<p>[Radiation</a> From CT Scans May Raise Cancer Risk : NPR](<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121436092]Radiation”>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121436092)</p>
<p>I have been long raising an alarm over overuse of this technology.</p>
<p>But people are freaked out that they might not get all of the mammogram radiation to which they feel entitled.</p>
<p>I had one of my sinuses when I was in my early 20s, and was thinking about it after reading that this week. Well… there is nothing for it now.</p>
<p>I couldn’t sleep last night after seeing this on the news. My 15 yr old daughter has had two CT scans in the past 18 months due to concussions. (I’m glad we declined it for the third minor concussion). That’s massive radiation - into the brain - of a young adult female. She had at least one other CT scan when she younger for something else.</p>
<p>I understand that it’s protocol and that the risk of brain bleeds/skull fractures/concussion side effects are not something to mess around with (we are now experts on concussions), but what’s the risk on the other end?</p>
<p>I’m pretty upset, I hope some radiologist will post on here and make me feel better.</p>
<p>It has always amazed me at how the general public is so afraid of radiation (or more accurately the threat of radiation) from a nuclear power plant and they have no concept of the huge doses they can receive from medical sources. It is unconscionable that a difference of 13 times the dose between different hospitals for the same CT scan can be viewed as acceptable. In commercial nuclear power, every millirem has to be accounted for and radiation exposure reduction plans have to be in place before work can proceed in a radiation area. On average, it will take me 5 years working in a nuclear power plant to receive the same dose as a typical CT scan.</p>
<p>I had thyroid cancer in 2006 and received Radioactive Ablation as part of my treatment. This included ingestion of 150 millicuries of radioactive Iodine (I-131). I had to stay in the hospital for 2 days until the dose rate that my body was giving off was less than Federal limits. The doctor released me for work at that time, but it wasn’t for another 11 weeks before I was allowed to work in the plant because I was alarming the radiation detectors. The lack of controls and concerns with medical uptakes and doses is far more worrisome than the risk of exposure from commercial nuclear power.</p>
<p>My daughter has had 2 CT scans of the head after concussions. </p>
<p>Guitaristmom, there is nothing we can do about it now, and worrying about it won’t do us any good. Let’s just take what we now know and use it in the future if needed. Easier said than done, I know.</p>
<p>You are so right, RadDad1 !!!
It seems like people have no idea that medical radiation is also radiation!
I blame the physicians for not informing the patients of the dangers of CT scans. </p>
<p>When I was growing up (Eastern Europe) everybody had a little book that kept a record of all their medical radiation exposure. They would not do an x-ray on you unless you had this booklet with you. Not even a dental x-ray ! After all, we need x-rays only for a confirmation of a diagnosis, most of the time. You do not need an x-ray to diagnose pneumonia - look for the symptoms and listen with stetoscope !</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is their choice, but at least now nobody can say that we have not been warned.</p>
<p>My son had a completely unneccessary CT scan when he was around 17. He had a strain from playing sports for which the orthopedist did an MRI. The MRI showed a cyst, which the orthopedist said was benign but wanted to do a CT scan to make absolutely sure. I was against it because if you did an MRI of a person’s body you might find a few cysts here and there. We spoke to another orthopedist/friend who said that the first orthopedist was just recommending it to protect himself. I was against it but the first orthopedist was insistant on it and talked my husband into it. My son had it and when I never heard from the orthopedist I assumed that the results were fine. My son and I saw the orthopedist about 6 months later for something else, and I said that I had assumed the results were fine when I never heard from him. It turned out that he had never received or requested the results of the CT scan. Of course the cyst was benign. I was so mad, but that is medicine today for you.</p>
<p>Ive had CT Scans, MRIs, ultrasounds, ( multiple), xrays ( childrens shoe stores used to xray feet in the 60’s)
I have even had a Hysterosalpingogram. :p</p>
<p>My D also had a cranial scan when she was a day old and had a bleed- ( I think)</p>
<p>oh well- if my next babies are mutant, maybe I can get a talk show!</p>
<p>The concern about the radiation in CT scans are nothing new. The timing of this “study” and report seems a little suspect IMO.</p>
<p>I had some sort of heart test where they injected radioactive dye via an IV. For 6 months I had to carry a special card in case I set off the alarms at the airport.</p>
<p>I still freak out when my kids stand too close to the microwave oven.</p>
<p>Argh…
I’m glad I had post-op radiation therapy. Five days a week for five weeks. A yearly mammogram? Xrays of teeth? A very occasional CT-scan? I can’t worry about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many physicians, IMO, do not warn about risks for most procedures in general. Many patients do not ask questions either. They turn into little obedient children and listen to what “the doctor says”. They often go into procedures with blinders on. JMO.</p>
<p>^ I agree
if the test isn’t going to change the treatment- if it is just replicating other information and if it is painful/expensive- why have it other than the Dr owns part of the lab or has this machine that he needs to play with?</p>
<p>I had CT/MRI scans when I had a concussion and when I was having weird vision.
I had multiple ultrasounds, when I was pregnant with oldest and having progesterone shots every week.
xrays for teeth- mammograms ( I have had four or five- every year or two when I remember)</p>
<p>Hystosalpingogram was when I had an ovarian cyst the size of a grapefruit , and my gyn sent me to a shrink ( I found another dr)
That Dr was awful, he prescribed the test, ( and found the cyst) but gave me zero painkiller and instead told me now I knew what it was like to be in labor.
Actually it was worse than labor- much worse.
The radiation did do something to the cyst, because it disappeared afterwards & I also learned that I have a very distinct bicornate uterus- which was why I had to use an OB for my pregnancies.
but- awful.</p>
<p>^^I agree Northeastmom.
It is unfortunate, but we live in times where we are responsible for obtaining all the information there is in order to make an informed consent. Like you have said, too many of us trust physicians (and nurses) blindly, never raising any questions. But something is wrong with the healthcare system when even physicians don’t raise questions, doing all that is necessary to protect their rear ends. Sorry, it belongs on a different thread.
But remember folks - primum non nocere!
As far as CT goes - for goodness sake, manufacturers and radiologists must have known since the beginning!</p>
<ol>
<li>People should understand that statistics don’t apply to them as individuals. By far, by far, by far the best predictor for cancer is family history and then a long way behind that is lifestyle risk (like smoking). </li>
<li>Note also that the study refers to possible cancers. The study hasn’t actually been released yet so I can’t go through the actual numbers, but I have no idea from the phrasing what “possible” means. Are they entangling radiation exposure with risk factors? In other words, if the study shows that risk factors + radiation = greater chance then that affects how you should view CT scans. As in, if you have a history then try to minimize your radiation.</li>
<li>I was kind of amazed by the variation in radiation exposure in this modern age. This needs to be standardized.</li>
<li>Some of the wording really bothered me, particularly the reference to radiation to which Hiroshima survivors were exposed. Um, what kind of survivor? The ones who got leukemia in the years immediately after or the ones that are alive today? If they’re referring to the latter, which I’m guessing is the case, then so freaking what? A survivor is a survivor is a survivor. In other words, some of this is a scare report designed to encourage doctors to be more careful.</li>
</ol>
<p>In terms of anecdote, the amount of radiation any one person gets without cancer is incredibly variable. I knew an x-ray tech from WWII who showed me how they’d hold the tubes in their hands. I also know a guy who sat on a boat for 4 atomic explosions at Bikini and then went on to the damaged ships right away for clean-up and inspection. Both are obviously old now. Someone else might have died decades ago. It’s variable as heck, but my bet is neither of them have a family history of cancer.</p>
<p>If folks stop suing, doctors will run fewer unnecessary tests. But that’s not the main issue. I’ve been in clinical rotation for less than a year, and I’ve heard so many patients, after being given their various options for treatment, throw up their hands and say some variation of “whatever you think is best” or “I don’t know, you’re the doctor” Some people want freedom of choice in their health care, and others want freedom FROM choice.</p>
<p>
I’m sure this must be affected by technology though. As newer more sophisticated equipment is made available from the various manufacturers as well as the various uses of the particular equipment, I’m sure the amount of exposure changes. They can’t necessarily ‘standardize’ on the exposure although it makes sense to have maximum threshold levels beyond which certain procedures shouldn’t exceed and hopefully this threshold comes down to lower levels as technology improves.</p>
<p>The flip side to the story is how many lives have been saved and invasive surgeries avoided by performing CT scans. There needs to be a good balance.</p>
<p>Well said, uc_dad</p>
<p>emeraldkity, Ultrasounds and MRIs do not expose you to ionizing radiation. I hope this relieves some of your anxiety! Most exposure comes from dental x-rays. </p>
<p>There is a great deal of variation among different CT examinations because there are many kinds of scanners out there. The radiation dose also depends on you - the heavier you are, the higher the dose will be. Radiation is absorbed in body tissues (the source of the increased cancer risk) and more radiation will have to be put in to a heavy person to get the same amount of radiation exiting the other side (where it is detected, and forms the image). Japanese people have much lower CT doses. </p>
<p>Radiation exposure increases the risk of developing cancer. It doesn’t mean that cancer will definitely result. And most cancers that are initiated by radiation exposure take 25-30 years to develop. (Leukemias take less time.) </p>
<p>Does anyone worry about living in Denver? The radiation exposure from cosmic rays is much higher there than in cities at sea level.</p>