Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ex Lurker

(3,815 posts)
Tue Apr 1, 2014, 05:24 PM Apr 2014

Can someone give me a realistic assessment of the risks of nuclear medicine?

I have a relative who had an episode of chest pain last week. I urged him to get checked, and he did-so far he's been through a nuclear stress test, and the Dr wants to run a cardiac CT scan. I've been reading about the amount of radiation involved in these procedures, and it's a lot more than I realized. Did I do the right thing in pushing him to see the Dr? The medical literature is all over the map as to whether this poses a cancer risk or not. Some say it's not a problem at all, others say avoid if at all possible.

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Can someone give me a realistic assessment of the risks of nuclear medicine? (Original Post) Ex Lurker Apr 2014 OP
The risk is negligible. Warpy Apr 2014 #1
It's just so hard to know from the internet Ex Lurker Apr 2014 #2
Dr Google is notoriously unreliable Warpy Apr 2014 #4
Consult your doctor. No one is better qualified to give medical advice. nt Xipe Totec Apr 2014 #3
No offense but doctors only know what they've been taught tech3149 Apr 2014 #5
Take whatever advice you deem reliable. And good luck. nt Xipe Totec Apr 2014 #6
A large source of radon gas these days is the granite countertops in palatial kitchens Warpy Apr 2014 #7
Dr. Caldicott? Oh boy NickB79 Apr 2014 #8

Warpy

(111,292 posts)
1. The risk is negligible.
Tue Apr 1, 2014, 05:33 PM
Apr 2014

The dosage is very low, just enough to see how the heart is being perfused during exercise. That's why they do it, a damaged heart will show a dark spot from coronary arteries that are either severely blocked or not there any more. At that point, they might schedule the person for more invasive studies with possible stenting.

Ex Lurker

(3,815 posts)
2. It's just so hard to know from the internet
Tue Apr 1, 2014, 05:49 PM
Apr 2014

you read this stuff, and you don't know what agenda the writer has. It all sounds plausible to the layman. The amount doesn't sound like much, then they start comparing it to other things-the CT is equal to 500 chest x-rays, or three years of background radiation, etc. Or that the stress test has a 1 in 348 chance of causing cancer. Then others say exposure at that level has no statistical proof of any risk at all. Who to believe? This person respects my opinion, and went to the Dr in large part at my urging, so I feel responsible.

Warpy

(111,292 posts)
4. Dr Google is notoriously unreliable
Tue Apr 1, 2014, 06:08 PM
Apr 2014

since there are radiation phobes out there who think every cosmic ray that manages to get past the atmosphere increases your chance of cancer.

The yearly full body CT scans that rich yuppies were having as status symbols did increase their chances of developing cancer, that sort of status symbol is just plain nuts. Necessary tests are different, the benefit vastly outweighs the risk.

tech3149

(4,452 posts)
5. No offense but doctors only know what they've been taught
Tue Apr 1, 2014, 06:30 PM
Apr 2014

unless they are exceptional. I've worked supporting medical professional most of my adult life. They're all good people but most don't learn to think outside the box. Their understanding is restricted to what they learn in school and continuing development is mainly from Pharma.
In my field my best skill was as a diagnostician. What I learned in school was just barely a starting point. I spent untold free time trying to develop my skills with the tools I had available. Most in the medical profession have been sold on these high tech diagnostic tools but neglect the basic diagnostic tools such an their eyes and ears.
To get to the point of the OP, I agree with Dr Caldicott. There is no safe level of radiation. Every x-ray, every CT scan and even going through the scanner at the airport is exposing you to radiation that can cause major damage. You might not see the effect for years or decades so it's hard to assign blame.

Think about this one for a bit. Radon gas is naturally occurring radioactive substance. If you buy a house, you have to do a Radon test. If the level is too high you have to have some process in place to vent the gas.
Radiation is a serious problem but I think we're all screwed anyway.pretty much all of us have 60 toxic chemicals in our body that could have dire effects.
Me? I'm just a tired old fart that doesn't give a shit about myself. The problem is I'm leaving a world to my youngers that is worse than what I had.

Warpy

(111,292 posts)
7. A large source of radon gas these days is the granite countertops in palatial kitchens
Tue Apr 1, 2014, 08:53 PM
Apr 2014

in those big yuppie houses.

Radon wasn't much of a problem until the first energy crisis in the 70s had people super insulating and tightening up their houses to afford to heat them. That also trapped radon gas.

NickB79

(19,257 posts)
8. Dr. Caldicott? Oh boy
Sun Apr 6, 2014, 09:39 AM
Apr 2014


Every x-ray, every CT scan and even going through the scanner at the airport is exposing you to radiation that can cause major damage.


And every time I walk outdoors, I risk being hit by lighting. The risk is tiny, but it's still there.

I still walk outside. And I still get X-rays when my doctor or dentist recommends them.

Oh edit: you also get more natural radiation from the actual airline flight (since you're 30,000 ft up) than you get from TSA's scanners.
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Health»Can someone give me a rea...