| There is little doubt that x-ray
| |
| | The point is that even the experts aren't
|
| technology (x-rays, CT scans,
| |
| | sure of the degree of damage. But they
|
| fluoroscopy) in medicine has done much
| |
| | all are sure of the damage. We should
|
| good and is an invaluable diagnostic
| |
| | take the hint.
|
| tool. Although I seriously question its
| |
| | Unfortunately technicians and
|
| usefulness as a therapeutic tool (e.g.
| |
| | radiologists do not always critically
|
| cancer radiation therapy), that will not
| |
| | control x-ray dosing. They are concerned
|
| be the focus of this article.
| |
| | with diagnostic images that are easy to
|
| X-rays are high-energy nuclear emissions
| |
| | read, not so much with what the x-rays
|
| that have the ability to pass right
| |
| | are doing as they are not so gently
|
| through tissue and leave an image on a
| |
| | perambulating through your tissues. Since
|
| film, called a radiograph (the film
| |
| | adverse effects are not immediate and
|
| itself is not an "x-ray"). Less emission
| |
| | would be impossible to tie to the
|
| gets through denser tissue like bone, and
| |
| | techniques used, caution can be pretty
|
| more goes through soft tissue to darken
| |
| | much thrown to the wind. People do not
|
| the film. This results in the contrast,
| |
| | always behave in your best interests if
|
| the picture of our insides, seen on the
| |
| | there are no consequences to them for
|
| films - light areas are dense tissues,
| |
| | their actions. I am not saying this
|
| darker areas are less dense.
| |
| | always occurs and that medical personnel
|
| That little lesson in radiology aside,
| |
| | are not concerned for your safety, just
|
| it's what the x-ray does as it passes
| |
| | alerting you to the fact the door is wide
|
| through the body that should be of
| |
| | open for sloppy work.
|
| concern to all. The high-energy x-ray
| |
| | It is estimated that dose reduction, beam
|
| particles can wreak havoc on their
| |
| | collimation (control), rare-earth screens
|
| journey through tissue. When they hit
| |
| | and filtration, carbon fiber materials,
|
| electrons they confer upon them high
| |
| | more extensive lead shielding, decrease
|
| levels of unnatural energy. Like a bull
| |
| | in contrast resolution and use of a
|
| in a china shop, these electrons can
| |
| | pulsed system in digital radiography and
|
| cause mutations including deletions and
| |
| | an array of constraining techniques in
|
| translocations of DNA material. The
| |
| | fluoroscopy could reduce exposure by
|
| wreckage is often beyond the capability
| |
| | several fold.
|
| of DNA repair mechanisms. The resulting
| |
| | That's what they can do. What you can do
|
| instability of the chromosome is a
| |
| | is not submit to x-rays unless absolutely
|
| precursor to cancer. Cancer is, in
| |
| | necessary. Don't run to the emergency
|
| effect, the inability of a cell to any
| |
| | room every time you stub your toe or feel
|
| longer know its place and behave within
| |
| | an ache. Don't do everything physicians
|
| its normal constraints. The control
| |
| | say without question. Find dentists who
|
| mechanism for cell behavior is the
| |
| | will only take x-rays when it can be
|
| genetic material with which x-rays and
| |
| | proven to you it is absolutely necessary.
|
| their misbehaving electron progeny play
| |
| | Offer to sign liability waivers if they
|
| havoc.
| |
| | want. Tell them you have already had too
|
| This sounds like free-radical activity,
| |
| | many x-rays and you know the dangers are
|
| but is different in that it is far more
| |
| | cumulative.
|
| energetic and potentially damaging. The
| |
| | The bottom line is that the vast majority
|
| body has mechanisms in place to scavenge
| |
| | of x-rays are unnecessary and physicians
|
| and quench free radicals, but x-ray
| |
| | know it. Any experienced practitioner can
|
| energy is several orders in magnitude
| |
| | usually tell you what's wrong (usually
|
| beyond those neutralizing capabilities.
| |
| | nothing that will not cure itself with a
|
| X-ray mutational damage can kill a cell
| |
| | little time) before they even see you,
|
| or alter it. If the cell is altered, that
| |
| | and with a little history taking and
|
| change stays with it since the genetic
| |
| | palpation (touchy-feely) they can get
|
| material will replicate the error. If
| |
| | even closer. But they are hesitant
|
| more damage to the genetic material
| |
| | (understandably) to give you their
|
| occurs, the results are additive.
| |
| | experienced wisdom because they are
|
| Remember that. Radiation damage is
| |
| | worried about their liability (rightly
|
| cumulative. It never goes away, it is
| |
| | so), not your chromosomal damage which
|
| just added to until the cell dies or the
| |
| | will not show up for years and would by
|
| genetic aberration results in cancer and
| |
| | then be impossible to relate to their
|
| resultant organism death.
| |
| | x-rays.
|
| There is NO safe level of radiation. It
| |
| | So you must take control over your own
|
| is a risk versus benefit game as is all
| |
| | body. You make the decision about x-rays,
|
| of medicine.
| |
| | and any other medical intervention for
|
| There are those within the medical
| |
| | that matter, by getting informed.
|
| community who argue (with substantial
| |
| | Weigh the risk versus the benefit. And
|
| supporting data) that the 300 million or
| |
| | remember, any medical intervention is a
|
| so x-rays taken each year add up to a
| |
| | risk.
|
| very significant factor in cancer
| |
| | References:
|
| mortality and even atherosclerosis. The
| |
| | Gofman, JW, Radiation from Medical
|
| latter is a result of mutational damage
| |
| | Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer
|
| in the endothelium (coronary blood vessel
| |
| | and Ischemic Heart Disease: Dose-Response
|
| wall) to create a mini tumor nidus from
| |
| | Studies with Physicians per 100,000
|
| which an atherosclerotic plaque emerges.
| |
| | Population,
|
| Since x-rays always cause damage, and the
| |
| | Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, San
|
| damage is related to the number and
| |
| | Francisco, CA, 1999.
|
| strength of exposures, the obvious
| |
| | (
|
| solution is to have fewer x-rays and
| |
| | Gofman JW, "What Are the Main Critiques
|
| lower dose x-rays. But don't get real
| |
| | of the 1999 Study by Gofman, after Three
|
| comfortable with that either. Recent
| |
| | Years of Peer-Review?" Committee for
|
| research has shown that repair of low
| |
| | Nuclear Responsibility, San Francisco,
|
| dose radiation damage to genetic material
| |
| | CA, 2002.
|
| may be ignored or delayed by cellular
| |
| | (
|
| repair mechanisms. High doses that kill
| |
| | Gofman JW, "FDA Proposes New X-Ray
|
| cells, preventing them from unbridled
| |
| | Regulations: Immense Health Benefits
|
| reproduction (cancer), might be better
| |
| | Possible -- Unless Naysayers Prevail.
|
| than the low doses. But high doses create
| |
| | X-Ray-Induced Diseases, Hormesis, and
|
| low dose scatter and more widespread
| |
| | Medical Ethics,"
|
| potential damage.
| |
| | Testimony submitted to the FDA, March 31,
|
| How's that for a confusing mess?
| |
| | 2003.
|
