Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> wrote: > 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.
That's true, unless of course you're getting exposure to other forms of radiation that are additive to this one. Further, who's to say what any individual's tolerance is? There's controversy with these procedures, especially routinely, and I think for good reason. And that ignores other types objections for other good reasons ... more on that here: In Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health, Dr. H. Gilbert Welch argues that modern medicine is looking too closely for disease, and that unnecessary screenings, MRIs and CT scans turn healthy people into diseased patients, by revealing often harmless abnormalities. http://www.npr.org/2011/02/11/133686016/Is-Preventive-Medicine-Actually-Overtreatment Interesting stuff - not sure if I totally agree with him, but he does make some good point. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:335725 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
