On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Gruss Gott <grussg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Great stuff, but this provides a great thread-jack opportunity for healthcare: > > Note that: > > 1.) Lowest 1-year dose clearly linked to increased cancer risk = 100 mSv > > 2.) Chest CT Scan = 6 mSv > > 3.) Mammogram = 3 mSv > > 4.) Dental X-ray or Hand X-ray = 0.005 mSv > > In other words mammograms and CT scans are NOT no-risk preventative > medicine. The disease may be in the scan!
I agree that CT and Mammograms are not no-risk but if you look at the figures you just supplied, it would suggest that it would take 33 Mammograms or 17 CT Chest scans to approach the level with the dosage linked to increased cancer risk. No one, that I've heard of, gets that many mammograms or CT scans in a year. If they started approaching anything even a quarter of that number of scans, you could be pretty certain that they have whole lot more wrong with them than an increased cancer risk. Like, you know, actual cancer. Juda ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:335598 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
