Re: Re: Well, I had it done...

[Guest guest]

No, a little isn't going to kill you. However, yesterday I believe there was an

article in the news that a study was done and the medical profession is becoming

alarmed at the preponderance of radiation from xrays, ct scans and nuclear test

material that has increased a great deal. The radiation does stay in your body,

and it is cumulative. They are warning people to stay away from radiation from

testing sources if possible, and get other kinds of testing like MRIs and

ultrasounds.

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-7160-Sacramento-Nutrition-Examiner~y2009m12d16-CT-Scan\

s-excess-radiation-and-cancer-predictions-latest-news

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

>

> From: susansbook <susansbook@... <mailto:susansbook%40>>

> Subject: Well, I had it done...

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 6:02 PM

>

> and I was a wreck for the first fifteen minutes... but I calmed down.

> They won't get me to do the dye ever again unless it's a total

> emergency and there is no other choice. I am just freaking out that I

> did it. I did great though. I handled the treadmill wonderfully,

> stayed in breath and was on it the whole time. At the end I sure was

> getting tired of trying to keep myself standing straight on that

> incline. Not used to that at all. I'm not sure what the test will

> reveal over all, but the technician said that I was in pretty darned

> good shape to keep up with it and talk and laugh the whole time. I did

> get dizzy once it stopped, but I always do when I'm on something that

> is moving and suddenly I'm standing still. Wigs out my balance a little.

>

> Thanks for all the advice. I didn't get the chance to take anything

> before I went in but I downed a bunch of Vit. C and ate a bunch of

> carrots and yams when I got home. I have no idea why I wanted those so

> much, but I kept shoveling them in. I guess it may have been for the

> carotene. (Is that one of the things you use to help with the dye

> removal from the body?)

>

> Anyway, thanks again, everyone. I appreciate it and I'm going to copy

> all the info and do some research and educate myself much more before

> something like this ever has to come up again.

>

> Thanks,

>

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Roni,

You wrote:

> ... However, yesterday I believe there

> was an article in the news that a study was done and the medical

> profession is becoming alarmed at the preponderance of radiation from

> xrays, ct scans and nuclear test material that has increased a great

> deal....

The issue is CT scans, since these require multiple exposures. Regular

X-rays result in less than 1% of the exposures from 30 years ago, and

the trend is downward. CT scans are different.

Nuclear medicine procedures are also another matter, since the exposure

depends on many variables, including the concentration of the nuclide in

a specific organ. Thyroid uptake tests fall in that category, in which

case the whole body dose is pretty minimal. With these, radioactive

material does stay in the body for awhile, but NOT the radiation.

> The radiation does stay in your body, and it is cumulative.

Radiation from a CT scan absolutely, unequivocally does NOT stay in the

body after exposure. The damage is cumulative, but only if the rate of

exposure is high. The body seems to repair damage that occurs at a low

enough rate. This is why these estimates are exaggerated.

> ... They are warning people to stay away from radiation from testing sources

if

> possible, and get other kinds of testing like MRIs and ultrasounds.

That has always been good advice, except for three influences:

1. If the risk of missing the diagnosis is high, it could outweigh the

risk of the CT scan. This is something doctors are supposed to calculate

prior to ordering a CT scan.

2. MRIs cost a lot more than CT scans, so diagnostic procedure choices

could be catering to insurance rates.

3. The hospital may be trying to pay for new equipment and pressure

doctors to use the newest system.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Believe me, if there is a need for a type of xray test I have done it. Like

having a mammogram diagnostic xray after a screening xray, because I had pain.

If something

is warranted it's warranted, and we take our chances. I will try to avoid xrays

and

ct scans and nuclear testing if at all possible though.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

>  ... However, yesterday I believe there

> was an article in the news that a study was done and the medical

> profession is becoming alarmed at the preponderance of radiation from

> xrays, ct scans and nuclear test material that has increased a great

> deal....

The issue is CT scans, since these require multiple exposures. Regular

X-rays result in less than 1% of the exposures from 30 years ago, and

the trend is downward. CT scans are different.

Nuclear medicine procedures are also another matter, since the exposure

depends on many variables, including the concentration of the nuclide in

a specific organ. Thyroid uptake tests fall in that category, in which

case the whole body dose is pretty minimal. With these, radioactive

material does stay in the body for awhile, but NOT the radiation.

> The radiation does stay in your body, and it is cumulative.

Radiation from a CT scan absolutely, unequivocally does NOT stay in the

body after exposure. The damage is cumulative, but only if the rate of

exposure is high. The body seems to repair damage that occurs at a low

enough rate. This is why these estimates are exaggerated.

> ... They are warning people to stay away from radiation from testing sources

if

> possible, and get other kinds of testing like MRIs and ultrasounds.

That has always been good advice, except for three influences:

1. If the risk of missing the diagnosis is high, it could outweigh the

risk of the CT scan. This is something doctors are supposed to calculate

prior to ordering a CT scan.

2. MRIs cost a lot more than CT scans, so diagnostic procedure choices

could be catering to insurance rates.

3. The hospital may be trying to pay for new equipment and pressure

doctors to use the newest system.

Chuck

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

It seems to me that 1-2 rems would have 20% of the negative effect of

5-10 rems.

On the other hand, I recall a study where towns in England that had

higher levels of background radiation have longer lifespans.

On another note, it occurred to me that people who travel regularly in

aircraft will get a much higher exposure than most medical procedures.

On a quick search, I turned up this:

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q444.html

Question:

When flying on a commercial jet airliner at high altitudes (i.e.,

transcontinental or transatlantic), what is the x-ray exposure per hour?

Answer:

The radiation exposure to passengers and crew in high-flying aircraft is

caused not only by x rays (photons) but also by a variety of energetic

particles such as neutrons, protons, electrons, muons, and pions. These

radiation types are produced as a result of the interaction with the

Earth's atmosphere of high-energy particles (primarily protons and alpha

particles) that come from a variety of cosmic sources in our galaxy,

with a lesser contribution from our own sun.

The galactic component of this incoming cosmic radiation is always

present; the solar contribution varies in intensity over an

approximately 11-year cycle. In fact, the galactic component is greatest

at solar minimum and is reduced at solar maximum by solar particle

interactions with irregularities in the magnetic field associated with

the " solar wind. " Additionally, there is a significant variation of dose

rate with altitude and to a lesser extent with geomagnetic latitude.

During the last period of " solar minimum, " at an altitude of 30,000

feet, the dose rate was about 4 μSv per hour at the latitudes of North

America and Western Europe. During solar maximum, which is occurring

now, the dose rate fell to around 3 μSv per hour. For the higher

altitude of 40,000 feet, the dose rates were about 8μSv per hour at

solar minimum and now are about 6.5 μSv per hour. To put this into

perspective, the legal value of " maximum permissible dose " for members

of the public exposed to radiation originating from ground-based

industrial or medical facilities is 1,000 μSv per year. So an airline

passenger flying at an average altitude of 35,000 feet for a period of

about 160 hours (75,000 miles) during solar minimum would receive an

exposure at about the limit of the current acceptable level.

Of course, most people who fly 75,000 miles a year or more do so because

of their professional responsibilities as business travelers. It is my

contention that the almost 450,000 individuals in the United States who

fall into that category should be classified formally as occupationally

exposed workers and that they should receive appropriate education about

their exposures, particularly if they may be, or are about to become,

pregnant. In addition to the general cosmic-ray " background " discussed

above, there are rare solar particle events ( " solar storms " ) that can

significantly elevate the dose rates at airliner altitudes.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates

that in an 11-year solar cycle there could be up to three events that

might produce a dose rate of up to 200 μSv per hour for a few hours at

airliner altitudes. The most recent significant particle event occurred

on 14 July 2000. Although an exact value of the maximum dose rate has

not yet been established, my estimate is that it was at least 50 μSv per

hour extending over the relatively long period of almost a full day.

J. Barish, PhD, CHP, DABR, DABMP, FAAPM

Steve

wrote:

> Roni, I'm under the impression that the half life of the radionuclide

> used is 2 or 3 days. Besides it's such a low dose that it is considered

> virtually harmless. I think it's on the order of 1 or 2 rems, and no

> adverse effects are thought to occur from less than 5 to 10 rems.

>

> OTOH I'm certainly far from being an expert on the subject. But I do

> know that we evolved in an environment containing radiation, so a little

> isn't going to kill you.

>

>

> .

> .

>

>

>

>> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Well%2C%20I%20had%20it%20done%2\

E%2E%2E>

>> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>>

>>

>> Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:24 pm (PST)

>>

>>

>>

>> Well, glad it's over and you did so well. However, the nuclear

>> material cannot be washed out of your body with food or anything else.

>> It will stay there for years. From here on in, make every effort to

>> avoid radiation of any type, including xrays and especially CT scans.

>> Each year that you avoid radiation, will be a year that your body has

>> less of it. By the

>> way, the unit of measure is called a rad.

>>

>> Roni

>> <>Just because something

>> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

>> not there<>

>>

>>

>>

>> From: susansbook <susansbook@... <mailto:susansbook%40>>

>> Subject: Well, I had it done...

>> hypothyroidism

>> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

>> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 6:02 PM

>>

>> and I was a wreck for the first fifteen minutes... but I calmed down.

>> They won't get me to do the dye ever again unless it's a total

>> emergency and there is no other choice. I am just freaking out that I

>> did it. I did great though. I handled the treadmill wonderfully,

>> stayed in breath and was on it the whole time. At the end I sure was

>> getting tired of trying to keep myself standing straight on that

>> incline. Not used to that at all. I'm not sure what the test will

>> reveal over all, but the technician said that I was in pretty darned

>> good shape to keep up with it and talk and laugh the whole time. I did

>> get dizzy once it stopped, but I always do when I'm on something that

>> is moving and suddenly I'm standing still. Wigs out my balance a little.

>>

>> Thanks for all the advice. I didn't get the chance to take anything

>> before I went in but I downed a bunch of Vit. C and ate a bunch of

>> carrots and yams when I got home. I have no idea why I wanted those so

>> much, but I kept shoveling them in. I guess it may have been for the

>> carotene. (Is that one of the things you use to help with the dye

>> removal from the body?)

>>

>> Anyway, thanks again, everyone. I appreciate it and I'm going to copy

>> all the info and do some research and educate myself much more before

>> something like this ever has to come up again.

>>

>> Thanks,

>>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

" The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you

run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher

" Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism "

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[Guest guest]

There are two more effective options, thermography and an MRI. The

first is more likely to detect cancer before it forms any lumps and the

second is more likely to detect cancerous lumps.

Mammogram Test Alternatives

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/449672.html

One may have to pay more in medical fees but one can avoid mammograms.

On a different note, I recall a survey of male doctors that asked if

they would recommend that their wives get a mammogram. The response was

overwhelmingly no. Speaks volumes.

Steve

Roni Molin wrote:

> Believe me, if there is a need for a type of xray test I have done it. Like

having a mammogram diagnostic xray after a screening xray, because I had pain.

If something

> is warranted it's warranted, and we take our chances. I will try to avoid

xrays and

> ct scans and nuclear testing if at all possible though.

>

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

>

>

>> ... However, yesterday I believe there

>> was an article in the news that a study was done and the medical

>> profession is becoming alarmed at the preponderance of radiation from

>> xrays, ct scans and nuclear test material that has increased a great

>> deal....

>

> The issue is CT scans, since these require multiple exposures. Regular

> X-rays result in less than 1% of the exposures from 30 years ago, and

> the trend is downward. CT scans are different.

>

> Nuclear medicine procedures are also another matter, since the exposure

> depends on many variables, including the concentration of the nuclide in

> a specific organ. Thyroid uptake tests fall in that category, in which

> case the whole body dose is pretty minimal. With these, radioactive

> material does stay in the body for awhile, but NOT the radiation.

>

>> The radiation does stay in your body, and it is cumulative.

>

> Radiation from a CT scan absolutely, unequivocally does NOT stay in the

> body after exposure. The damage is cumulative, but only if the rate of

> exposure is high. The body seems to repair damage that occurs at a low

> enough rate. This is why these estimates are exaggerated.

>

>> ... They are warning people to stay away from radiation from testing sources

if

>> possible, and get other kinds of testing like MRIs and ultrasounds.

>

> That has always been good advice, except for three influences:

>

> 1. If the risk of missing the diagnosis is high, it could outweigh the

> risk of the CT scan. This is something doctors are supposed to calculate

> prior to ordering a CT scan.

> 2. MRIs cost a lot more than CT scans, so diagnostic procedure choices

> could be catering to insurance rates.

> 3. The hospital may be trying to pay for new equipment and pressure

> doctors to use the newest system.

>

> Chuck

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

" The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you

run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher

" Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism "

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[Guest guest]

My concern with this and other radiation and nuclear testing is only that there

is so much of

this that we do get normally, the less we can avoid the better. The atom bomb

radiation caused cancer in people that weren't anywhere near it. We all got a

dose of radiation from Chenoble and Three Mile Island, airplane flights, etc. If

one of the tests is absolutely necessary than it is and I would get it. If I can

get another test without it, I will do that. Some doctors offer these tests as

the only way to get it done, and in many instances there are other options.

 

 

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> Subject: Re: Well, I had it done...

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2009, 4:49 PM

>

> Roni, I'm under the impression that the half life of the radionuclide

> used is 2 or 3 days.  Besides it's such a low dose that it is considered

> virtually harmless.  I think it's on the order of 1 or 2 rems, and no

> adverse effects are thought to occur from less than 5 to 10 rems.

>

> OTOH I'm certainly far from being an expert on the subject.   But I do

> know that we evolved in an environment containing radiation, so a little

> isn't going to kill you.

>

>

> .

> .

>

> >       Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

> <mailto:matchermaam%40>

> > <mailto:matchermaam@...

> <mailto:matchermaam%40>?Subject=%20Re%

> 3A%20Well%2C%20I%20had%20it%20done%2E%2E%2E>

> >       matchermaam <matchermaam

> <matchermaam>>

> >

> >

> >         Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:24 pm (PST)

> >

> >

> >

> > Well, glad it's over and you did so well. However, the nuclear

> > material cannot be washed out of your body with food or anything else.

> > It will stay there for years. From here on in, make every effort to

> > avoid radiation of any type, including xrays and especially CT scans.

> > Each year that you avoid radiation, will be a year that your body has

> > less of it. By the

> > way, the unit of measure is called a rad.

> >

> > Roni

------------------------------------