[ RadSafe ] Re: Studies Quantify Cancer Risks From CT Scans

[Stabin, Michael]

"... reducing radiation dosages, eliminating unnecessary and repeat examinations, and creating searchable electronic medical records to collect and track CT studies over time..." are all very worthy goals.

Everyone agrees. But can this not be done without scaring the general public out of their wits so, that they avoid necessary CT scans? And without suggesting that physicians are serial killers?

Carol Marcus notes to me that two patients "had CT scans for an unrelated reason were found to have small localized kidney cancers.  Their kidney was removed, and they were cured.  Otherwise, this cancer would not have become obvious until it had spread and the patient would die.  Or, a patient with new onset stroke is a candidate for TPA, a drug that lyses the clot.  However, if the patient had a hemorrhagic stroke, this drug would likely kill them or make the stroke worse.  Many physicians would not use the drug without knowing whether this was a garden variety stroke or the rarer hemorrhagic type.  That's why they get CT scans."

I agree that some CTs and repeat CTs are not needed. I don't agree with publishing these articles that suggest specific numbers of people are keeling over dead in the streets every year because they had a CT, based solely on the LNT hypothesis. NOT getting needed medical treatments certainly causes morbidity and mortality; receiving diagnostic levels of medical radiation may or may not cause excess cancers, we simply don't know, and to claim that we do is irresponsible, espcially when this may cost lives.


Mike

Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP
Associate Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
Vanderbilt University
1161 21st Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37232-2675
Phone (615) 343-4628
Fax   (615) 322-3764
e-mail     michael.g.stabin at vanderbilt.edu
internet   www.doseinfo-radar.com
____________________________________