[ RadSafe ] CT scans and cancer

[Steven Dapra]

November 29

         Good point, John.  Once again it shows how shallow the thinking is 
on relative risk (and a lot of other important public policy topics).

Steven Dapra


At 12:06 PM 11/29/07 -0800, Flood, John wrote:
>The public debate on this and similar subjects seems to focus
>exclusively on the perceived risk for the patient from exposure during
>the test, but is silent on the subject of the risk to the patient from
>not having the test.  How peculiarly one-sided.
>
>John R. (Bob) Flood
>Radiological Health
>Nevada Test Site
>(702) 295-2514
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
>Behalf Of Brennan, Mike (DOH)
>Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 10:31 AM
>To: radsafe at radlab.nl
>Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] CT scans and cancer
>
>Did he speculate on how many of the people who might develop cancers
>could have avoided that fate by dieing of something that could have been
>prevented with the help of the information a CT could have provided?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
>Behalf Of Brunkow, Ward
>Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 6:19 AM
>To: Steven Dapra; radsafe at radlab.nl
>Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] CT scans and cancer
>
>Our highly discussed issue here finally made the cable TV circuit this
>morning with Dr. Sanjae Gupka (? Spelling), CNN Medical Expert. He
>stated that CTs were suspected in 1-3% excess cancers.
>
>W. G. (Ward) Brunkow