“Medical radiation, introduced into medicine in 1896, became and remains a necessary causal co-actor in over half of the fatal cases of cancer in the USA, and became and remains a necessary causal co-actor also in over half of the fatal cases of ischemic heart disease (coronary artery disease) in the USA. From these conclusions plus the fact that x-ray harm is approximately proportional to accumulated x-ray dose, it follows that a very great deal of future cancer and ischemic hearet disease (IHD) could be prevented by reducing the dose-levels customarily administered during x-ray imaging procedures, especially CT and fluoroscopy. Indeed, it is very often feasible to get good images with half (or less) of the customary dose. Doing so could prevent about 250,000 premature deaths every year in the USA, by our estimate. The conclusions above are obviously so important for human health that they demand thoughtful, independent scruitiny, i.e., peer-review.”
November 2002 by John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Molecular & Cell Biology, Univ. of Calif. Berkeley
More Information
Patients Receiving High Radiation at Cedars Sinai File Class Action Lawsuit
The Dangers of Unnecessary Medical Tests
Medical Radiation Exposure Of The U.S. Population Greatly Increased Since The Early 1980s
Radiation Overdoses Point Up Dangers of CT Scans
Avoiding the Radiation Dangers of Cardiac CAT Scans
Exposure to Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation from Medical Imaging Procedures
Radiation From CT Scans Can Increase Risk of Cancer
Radiation Overload? Medical imaging usage has grown, and some are concerned it’s too much
X-Rays vs. Sonograms: Does Overuse of X-Rays and Underuse of Sonograms Endanger Patient Health?
Can radiation treatment hurt others?
Medicine: X-Ray Dangers (Time Magazine article from 1956!)
U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration: Guidance on Potassium Iodide as a Thyroid Blocking Agent in Radiation Emergencies
American Nuclear Society: Radiation Dose Chart
Antioxidant in Ginkgo may protect cells from radiation damage
CT Scans and Cancer: How to Minimize Your Risk
Tags: cancer and radiation, CAT scan, CT scan, ionizing radiation, medical radiation, MRI, potassium iodide, radiation damage, radiation overdose, x-ray safety
RSS
[...] Mammograms were designed to protect women by early detection of breast cancer; in actuality they increase the risk due to radiation exposure, claims Dr. Russell Blaylock-Brain Surgeon / Neuroscientist. The U.S. Preventive Task Force is now stating that women should not have yearly mammograms until the age of 50, and then only every two years. If better alternatives exist, then why do mainstream media and big pharmaceutical companies persist in using inferior treatments which do more harm than good? Disinformation is defined as: false information deliberately and often covertly spread in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth. Do you think it’s possible in a degenerative, greedy and power hungry society, there may be incentive within a 200 billion dollar a year industry to disseminate biased information in order to further one’s agenda? [...]
After my wife had successful lumpectomy surgery adn her doctor said ‘we got it all’, a radiologist down the hall called at least five times, and had my wife drive in to st. louis for consultation, claiming that my wife’s doctor suggested it. She first said my wife could get in on an Washington university ‘study’ if she acted within two days… andthis alarmed me and my wife and I discussed it. Then this ‘special deal’ which would have included ten (10) doses of hard x-rays in the area just pronounced clear of cancer… was offered anytime, and reduced to just three (3) doses in the same area… the inference being that this would destroy any missed cancer. It appears to have been a scam, a way to give x-rays for more compensation, in an area where there was no cancer. I finally managed to talk my wife out of getting these useless adn damaging x-rays, but she (and many women) is non-rechnical, and relioes on and trusts doctors.
I fear them.
Also, the ‘cancer’ that was surgically removed was identified as “zero activity’… so, was it really cancer?
The doctors never asked my wife about previous x-rays (damage from whih is accumulative), nor did they tell her x-rays were a government-classified Class A carcinogen.
The terror and anxiety these doctors impose on my wife… and obviously on countless other women… needs to be stopped and punished.
Is there a class action anywhere against these equipment manufacturere, supporting pharmacological companies, and the AMA that we could support?