rather
> > different from suggesting that getting a full-body CT gets you exposed
> > to similar levels of radiation to what you could expect if you had an
> > atom bomb dropped on you.
> >
> > What they calculated was that if you started getting yearly full body
> > CTs at age 45 and continued for 30 years you would have about a 2%
> > increased risk of cancer. It's not an enormous risk, and it's not
> > clear how accurate their estimates were, but since using full-body CT
> > scans for screening has never been shown to be of benefit it's worth
> > keeping in mind that additionally they may cause cancer. This has
> > almost no relevance to the more common situation of someone getting a
> > diagnostic CT.
> >
>
> David,
>
> What is it that motivates these people to post such nonsense? I get the
> sense that they truly believe they are doing the right thing by unduly
> alarming people about medical issues. Maybe their "altruism" masks
> deeper, more personal failings that they can't cope with.
>
> I sometimes wonder what they would be doing if not for the internet.
Obviously, you do not know John. He is busy not vaccinating his kids,
opposing cell phone towers, maintaining (for want of a better word)
http://www.whale.to/ one of the most criticized websites on the plant, and
finding whacko conspiracies. He also spends time making tin foil hats.
- Next message: MackŪ: "Re: Coca Cola Causing Diabetes."
- Previous message: Mark Probert: "Re: Infants die; reaction to polio drops feared"
- In reply to: listener: "Re: What radiologists don't tell you (CT scans)"
- Next in thread: David Wright: "Re: What radiologists don't tell you (CT scans)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
