[ RadSafe ] Studies Quantify Cancer Risks From CT Scans

[Richard D. Urban Jr.]

Comments here so far are good, however, there was only one 'informed' and dissenting comment on the article at the time of my post to counter the fear mongering.  
My background is commercial nuke, not radio-biology, and I am not well enough versed to post counter arguments, so I invite those of you that are to please, as I noted in the orignal post, address them at the original link to the article, OR to its source link (and now every site that may pick up story)...  
radmax


-----Original Message-----
>From: "Stabin, Michael" <michael.g.stabin at Vanderbilt.Edu>
>Sent: Dec 15, 2009 2:26 PM
>To: "radsafe at radlab.nl" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>Subject: [ RadSafe ] Re: Studies Quantify Cancer Risks From CT Scans
>
>"... 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
>___________________________________________________________________________________
>You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
>Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
>For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/