Health
Related: About this forumCan 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.
Warpy
(111,292 posts)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)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)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.
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)tech3149
(4,452 posts)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.
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)Warpy
(111,292 posts)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)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.