1. Zack Barkley on Mayo Clinic experts provide some insight about radiation dose from CT imaging
    Zack Barkley Zack Barkley United Kingdom says:
    May 2, 2015 at 7:40 PM

    While it appears true that low dose radiations have little or no effect upon cancer rates, one must remember that cancer is a pretty specialized process where a confluence of damage must meet highly specified criteria to enable a cell to reproduce uncontrollably in the human body.  The "other" kinds of damage that radiation, even low doses, "probably" produces would be expected to be much more prevalent.  Even the background dose of radiation 3mSv/year means a rather violent bomb of radiation tracks through every cell nucleus in your body every 2-3 years, and this is quite violent chemically.  We know that doses similar to CT doses in mice brains produce permanent loss of synaptic densities and permanent brain deficits.  When you get a CT scan your basically exposing yourself to 7 years of background radiation within a few minutes, and it is really unknown if your body can really handle all that damage at once.  I think the jury really is out from a physcial perspective until more studies (not just cancer studies) but studies on cell senescent macromolecular damage etc are performed.

    Reply
    • It is incorrect that even a low dose has no risk. After going through a
      Ozbloke36 Empty Ozbloke36 Empty Australia says:
      October 8, 2016 at 11:30 PM

      It is incorrect that even a low dose has no risk.

      After going through a Radiographic imaging course, I would never get an x-ray again unless my life depended on it.

      The risk is not just that of cancer, but of genetic DNA mutations also. This cannot and is not measured as there is no way of doing so.

      All medical professionals say the risk is very low and just compares it to a flight most of the time in a plane, but the radiation is actually quite different, as there are different types.

      So I would urge people not to get x-rays done unless it is 100% absolutely necessary. This cannot be said enough.

      Elderly people are not at risk as much of course but children and anyone even thinking about having children should avoid it unless 100% absolutely. If there is another avenue you can get instead, such as an MRI or ultrasound, take it! You and / or your children and children's children will thank you for it, for not predisposing them to possible DNA mutations.

      Reply
The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
(Logout)
Post

Terms

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.

Provide Feedback