> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > EM radiation DOES cause cancer and cell damage and > physical trauma. > Go lie out naked in the sun for a while, you'll > see. <snippage> ... I'm certainly far more > worried about skin cancer than I am about brain > tumours. > Once again the key has to be whether the em > radiation from cell phones is > powerful enough to cause DNA damage in the brain. My > point is that the brain is > bathed in em all the time and unless the cell phones > produce a different or > more powerful type of radiation the brain should > have no trouble dealing with > this. By the way there is no evidence of increased > cancer risks in adults who > have undergone CT scan even multiple scans where > the radiation exposure is > orders of magnitudes greater than that from a cell > phone. Even radiation > therapy to the brain does not cause a significant > increase in additional cancers...
Fetal and childhood exposure is another matter, however. I have previously cited the small but detectable increase in leukemia with fetal exposure to imaging X-rays; here are a few more [note that theoretical risks are typically calculated, b/c one cannot deliberately irradiate a thousand pregnant women and follow the babies born]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16498123&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum ...CONCLUSION: Radiation doses to the fetus from institutional MDCT protocols that may be used during pregnancy (for pulmonary embolus, appendicitis, and renal colic) are below the level thought to induce neurologic detriment to the fetus. Imaging the mother for appendicitis theoretically may double the fetal risk for developing a childhood cancer. Radiation doses to the fetus from pulmonary embolus chest CT angiography are of the same magnitude as ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scanning. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11159059&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum ...CONCLUSION: The best available risk estimates suggest that pediatric CT will result in significantly increased lifetime radiation risk over adult CT, both because of the increased dose per milliampere-second, and the increased lifetime risk per unit dose. Lower milliampere-second settings can be used for children without significant loss of information. Although the risk-benefit balance is still strongly tilted toward benefit, because the frequency of pediatric CT examinations is rapidly increasing, estimates that quantitative lifetime radiation risks for children undergoing CT are not negligible may stimulate more active reduction of CT exposure settings in pediatric patients. WRT adults: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15128988&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum PURPOSE: To estimate the radiation-related lung cancer risks associated with annual low-dose computed tomographic (CT) lung screening in adult smokers and former smokers, and to establish a baseline risk that the potential benefits of such screening should exceed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The estimated lung radiation dose from low-dose CT lung examinations corresponds to a dose range for which there is direct evidence of increased cancer risk in atomic bomb survivors. Estimated dose-, sex-, and smoking status-dependent excess relative risks of lung cancer were derived from cancer incidence data for atomic bomb survivors and used to calculate the excess lung cancer risks associated with a single CT lung examination at a given age in a U.S. population. From these, the overall radiation risks associated with annual CT lung screening were estimated. RESULTS: A 50-year-old female smoker who undergoes annual CT lung screening until age 75 would incur an estimated radiation-related lung cancer risk of 0.85%, in addition to her otherwise expected lung cancer risk of approximately 17%. The radiation-associated cancer risk to other organs would be far lower. If 50% of all current and former smokers in the U.S. population aged 50-75 years received annual CT screening, the estimated number of lung cancers associated with radiation from screening would be approximately 36,000, a 1.8% (95% credibility interval: 0.5%, 5.5%) increase over the otherwise expected number. CONCLUSION: Given the estimated upper limit of a 5.5% increase in lung cancer risk attributable to annual CT-related radiation exposure, a mortality benefit of considerably more than 5% may be necessary to outweigh the potential radiation risks. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15273333&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum PURPOSE: To estimate the radiation-related cancer mortality risks associated with single or repeated full-body computed tomographic (CT) examinations by using standard radiation risk estimation methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The estimated dose to the lung or stomach from a single full-body CT examination is 14-21 mGy, which corresponds to a dose region for which there is direct evidence of increased cancer mortality in atomic bomb survivors. Total doses for repeated examinations are correspondingly higher. The authors used estimated cancer risks in a U.S. population derived from atomic bomb-associated cancer mortality data, together with calculated organ doses from a full-body CT examination, to estimate the radiation risks associated with single and multiple full-body CT examinations. RESULTS: A single full-body CT examination in a 45-year-old adult would result in an estimated lifetime attributable cancer mortality risk of around 0.08%, with the 95% credibility limits being a factor of 3.2 in either direction. A 45-year-old adult who plans to undergo annual full-body CT examinations up to age 75 (30 examinations) would accrue an overall estimated lifetime attributable risk of cancer mortality of about 1.9%, with the 95% credibility limits being a factor of 2 in either direction... For diagnostic radiation in general: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15070562&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum BACKGROUND: Diagnostic X-rays are the largest man-made source of radiation exposure to the general population, contributing about 14% of the total annual exposure worldwide from all sources. Although diagnostic X-rays provide great benefits, that their use involves some small risk of developing cancer is generally accepted. Our aim was to estimate the extent of this risk on the basis of the annual number of diagnostic X-rays undertaken in the UK and in 14 other developed countries. METHODS: We combined data on the frequency of diagnostic X-ray use, estimated radiation doses from X-rays to individual body organs, and risk models, based mainly on the Japanese atomic bomb survivors, with population-based cancer incidence rates and mortality rates for all causes of death, using life table methods. FINDINGS: Our results indicate that in the UK about 0.6% of the cumulative risk of cancer to age 75 years could be attributable to diagnostic X-rays. This percentage is equivalent to about 700 cases of cancer per year. In 13 other developed countries, estimates of the attributable risk ranged from 0.6% to 1.8%, whereas in Japan, which had the highest estimated annual exposure frequency in the world, it was more than 3%. INTERPRETATION: We provide detailed estimates of the cancer risk from diagnostic X-rays. The calculations involved a number of assumptions and so are inevitably subject to considerable uncertainty. The possibility that we have overestimated the risks cannot be ruled out, but that we have underestimated them substantially seems unlikely. Diagnostic X-rays and therapeutic radiation have saved many lives; they have also taken a few. As with all medical interventions, you have to weigh benefit and cost. Having undergone 2 total body CT scans post major accidents, I will choose actual colonoscopy over future VR-CT colonoscopy (which ought to be available by the time I need to start that screening), in order to avoid additional radiation. Debbi SPF 50, Baby! Maru or Ah Dasn't Dahre Risk Mah Fish-belly Hwite Skin To Th' Burnin' Raise Of Th' Suhn Maru ;) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
