[ RadSafe ] Re: CT radiation makes LESS cancer and deformity?

[John Jacobus]

It is ridiculous to compare CT scans, which only
result in partial body exposures, to the atomic bomb
survivors.

As I have noted in the past, these articles are
controversial and are of little use in a debate on our
current knowledge of radiation risks.

--- howard long <hflong at pacbell.net> wrote:

> Reassure those fearing CT cancer or fetal
> deformities:
> "Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis
> Against Cancer" 
> (Chen, Luan et al, J Am Physicians and Surgeons
> 9:1:04)
> "-cobalt-60 - formed into construction steel -10,000
> persons 
> occupied for 9-20 years received radiation doses
> that averaged 0.4Sv
> cancer mortality 3.5/100,000 [vs 116 expected], 
>  congenital heart malformations 1.5/100,000 [vs 23
> expected]"
> 
> Also, from "Breast Cancer Incidence Among Atomic
> Bomb Survivors"
> J Nat Cancer Inst 1979 Jan;62(1):17-21, Land,
> McGregor et al 
> Table 2       0       1-9 rad  19-49 rad   50-99 rad
>  100-199 rad  >200 rad
> Observed  109      34         37               11   
>            16               18
> Expected   127.8  42.3      33.0              9.4   
>           6.5            6.0 
> 
> NOTE THAT WITH  1 TO 10 REM (rad) THERE IS LESS
> CANCER
> even with the bomb (acute, like CT)
> 
> Howard Long MD MPH (epidemiology)
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)"
> <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
> To: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:45:31 AM
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Radiation exposure of
> pregnant women more than doublesin 10 years
> 
> This article seems to ignore the question that I
> think should be at the
> core of the decision to use ionizing radiation on
> pregnant women, or
> indeed on any patient, or indeed any invasive
> medical procedure, whether
> or not it involves radiation: Does this procedure
> increase or decrease
> the patient's overall risk?  If the answer is "yes",
> then it should be
> done, if there is no other procedure that will
> result in a greater net
> risk reduction.  If the answer is "no", then the
> procedure shouldn't be
> done.  There is, of course, a big gray zone where
> the relative risks and
> advantages are not clear, and while it would be
> delightful to have every
> patient informed enough to make an appropriate
> decision, I don't see
> that happening any time soon.  Doctors will have to
> make those
> decisions, and that's why they get paid the big
> bucks (or at least part
> of the reason).
> 
> I do not claim that pregnant women are not being
> exposed unnecessarily;
> I am saying that this article implies that without
> supporting the
> position, and does it in a way I find suspicious.
> 
> 

+++++++++++++++++++
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." -- Sir Winston Churchill

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal. 
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.  http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/