CT scans. Not 1/1000 put at risk of developing cancer, but 1/80.

[Joe Chi Minh]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1235901/CAT-scan-cancer-fear-Radiation-trigger-disease-80-patients.html

[bemildred]

1. Gosh, this all seems so complicated. nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

2. I just read the bottom line. The rest would be double-dutch.

[bemildred]

3. Would that be fudge?

Double dutch fudge is pretty good?

[Joe Chi Minh]

7. Must ask the missus to look ut for it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Sometimes 1 in 80. Sometimes 1 in 11,080

It varies a lot, that's the point.

Results Radiation doses varied significantly between the different types of CT studies. The overall median effective doses ranged from 2 millisieverts (mSv) for a routine head CT scan to 31 mSv for a multiphase abdomen and pelvis CT scan. Within each type of CT study, effective dose varied significantly within and across institutions, with a mean 13-fold variation between the highest and lowest dose for each study type. The estimated number of CT scans that will lead to the development of a cancer varied widely depending on the specific type of CT examination and the patient's age and sex. An estimated 1 in 270 women who underwent CT coronary angiography at age 40 years will develop cancer from that CT scan (1 in 600 men), compared with an estimated 1 in 8100 women who had a routine head CT scan at the same age (1 in 11 080 men). For 20-year-old patients, the risks were approximately doubled, and for 60-year-old patients, they were approximately 50% lower.

Conclusion Radiation doses from commonly performed diagnostic CT examinations are higher and more variable than generally quoted, highlighting the need for greater standardization across institutions.

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/169/22/2078

The Mail, of course, quotes the scariest figure, and leaves out the others.

http://dailymailoncology.tumblr.com/

[Joe Chi Minh]

6. But for once, the principle is sound enough, i.e. if it draws attention to

the higher risks involved than commonly rpeorted.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

5. And this is one of the reasons that the cost of health care is going up so fast

Overuse of imaging, without telling people
about the cost, or the radiation.

[FourScore]

8. This really upsets me. My 12 year old son had to get a CT scan

after 2 consecutive falls on his head. One fall from the top of a play structure and the other time he fainted off the top of some bleachers. They happened within a 4 days of each other, and both times he hit his head first. It was also like a week after Natalie Richardson's death, so I was happy that his pediatrician wanted to do one. The emergency room doctor didn't think it was necessary though. OMG, I hope my decision to go ahead with it didn't cause any long term damage.

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. I think it would be exceptionally unlucky if just two CT scans were to

affect your son so direly.

I'm anything but an expert, but believe I read that repeatedly flying long distances, the aircrews/cabin-crews are subjected to much higher levels of radiation than most people would suffer from CT scans in hospitals.

It is also worth bearing in mind the comment of another poster with a more expert understanding than mine, that the Mail is known for dramatizing its news. The point is that one of the supermarket chains was offering them free, here - rather like the way in which a children's footwear company in the fifties and sixties used to offer free X-rays of children's feet: a treat, like eating candy.

[FourScore]

12. Thank you. You make a good point. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. If it's any help, the figures in #4 show a head CT scan is a safer one (nt)

[FourScore]

14. And he only had just 1 after the 2 falls. Not 2 scans.

Thamks mv!

:hi:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. How would they be able to isolate the cause of the cancer to the CT scan?

[bigwillq]

13. Now, really, how is this Connecticut's fault?!?!

:rofl: