Does medical imaging cause cancer?

>>8296980
Probably, if you use it too often. The benefits generally outweigh the risks, however.

File: james_gandolfini2_9_3856351_ver1.0_640_480.jpg (117KB, 640x421px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 640x421px

These are risk factors for ionizing radiation-producing medical imaging to cause cancer

>being a female(almost doubles your risk)
>being a child under 5 years old(you're growing very rapidly and the room for error is large and typically fatal)
>having a genetic predisposition like Neurofibromatosis(fairly rare and you would know if you had it based on how many of your family members had incidents of cancer at a-typical ages)
>having several or more of the same scan in a short period of time(two scans at a time, non-contrast/contrast each week for several months, etc)
>being scanned on an older machine or one that has not been calibrated and gives you a dose much higher than the average(DLP that is above the 75th percentile for that particular scan) repeatedly
>scanning organs that are more susceptible to radiation damage(anything in the torso)

From everything we know, the doses you receive from Plain Film x-rays, CT scans, Fluoroscopy, Nuclear Medicine, and Interventional Procedures are simply not enough to induce cancer in any statistically obvious way. If such a reality exists, it is rare and will occur due to you fitting one or more of the above risk factors.

CT scans are the funny ones because everyone freaks out about them. CT scans are simply images taken at typically 5-7mm apart, so it's not the same thing as being in a nuclear incident. It's like getting a normal x-ray, but you get one for every 5-7mm of whatever you're scanning. The actual dose isn't what your getting to all areas, but split between all of the images, so it in reality is no different from a plain-film x-ray in terms of dosage.

>>8296980
We had a huge thread already.

The answer is obviously and definitively NO.
You can start scaremongering again about how a couple CTs a year can cause cancer but everyone knows you're just pretending to be retarded.

>>8297360
> obvious

File: what.jpg (5KB, 160x205px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 160x205px

>>8297403
The benefits of the technology have always far outweighed any risk. A CT scan is literally just a more sophisticated x-ray. You can't look at effective doses, because that's not how CT scanners work. You look at the CTDIvol and the DLP. The CTDIvol is probably the most important number. It's the actual dose per slice, and it's typically lower than the dose of an x-ray. You don't see people get cancer from CT scans because that would be ridiculous. People would be getting cancer from x-rays left and right.

Do you want to know how what the radiation dose is per slice from a typical head CT scan?

It's 50 µSv, or 0.05mSv, less than a plain film chest x-ray.

Know your shit or don't talk, because I'm sick of BTFO retards that don't know how CT scanners work, look at effective dose numbers and go
>that number is bigger than that one so CT SCANS ARE SO MUCH WORSE THAN X-RAYS!!

for fucks sake

>>8297490
>trying to convince people who think that cigarettes are healthy and that GMOs cause autism

Yes.They use NMRs, which means nuclear mangetic resonance. Since it's nuclear, it's cancerous. Ignore the CT scans too!

>>8297526
are you insane

There is this comment on reddit of a guy that said he had "quite a few" head CT scans and then 5 years later he had to get a benign tumor on his pituitary gland checked out via MRI. He won't reply to how many "quite a few" is but he had them all within a two month period.

>>8298743
found out some more about this guy, he had this growth on his pituitary gland removed almost exactly five years later, and the doctors don't think it was cancer.

>>8298759
Is the pituary even accessible without severing brain tissue?

did this guy get a brain surgery for something that could be a benign tumor or something?

>>8298743
>>8298759
>>8298770
this is the reply I just received
>no, they found the tumor with the first look, after my concussion; apparently it had been there for a long time. Just didn't get around to going after it until, well, started getting tests and preliminary exams last summer then had it reduced in January.

so he already had this random tumor and the CT scan after being mugged and concussed is what found it, lol

I'm asking for sort of a clarification, but even in this case where someone got "quite a few" head CT scans has no incidence of cancer after 5 years. This guy is getting random benign tumors, and even he doesn't have brain cancer from his "quite a few" head CT scans.

just got a reply to how many "quite a few" is
>Less than half a dozen, I think. Never worried since it was just the top of my head.
so more than 2 but less than 6 within a 60 day period, basically.

>>8298781
can you have partial ct scans?
if that's the case I guess the CTs might be irrelevant.

>>8298787
>can you have partial ct scans?
I've literally never heard of it but I'm asking for some clarification. A head CT scan is a pretty specific thing, just as all of these scans are. They don't just go "ah, we'll do just the top of your head since we think that's where the damage is", that's just irresponsible. I think they were referring to their actual injury. A head CT scan is a head CT scan. They don't modify the actual scan, just the parameters related to dosage etc...

I'm asking for a clarification though so we'll see what they say.

>>8298793
btw, feel free to message him yourselves. please share his replies

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/4zh420/radiation_doses_a_visual_guide_xkcd/d6whrko

>>8298793
so here's another reply to the whole "top of my head" thing
>Well, the brain is basically in the top. I was flat on my back with my head down to my eyebrows in that ring of white material, and it was only for what seemed like a very brief time, but I always noticed that odd smell.

so they were injected with a contrast and pushed through a CT scanner. At least we know it was actually a CT scanner, lol.

>>8296987
I hate all of this
>probably
>generally
>risks vs benefits
stupidity. You're supposed to keep people alive. How are you not absolutely positive whether or not this shit that you use on millions of people each year causes cancer? Like, what a joke. How does nobody know? It seems like relatively easy study. We have 40 years and billions of scans.

>>8299089
>are you not absolutely positive
m-muh feelings

>>8299160
what are you talking about?

File: sLe13h3.jpg (195KB, 1224x1445px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1224x1445px

>>8299089

>>8299207
motherfucker it's totally valid what I'm saying. you don't just give people scans like this willy nilly without knowing. that's retarded.

>>8299210
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/306067.php

File: 1472157719510.jpg (240KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 600x600px

>>8299218
nice propaganda with nothing backing it up

>>8299221
>still pretending

its okay anon

we all know you're special

>>8299277
i know that you post articles and say shit, but i'm willing to bet you won't sign up for a free full body diagnostic CT scan, because you know it's not safe, you fucking bullshitter.

>>8299331
>free diagnostic ct scan
Sign me up. I would

>>8299471
if you have insurance then it's basically included no matter what.

Every being on this planet is constantly being bombarded with ionizing radiation, ct and xray doses are thousands of times lower than being in the sun for 5 minutes. How do you know? Cause uv Burns your fuking skin in direct sunlight. And that gives you skin cancer and that may or may nor happen. It fucking random as fuck, but the more you get uv the higher your chances. Ignorant fucks in this place.

In other words sitting around and masturbating gives you cancer just depends how lucky you are.

>>8299707
>ct and xray doses are thousands of times lower than being in the sun for 5 minutes
lol no it absolutely fucking isn't you retard.

File: Zuckerkorn-Slide2.jpg (37KB, 631x293px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 631x293px

>>8296980
You tell me.

File: hi.png (244KB, 351x334px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 351x334px

>>8299721
You would be wise to not ask so many questions, goy... can't have Big Radiology start losing money, now can we...?

>>8299716

Ok dragon dildo master. Prove me wrong

>>8299768
you have to prove yourself correct in the first place you fucking retard.

>>8299777
Still dont see how you being a faggot makes me wrong.

>>8299707
Skin cancer develops in the cells in the epidermis – the top or outer layer of the skin. UV radiation is made up of UVA and UVB rays which are able to penetrate the skin and cause permanent damage to the cells below.

UVA penetrates deeply into the skin (the dermis) causing genetic damage to cells, photo-ageing (wrinkling, blotchiness etc) and immune-suppression.

UVB penetrates into the epidermis (top layer of the skin) causing damage to the cells. UVB is responsible for sunburn – a significant risk factor for skin cancer, especially melanoma.

If the body is unable to repair this damage the cell can begin to divide and grow in an uncontrolled way. This growth can eventually form a tumour.

A sunburn is quite literally DNA damage. When DNA absorbs a proton from UVB, it causes a sunburn.

The amount of radiation per hour that you get from a CT scan would induce severe radiation poisoning.

even a low-dose CT scan would give you about 500 mSv if exposed for an hour.

>>8299938
that isn't relevant though. we already know that acute doses under 100 mSv rarely cause cancer

File: 34b346.jpg (5KB, 187x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 187x200px

The EPA estimates that an acute dose of 100 mSv will increase your chance of getting cancer by 0.8%, or almost 1/100 people exposed to such a dose.

The EPA also allows an acute dose up to 250 mSv for emergency non-life saving work, meaning for 100 guys that do such work, 2 or 3 of them will die from a fatal cancer from the radiation, according to the EPA.

A trip to mars would give you about 1.5 mSv per day. Being on the ISS gives you about 0.5 mSv per day. A head CT scan gives you the same dose that would give you over 12 Sv in a day.

Getting a pelvic/abdomen CT has been estimated to induce a fatal cancer in 1/1100 people who undergo the scans.

Daily reminder that this is somehow legal and given to people on a daily basis with almost no consultation with doctors. You can go to the ER right now and say your head hurts, and they'll probably give you a CT scan, possibly even two.

This is real life, somehow.

>>8299997
The difference is that you're getting that dose one time, and astronauts are getting a steady stream every day. A single acute dose will not induce cancer except for under very rare circumstances. Cancer is induced after your cells go through several steps of fuckery that just aren't possible to induce from a single acute dose from a ct scan. this is why you Do see people get cancer from multiple scans in a short period of time. they aren't letting their bodies heal, basically.

>>8300012
By the way, only one astronaut has ever gotten cancer(pancreatic), and he's a 61 year old man that was on the ISS for a fucking long time. He received more radiation than you'll ever get from a CT scan, on a daily basis so his cells couldn't heal as easily.

>>8299997
and the EPA also acknowledges that cancer incidents are statistically insignificant under 100 mSv.

>>8299997
this is using bullshit extrapolations from LNT though, and none of them have ever been proven to be correct, ever. Hell, according to the LNT model, I have a 1 in 5711 chance of my scan giving me cancer. Your chance of getting in any motor vehicle accident and dying from it is in 1 in 100.

I'll theoretically get into 57 fatal motor vehicle accidents before a CT scan gives me cancer, basically. The chances are stupidly low in reality. Women have a higher chance of dying in childbirth in the USA than a CT scan has of giving you cancer. What american women die of childbirth anymore?

File: a-few-helpful-doctors-ready-to-excuse-you.jpg (1MB, 1734x1107px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1734x1107px

saying that a CT scan can give you cancer is literally like saying a chest x-ray can give you cancer. it almost never happens. an actual slice from a ct scan is less powerful than a chest x-ray. so logically, you could say that people would be getting cancer from their chest x-rays as well, which you practically never hear happen.

a ct scanner takes images that are 5mm apart from each other. the actual dose is in that 5mm slice of your body it's taking a picture of, which will typically be ~50 µSv. it's just that it does that 30+ times, but not in the same spot. the actual radiation you get to the area is comparable to any x-ray. people just look at the DLP, which is the sum of all of the slices, and it ends up being this significant number.

Hell, x-rays of your back are literally 1-1.5 mSv, so I don't see what this big deal is about CT scans. abdominal, hip, and pelvis x-rays are also at least .5 mSv each.

and i guarantee nobody flips out about them because "they're just x-rays not those dangerous CT scans :^)" even though you're getting 1.5 mSv to the same spot in a low back x-ray versus .05 mSv in a CT scan.

t. i work in radiology

>>8301058
and to piggy back onto this, yes, they are bullshit extrapolations, but even the unlucky people who get cancer from x-rays, already had some pretty big predisposition to cancer as they were. your bodies repair mechanisms HAVE to be fucked up for it to not be able to repair anything under at least 50 mSv. the mechanisms that trigger cancer, you'd have to be the most unlucky person for a single shot of radiation that you'd get from an x-ray or CT scan for it to trigger all of the mutations required for cancer. One good thing about this even for that one stupidly unlucky guy is that radiation practically never, ever induces malignant, actual cancer, just benign tumors that are typically not fatal..

>>8299938
you'd be better off getting 2 mSv in ten seconds than getting 500 mSv in one hour, though. you're greatly underestimating the difference in damage done in acutely vs. over a period of time. 2 mSv won't do anything to you even acutely. 500 mSv even over 24 hours would fuck your shit up, yes.

File: REV.png (1MB, 673x675px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 673x675px

>>8296980
If it does, nobody has been able to prove it yet.

So, if it does, it so rare that it's statistically insignificant, and could be due to something unrelated, or not the entire reason. The doses you get in X-Rays and CT scans isn't enough to damage cells, overwhelm your bodies natural repair mechanisms, or especially kill cells. It may damage a small percentage of cells, that are then repaired within minutes of the scan. Your body identifies and begins to repair radiation damage in seconds. I remember reading in another radiation thread where some idiot was talking about being more worried about how many brain cells his CT scan killed, lol. I think he had too many brain cells killed already to not understand that radiation doesn't kill cells at these levels, not even close.

>>8299218
>medicalnewstoday
Sounds unbiased! :^)

>>8299997
>The EPA estimates that an acute dose of 100 mSv will increase your chance of getting cancer by 0.8%, or almost 1/100 people exposed to such a dose.

Increasing something BY 1% is not the same as increasing something TO 1%.

File: dfgdsg.png (145KB, 563x303px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 563x303px

>>8301363
but that's what they saying.

File: l6pkTGc[1].png (362KB, 523x592px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 523x592px

>>8296980
Dude, there is one secret. You're actually getting cancer for 5-6 times for day. But guess what? Your immune system simply turns infested cell into sh#t. But the actual cancer is when your immune system cant identify a real threat, and it gives f#ck about that you're actually sick. And that's the precise definition of *cancer*. And one more funny fact. You can actually get this cureless cr#p by the simple fact of your existence, because cells of each living organism are actually replicating *for all the time they live, and any of them can possibly contain your such beloved friend*. But the chance is quite low, though.

>>8301367
>The committee finds the linear no-threshold (LNT) model to be a computationally convenient starting point.

http://www.nap.edu/read/11340/chapter/2#7

Which makes the data useless because the LNT model is garbage. But the predictions are so low anyway that they disappear into the normal noise, as the authors pretty freely confess on their own.

>the BEIR VII lifetime risk model predicts that approximately 1 person in 100 would be expected to develop cancer (solid cancer or leukemia) from a dose of 0.1 Sv above background, while approximately 42 of the 100 individuals would be expected to develop solid cancer or leukemia from other causes.

Now if their model actually was true, then contemporary radiotherapy wouldn't be used because it would have something close to 100% chance of causing cancer.

Radiation brachytherapy doses are not uncommonly in excess of 50 GY. According to that list, in combination with the LINEAR part of the LNT being true, a 15 year old reciving just 1 GY would end up at 11.8% chance of lifetime cancer. so a dose of 50GY would give the patient an absolutely certain 500% lifetime chance of developing cancer. So the model used for that picture is actually proven wrong by experiment and should be promptly discarded.

File: 1472074842199.jpg (803KB, 2133x1200px) Image search: [Google]

803KB, 2133x1200px

t;dr there is no way of knowing

oops lol

>>8299160
if you use it often then the chances of cancer are increased -> it is probable then
in most cases though people don't take these scans that often and if they do it's for serious diseases. this is the norm so "generally" the benefits outweigh the risk

what the hell is your problem. if you want numbers then look up statistics, otherwise drop the tinfoil hat and don't worry about it. if you ever need such a scan you'll be happy they exist.

>>8301624
>if they do it's for serious diseases

no, they don't. people get CT scans because they have stomach aches and headaches now. i hit my head and went to the ER and they gave me a CT scan.

>>8301624
>"generally"
lol make something mean as little as possible, why don't you. you obviously don't believe it if you can't even type it out without putting it in """quotes""". why don't you just admit it's defensive medicine irresponsibility?

>>8301632
>i hit my head and went to the ER and they gave me a CT scan.
Bleeding in your brain might not be a problem as you clearly don't use it for thinking. Most other people consider it an investigation that's worthwhile.

>>8301642
but CT scans don't typically detect that as well as an MRI so that wouldn't make sense.

>>8301397
but isn't it pretty common for radiotherapy patients to end up with cancer again years later from the radiation?

>>8301644
>cheap 5 minute imaging that detects bleeding quite clearly and is availible for most emergency patients
vs
>expensive and long image study that occupies a machine that other patients also need.

How about you shut the fuck up about things you have no clue about?

>>8301673
Yes. Both chemotherapy and radiotherapy increases cancer risk, as do the fact that you already had one cancer and therefor a shitty repair mechanism or immune system.

But we don't see the 100% cancer rate that we would if the LNT was true, even in these patients that are clearly already predisposed to have cancer.

File: CTandMR_head_blog20150805C.jpg (90KB, 610x285px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 610x285px

>>8301692
CT scans literally take 5-10 seconds

you don't know what you're talking about lol

and no, an MRI is much better at detecting bleeding in the brain.

File: 1467068640266.jpg (283KB, 1000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1000x1333px

>>8301696
It's just scary not knowing. Have you ever had a CT scan? You have this worry all of the time that lingers no matter what studies you read. No matter how much you reassure yourself, it's always there because you don't actually know for sure. It fucking sucks very much.

>>8301703
>CT scans literally take 5-10 seconds

There aren't contrast free hand held CT scanners availible that you cna just pick up and pull the trigge on. You need to be directed to the radiology ward, you need an IV access through which contrast can be pushed and hooked up to the machine, you need to lay down next to the gantry and get instructions not to breathe, a scout scan is acuired to better deliminate the target area and then the full scan is aquired and quickly inspecte for adequacy bythe techs. After which you need to be unplugged from contrast infusomat and sent on your merry way to wherever is the next place.

The actual scanning may only take 5-10 seconds but you'll be occupying the machine for more than that you fucking half wit idiot.

> MRI is much better at detecting bleeding in the brain.

It's slightly better due to its overall superior image quality but for most bleedings a CT is perfectly adequate because a trained professional is interpreting, not your 5 year old niece.

>>8301717
Do you ever worry about dying when you sit down in a car? Every time could be the last.

Do you ever worry about cancer when drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco? You never know how much cancer it will give you.

When a truck drives by closely, what if it runs on some cheap leaded and radioactive chinese knock off fuel. You might due to that.

Steak. You can put it in your throat and fucking die.

And so on.

Whatever, you're a fucking moron and I hope you actually got cancer from your CT scans.

>>8301738
The problem is that you aren't in control of radiation giving you cancer and you can't do anything about it until it decides to become a problem.

>>8301730
Not every CT scan uses contrast.

>>8301738
Radiation is a guaranteed damage, while driving isn't.

Are you seriously comparing ionizing radiation to drinking a beer or smoking a cigarette?

You're literally retarded.

>>8301750
>Are you seriously comparing ionizing radiation to drinking a beer or smoking a cigarette?

Yes. Go out in the sun, UV is Ionizing radiation.
Stay inside, there's also ionizing radiation in the form of "background" raidation. Have metabolic activity(aka be not dead), you now create reactive oxygen species that can damage and kill cells.

You know what else creates reactive oxygen species? Ionizing radiation through interaction with water in your body, it's one of the main modalities of how it deals damage, that's also why Tardigrades are radiation resistant when they dehydrate themself.

You're completely fucking clueless to he point where you idea of ionizing radiation is on par with some folk tale of evil spirits. Don't bother trying to learn because you're clearly too fucking dense to be able to.

File: 33553535346.jpg (25KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x375px

>>8301760
>UV is Ionizing radiation.

>>8301738
X-rays are much worse than cigarettes, alcohol, or driving a car(lol seriously?)

File: 235345345.jpg (18KB, 333x333px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 333x333px

>>8301738
>hoping someone gets cancer
almost cut myself on that

>>8301764
Yes.
Longer wavelengths than UV can also be ionizing but I'll let that be a mystery that your idiot brain can never solve.

>>8301855
and you should have said that because not all UV radiation is ionizing you fucking plebeian.

>>8301764

How do you think solar cells work anon?

File: nPPvH8J.jpg (40KB, 538x404px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 538x404px

We THINK that it MIGHT singularly cause cancer IF you're a kid AND you have multiple scans.

AKA meh probably not desu. nobody has been able to prove it as more than a minor concern if you get multiple so who really cares

Some australian study says that getting a CT scan increases your risk of cancer by 24% lmao, supposedly.

>>8298770
Yes, it can be reached though incision within the nasal cavity.

>>8302308
that would mean that like everyone would get cancer though. 1 in 10 americans get a CT scan per year, so 1 in 40 people in the USA is going to get cancer from their single CT scan? seems pretty silly, really. that'd be like 8,000,000 people. such a rise would be really obvious in any statistical data for cancer incidence.

>>8302308
I hate these sort of fake news-science articles

its all "500% increase in bullshit received on tuesdays!"

Well percentages don't mean shit if the number they're applied to aren't very significant

wew, 24% increase on a raw chance of 0.00000000000000001 is 0.0000000000000000124

>>8302328
No it'd mean this
>>8302333
multiplying percentages onto really really small numbers is equal to an ever so slightly larger, really really small number

ergo, 24% of near zero is still near zero

>>8302328
that is 8,000,000 every year, btw. makes it even more retarded and not realistic. that 24% figure is probably taken in the wrong way.

>>8302308
>>8302328
>>8302333
>>8302335
>>8302337
you mean this study?
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2360

>Results 60674 cancers were recorded, including 3150 in 680211 people exposed to a CT scan at least one year before any cancer diagnosis. The mean duration of follow-up after exposure was 9.5 years. Overall cancer incidence was 24% greater for exposed than for unexposed people, after accounting for age, sex, and year of birth (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.24 (95% confidence interval 1.20 to 1.29); P<0.001). We saw a dose-response relation, and the IRR increased by 0.16 (0.13 to 0.19) for each additional CT scan. The IRR was greater after exposure at younger ages (P<0.001 for trend). At 1-4, 5-9, 10-14, and 15 or more years since first exposure, IRRs were 1.35 (1.25 to 1.45), 1.25 (1.17 to 1.34), 1.14 (1.06 to 1.22), and 1.24 (1.14 to 1.34), respectively. The IRR increased significantly for many types of solid cancer (digestive organs, melanoma, soft tissue, female genital, urinary tract, brain, and thyroid); leukaemia, myelodysplasia, and some other lymphoid cancers. There was an excess of 608 cancers in people exposed to CT scans (147 brain, 356 other solid, 48 leukaemia or myelodysplasia, and 57 other lymphoid). The absolute excess incidence rate for all cancers combined was 9.38 per 100000 person years at risk, as of 31 December 2007. The average effective radiation dose per scan was estimated as 4.5 mSv.

whatever any of that means

File: what.png (202KB, 293x279px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 293x279px

>>8302345
>The absolute excess incidence rate for all cancers combined was 9.38 per 100000 person years at risk
...so... for people at risk, meaning they had a CT scan, they found an excess of basically 1 cancer per 10,000 people?

>>8302345
this makes no sense

>>8302345
according to some guy at harvard

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014JRP....34E...1W

that aussie study is retarded

>>8297526
You're literally a fucking retard and shouldn't be allowed to post.

>>8299210
>motherfucker it's totally valid what I'm saying
If you have a head injury, why do you care about slightly increasing your chances of dying from cancer much later, when the head injury can kill you right now?

>>8302952
Lol, it's pretty obvious when a head injury is serious. You'll have a severe headache that doesn't go away. That's really the only thing. IF you don't have that, your head injury isn't worth spinning the cylinder with a fucking CT scan you moron. I had a head CT scan for a totally bullshit reason and the doctor just didn't care. My dose was about 1.5 mSv and nobody in my family ever gets cancer, so I more than likely beat any odds that this will affect me, but some people get higher doses, and their dad has a cancer that came out of nowhere, likely giving them a genetic predisposition, and that single CT scan will affect them.

If you tell people that your odds of getting cancer go up by 1/2000(if you a male), I fucking G U A R A N T E E you that no guy would ever, ever get a CT scan unless they were literally in an emergency, which most aren't.

The CT scan should be solely for life or death situations, not for someone that goes to the ER for a fucking headache or stomache ache that just wants to know if his symptoms are normal from an actual doctor since they say to not read shit online. What's the point?

>>8303495
>I had a head CT scan for a totally bullshit reason and the doctor just didn't care.
Then why not refuse it if you were so convinced it was a bullshit reason? You just have to sign a paper stating you are responsible for your choices.

> it's pretty obvious when a head injury is serious.
You're Anon MD and know about this are you? Oh wait, you aren't and are full of shit, how do I know? Because I'm fucking Anon MD, now fuck off and take your harmful advice with you.

>>8303505
>Then why not refuse it if you were so convinced it was a bullshit reason? You just have to sign a paper stating you are responsible for your choices.

Hindsight is 20/20 and I didn't know the radiation dangers until it was too late.

>>8303518
>I didn't know the radiation dangers until it was too late.
You still don't understand them. What you should do is start taking antipsychotic medication before it's too late.

>>8303526
go get a scan if it's such a non-issue.

>>8303535
Sure I could, but what for?

>>8303547
full body diagnostic, why not? totally safe right?

>>8303548
>full body diagnostic
You mean a polytrauma protocol? Otherwise you just scan certain parts in certain contrast perfusion phases? Oh wait nm, I forgot you were a clueless layman.

But sure, why not. I frequently send people for scans so why not have one myself.

File: drop your trousers.jpg (55KB, 534x401px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 534x401px

>>8303556
>it's a anon plays doctor episode
why do you do this

>>8303686
I'm not playing anything that I'm not.

>>8296980
>>8297526
Guys, he's joking.

The reason NMR was changed to MRI when they started marketing it was because they didn't want the first word on their new machine to be "nuclear" because people would think "cancer" right away. NMR just induces magnetic responses on free hydrogen atoms in the body. You can't get cancer from standing next to a big magnet - there's no mechanism for a mutation to occur.

>>8303725
>>8297526 here
I hope you're baiting. Because my post was making a reference to some shitty spectroscopy book that explained why MRIs have their name. (The word nuclear scares normies for some odd reason)

>>8303755
>>8303725
>>8297526
Dont all three of you gals agree with each other?
You all got confused by each others analogies and writing style.

If you talk to radiologists about this, they'll basically act like you're crazy because they don't want to lose money.

>>8304052
If you talk to radiologists about this, they'll basically act like you're crazy because that's what you are, radiologist know some basic psychiatry too and know how to spot delusions.

>>8297009
>so it in reality is no different from a plain-film x-ray in terms of dosage.
A typical digital film x-ray is ~5.7Sv. A CT, depending on the SAR of the region, is 50-100x more. Depending on voxel size, scattering related to region, etc, it's likely concentrated on a very small area.

Please don't talk about things you don't really understand. People are correct to be wary of CTs.

>>8304132
you can't even use the correct measurements or units so it would be unwise to take you seriously.

>>8304136
Fine, mSv.

You can look up the data for yourself.

>>8304141
lmao, still not correct.

>>8304144
I'm in a lot of pain and having a rough day man, my memory and higher faculties are more or less crippled.

Go to pubmed. Look up dosage studies, and studies on internal scattering. Profit.

And avoid dental cone beam CTs unless you actually need them. They potentiate cataract formation.

Rather simple. It uses high energy electromagnetic wave on a small region. Energy can cause cells to have a mutation during mitose. These mutation can cause Cancer.

So définitely yes, medical imaging cause cancer. Its like rolling a dice "cancer?" everytime you use it. the dice has many many faces "nothing" though, but far less than a 1 hours stand under the sun's UV, or a X-ray.

>>8304132
>A typical digital film x-ray is ~5.7Sv.
That's a fatal dose.
>100x more.
You're going to see the skeleton of the patient even without looking at the images after that.

>>8304146
>I'm in a lot of pain and having a rough day man, my memory and higher faculties are more or less crippled.
It's okay. We all have times like that.

The cataract thing has a threshold at 2 Sv, I'm pretty sure.

>>8304141
>5.7 mSv for a plain film xray
That's more than the annual exposure limit for civilians.
>100x more
That would start to cause radiation sickness effects.

>>8304157
UV rays aren't penetrating through your entire body you fucking pleb.

>>8304178
They are mainly reflected by your skin, and that's how they give energy to your skin cells. idc about it faggot, was just giving a simple answer to OP. who have good datas on CT frequencies? wiki won't satisfy me

File: radiation-dose.gif (15KB, 490x529px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 490x529px

>>8304186
you mean this?

spine, pelvis, and abdomen x-rays are also just as bad as some CT scans btw

>>8304207
Ty, anon

File: 1468527693135.gif (2MB, 331x197px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 331x197px

>see this thread
>scares the shit out of you because you realize you had a CT scan last year
>find out it was a low dose 1.6msv head CT and i'm a 21 year old male so i'm not nearly the most effected

almost had me going guys

>>8296980
That's an MRI, it uses radiowaves, so no.

you example has no harmful side-effects whatsoever.

>>8304440
lol nice troll post.

>>8304440
no that's a an endoscopy machine and it uses radiowaves retard.

>>8304419
>He actually believes his total dose was 1.6msv

>>8304440
Effect of electric fields on voltage dependent calcium channels. ie, no, you don't come out as you went in, and it does "affect" you on a hard mechanical level that goes beyond thermals.

>>8304741
it was. i literally looked at the scan in my mums hospital papers. they used dose reduction and the DLP was 710.

also lol what the fuck are you talking about

>>8304744
>also lol what the fuck are you talking about
I just told you.

Let me guess, you think post-MRI mood changes are all psychogenic. You think the well documented temporary alleviation of clinical depression is all in the mind.

Yeah, alright bud.

>>8304755
>post-MRI mood changes

nice imagination anon but nobody is going to take this bait

>>8304764
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-mris-treat-depression/
First result. I was thinking about this all the way back in 2008. Unfortunately skimming this article they seem to focus on directional magnetic field interactions forcing / blocking the building of an action potential (which obviously isn't possible), rather than VDCCs, but oh well.

/sci/ has gotten bad again recently. Shouldn't have bothered revisiting.

>>8304781
By the way, before I go I want to make it very clear that you're an arrogant know-nothin' dork. Reconcile this before you descend further into asinine myopia.

>>8304785
Also before you move to blah blah bullshit, I've had 2 MRIs, one 1.5T, the other 3T. Both caused noticeable after-effects that slowly wore off, only one had a contrasting agent.

The universe is not slave to your preconceptions and how you think it is and MUST be. Get over it, and move on.

>>8304781
>>8304785
>>8304788
cool story but nobody is going to take your bait.

>>8304788
>>8304785
>>8304781
fuck off back to /x/

>>8304796
You don't have a choice, anon. The bait is already within. Now you must only come to accept it.

>>8304798
I'll fuck you off your /x/, knob cobbler.

File: 1466519653437.gif (136KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 500x500px

>Go to doctor for x-ray
>"Oh shit we fucked up"
>They make me get another
So glad I don't peruse charity hospitals anymore.

>>8298781
I had a patient t who had daily headt CTs for three months while hr was in the neuro ICU after epdural bleed and craniotomy. He did well and regained his consciousness, language and motor function. I'm sure his lifetime risk went up for cancer, but that's better than having more midline shift.

>>8299775
If sunscreen reduces the risk of cancer from solar radiation, why wouldn't putting that on prior to radiology reduce cancer risk?

>>8305066
I don't know if you could answer this but I'll maybe you can

I hit my head and got a head CT scan but then I got the stomach flu a couple of weeks later. I had a fever, diarrhea, all of that shit. Could this have slowed my recovery or even done some damage to my brain? I also have anxiety like every day. Do either of these things fuck with my body repairing my brain from the concussion and the CT scan radiation?

>>8303495
I am a doctor. Sometimes I order a CT scan for people, headache or not. Sometimes I do not order a CT scan, headache or not.

>>8305085
w-would you be able to answer this >>8305081

>>8305081
Guillain barre syndrome can follow gastro. It sounds like you did well.

>>8305099
w-what does that mean dr. anon

hey /sci I have a question.
If the radiation is stronger at it's source and gets weaker within a few feet, how does wifi still end up delivering all the information it needs to?
I mean, if I have a router and I sleep beside it for 9000 hours straight I will probably feel a mild burn.
But if i move a few feet away I won't, yet I still recieve all the information I need from my wifi.
How do you explain this?

>>8305141
SAR, and a material's ability to remove or distribute local heating.

>>8305150
SAR has many acrynoms anon which do you mean

>>8305141
wifi is just a radiowave. it would never do anything to you. even visible light isn't powerful enough to do shit to you. it's the UV rays from the sun that are the problem. x-rays, gamma rays/cosmic rays are actually dangerous if exposed for too long. x-rays are on the low end of that spectrum. this is why they are safe enough to use for medical imaging even though they would cause damage if exposed for too long.

>>8305162
Specific Absorption Rate.

>>8305165
Wifi is in the microwave band and interacts with voltage dependent calcium channels, causes elevation in heat shock protein expression (via misfolded proteins, etc), and increased permeability of the blood brain barrier.

It does hardly anything to you in strictly thermal terms, yes. Otherwise, no.

>>8305173
soo, should i just use ethernet in my house?
anyways, what if im in my room and wifi is downstairs.
ANYWAYS. MAIN QUESTION.
how does wifi deliver that information?

daily reminder that astronauts get like 80x the radiation per year what we do on earth and only one astronaut has ever gotten cancer and he was already old.

>>8296980
feel free to not use modern medicine lol, go to nigeria and have a witch doctor treat you

>>8305191
daily reminder some of the oldest people on earth were smokers at some point in their lives

it doesn't matter, i just dont like the idea there is wifi around me, i like the idea if silence in my workspace, more than the idea that im developing cancer

>>8305184
>soo, should i just use ethernet in my house?
I would if I were me.

>>8305193
Stupid irrelevant post by a stupid irrelevant poster.

When I go to the wiki page for x-ray, i see this

>A head CT scan (1.5mSv, 64mGy)[41] that is performed once with and once without contrast agent, would be equivalent to 40 years of background radiation to the head.

This couldn't possibly be true. That just doesn't add up.

>>8305230
well, if you do the math

average dose is like 2 mSv to the entire body. your head is like 1/8th of your body, so your head gets .25 mSv per year. so two scans adding up to 3 mSv would be like getting 12 years worth to you head

that's not really how it works, but that's how they twisted it. looking at what it actually does is what matters, and cancer rates haven't gone up and rarely does a 1.5 mSv dose damage DNA or kill cells. if it kills cells, it's a pretty small percentage of what was even effected.

>>8305239
Brain cancer rates have gone up by almost 1/8th in white males. I don't know what you're talking about.

>>8305184
Dude, what? Just keep putting your cellphone in your front pocket. I would really like for you to go sterile before the age of 30.

>>8299221

WTF

IS DIS REAL

your chance of getting a brain tumor as a child from a single head CT scan is literally about 1 in 10,000

for an adult, that goes up to 1 in 20,000-100,000

it's really not a worry that people should have. of you had a CT scan and care so much, just get an MRI every year for the next decade. it will more than likely be a waste of time, though.

File: 5353453534.png (194KB, 1244x793px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1244x793px

>>8306170
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20008690

Women are about twice as radio-sensitive as men, and for a head CT, a 20 year old woman doesn't even have a 0.001% attributable risk, and even the higher dosed scans in more radio-sensitive areas can barely scrape up to 0.01%.

>Does medical imaging cause cancer?
Yes, it technically can be the cause of cancer and may have in some case been the cause of cancer in very young female children that are ordered many scans on older machines or something very specific. Will it? It won't for at least 99.99% of all people that get any X-Rays, CT scans, or whatever nuclear medicine procedures, no.
----------
http://www.auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=ser&sub=def&pag=dis&ItemID=111495

This very recent study actually looked directly at damage caused by medical imaging, particularly chest CT scans and angiography and showed that zero DNA damage was detected below a dose of 7.5 mSv. This is on one of the most radio-sensitive parts of the body.

So, we know if you get a CT scan and its dose is below 7.5 mSv, you have nothing to worry about in relation to it causing cancer as it's not even high enough of a dose for it to damage your DNA. You could argue that this proves that head CT scans are basically safe from any cancer worries, especially when you consider that the average head CT scan is about 2 mSv, 3-4x lower than that 7.5 mSv figure, and that the brain is at least half nerve cells, the least radio-sensitive cells in the human body, a single head CT scan poses an EXTREMELY minimal risk that we can say is negligible being that you'd literally never, ever be able to prove that someones brain cancer was caused by a CT scan they received 10 years before their diagnosis. It just isn't that dangerous. All of the knowledge that we now have of how radiation effects your body, even at low doses, shows us that brain cancer induced by radiation from a modern head CT is like trying to shoot a pinhead with a handgun from 2000m away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ierCLIodtkQ

>>8296980
many types of medical imaging use high energy particles to detect differences in density. Some use what it known as "contrast" where a radioactive isotope is injected into the patients bloodstream to aid in the resolution of the imaging. However, the amount used in individual tests doesn't put you at any significant risk of contracting cancer. the dosage needed to put you at risk is far grater than what you are exposed to during imaging. If you are pregnant or a young child, it would be unwise to get any unnecessary radio imaging because of the amount of cell division that is taking place in your body. Consult with a healthcare professional if you have concerns.

>>8306341
tl;dr, no. if you're still scared, no, but you can ask your doctor and they'll say no.

File: good job.jpg (44KB, 500x406px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x406px

>>8306297
This is the most convincing so far. ~7.5 mSv is probably the actual threshold for any cancer risk in the more radio-sensitive parts of the body.

This basically means that the LNT model has been proven wrong directly, doesn't it? DNA damage is what actually causes cancer and we've known this for a long time. If they couldn't detect ANY DNA damage below 7.5 mSv then I think we have our number, and that's probably the lowest number being that was on the chest. On the head or on any extremities, it would be an even higher threshold.

I mean for fucks sake even being in direct sunlight causes DNA damage to your skin. If a CT scan under 7.5 mSv doesn't cause DNA damage then CT scans really aren't that dangerous at all.

Some guy ITT is scared of WiFi for fucks sake because he probably read some pseudo-science fear-mongering article.

What's funny about this is even with the atomic bomb studies, they couldn't find any excess cancer cases until they went above 5 mSv, so this sort of ties everything together and gives us an exact reason why now.

This is pretty fucking cool, honestly. We basically just proved the LNT model wrong and found the threshold for radiation induced cancer. I love this website.

>>8306357
>Some guy ITT is scared of WiFi for fucks sake because he probably read some pseudo-science fear-mongering article.
No, I just actually know something about how things work, and have no particular attachment to wireless things that would bias me towards intellectual dishonesty.

File: 14743827-Silhouette-of-hooded-man-or-hooligan-Stock-Photo-hood-dark-hooded.jpg (89KB, 1300x864px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1300x864px

>>8306364
I suggest you stop talking. We couldn't let Big Wifi lose money, now could we...? You would be wise to stay quiet.

>>8306376
Actually, if microwave band radiation was widely considered to at the very least affect biological systems, there are a number of people who would be immediately cut off from large chunks of their revenue stream, and would risk being stuck with infrastructure overhead they can barely sell for salvage.

Big telecom.

File: 45654646.png (207KB, 610x807px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 610x807px

>>8306297
>>8306357
Just in case someone doesn't know how cancer actually happens, pic related shows basically how it occurs. If there is no DNA damage, it has no way of causing cancer. If your CT scan dose was below 7.5 mSv, it will not cause cancer.

>>8306398
Microwaves can induce double strand breaks and chronic overexpression of heat shock proteins raises probability of cancer.

You're being disingenuous. There are two main routes of carcinogenesis, direct mutation, and promotion. In this statement you're assuming the window for hormesis (or nullification) is infinite and uniform across all contexts, it's not. That's why cancer promoters that inhibit repair, potentiate maladaptive responses to stress, etc, are a problem as well.

Setting an absolute scale is stupid.
>muh 7.5 mSv, always
Just stop.

>>8306410
You're cherry picking at best. We have much larger worries than RF waves, and you're a moron.

Nobody is setting an absolute scale, but nobody is as autistic as you so you're the only person to think that.

Put on your tinfoil hat and stop posting before I tell the aliens to blast your brain with RF waves.

>>8306410
>Just stop.

>says the guy talking about how microwaves causes cancer when we just showed how x-rays don't even damage DNA under a significant dose

lmao this is so funny

>>8306478
>x-rays don't even damage DNA under a significant dose


its all probability, they can but the probability is low

File: iStock_000017157105_Large.jpg (108KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 900x600px

>>8306506
You can look at
>>8306297
>>8306357
and we've basically shown that the probability is so stupidly low that you'd never be able to show the link between the two.

>>8306297
>>8306357
>>8306398
/thread

>>8306436
>You're cherry picking at best.
I'm not sure you know what this term means. If you do, its use is a sign of confusion.

>We have much larger worries than RF waves
You can handle multiple things at once. This is generally irrelevant.

>and you're a moron.
And you're overly defensive. From the amount of stupidity you managed to pack into two sentences, you're also too braindead to bother communicating with. Just another frightened know-nothin'.

>>8306478
Microwaves aren't capable of (direct) ionization, so I don't know what you think you're talking about.

People are so driven by what they want to be true, it's pathetic.

>>8306874
>Microwaves aren't capable of (direct) ionization
Wow, no way dude. We didn't know that!

>>8306879
Then act like it.

>>8306874
>People are so driven by what they want to be true, it's pathetic.

the irony here is at some pretty high levels. this guy is legitimately insane.

>>8306883
One day, when the rest of the tribe understands, you'll know too.

File: 1470714696797.jpg (26KB, 374x373px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 374x373px

>>8306893
>One day, when the rest of the tribe understands, you'll know too.

File: 1471068549131.gif (985KB, 500x477px) Image search: [Google]

985KB, 500x477px

>>8306904

File: hwhat.jpg (20KB, 288x378px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 288x378px

>>8306893
yeah, he's autistic.

File: 1471229780141.gif (4MB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 480x480px

>>8306919
Anon can't truly accept that he's a machine.

File: 1471115888236.jpg (13KB, 300x241px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x241px

>>8299089
what does (harmful) radiation do? it breaks bonds.
now what does that mean for us? You have your body and on random places radiation hits one of the billion involved molcules producing some radical or w/e
Now it's VERY much important where exactly that place is or better which molecule bond gets broken.
There are somewhat mechanisms to repair dmg in dna etc. but this also has it's limits (which are also very much dependet on those highly reactive radicals)

it IS a fucking numbers game. in theory you could resist MUCH MUCH more radiation as long as you could enforce it hitting the right molecules

>>8307080
pls see >>8306869 we beat the game anon

>>8306297
btw, the 67~ people used in that study were all like 50-85 years old and their average doses were like 30 mSv for no DNA damage and near 50 mSv for DNA damage. young people have literally nothing to worry about.

so... it has a very small possibility if you get one of the higher dosed scans but otherwise no?

File: pVYU7.png (40KB, 963x754px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 963x754px

>>8307891
well, being that even in one of the most sensitive parts of the body, absolutely zero DNA damage was seen under 7.5 mSv, yes it's basically impossible to give you cancer unless you're a child that is still literally growing. like there just isn't any mechanism for it to cause cancer if it doesn't damage your DNA, and they were watching for DNA damage for even months afterwards, so they would have seen if anything occurred.

so the bottom line is that, if the scan is one of the lower dose scans, under 7.5 mSv is what we can say so far, and you're like 18+ years old / are done growing, the chance of it giving you cancer is negligible. A bad diet will contribute FAR more to any sort of cancer you may end up with in your lifetime. getting a few x-rays or a CT scan as an adult isn't going to do shit to you, basically. the chance only even becomes a possibility when you get one of the higher dosed scans, and even then, it's like 1 in 5000 when you're a 21 year old, 1 in 10,000 at 41, and 1 in 20,000 at 61. something like that. just silly to worry about. you have a 1 in 100 chance of dying in a car crash in your lifetime.

if we assume you're an adult male and we look at each specific single scan in pic related going down the list, anything below 7.5 mSv is a non-issue, and anything above 7.5 mSv is such a small issue that you still would be wasting your time to worry about it.

if you're a child, like literally <10 years old, then this changes, but nobody here is so who cares.

File: 1461804772415.jpg (133KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 960x640px

>>8306297
>yfw /sci/ is able to show that most medical imaging doesn't cause cancer and the entire scientific community has not been able to
just goes to show that we're the best, as always. damn man

Radiology Therapist here. Most questions regarding the realistic risks have been answered by my predecessors here. Just put away your tinfoil and read the sources provided. Nonetheless a little advice for anyone not working in med field. Remember we earn our money with you. And there are definetly some greedy fucks out there. So use common sense. A lot of diagnoses do not need a ct scan. Often ultra sound or a competent doc can do the same. If you got the time and the cash to wait use a mrt if possible. As mentioned above if its urgent use the goddamn ct because in ec there is nearly no better way to get a fast and reliable diagnosis.

>>8308989
lets say i hit my head. One week later, I was still having mild nausea, dizziness, and pressure in my forehead that didn't go away and so I went to the ER, would that constitute a CT scan?

>>8296980

No.

>>8309379
Why?

>>8309018
One week later? >>8309018
As i said. Use a mrt. Same results and better imaging for soft tissue especially with contrast markers for blood vessels

>>8309528
but I got a CT and this was at the ER anon. i asked other doctors and they said that they all would have given me the CT too.

>>8309531
Like I told you last time, you got a CT -because- you went to the ER. MRIs need to be cleared in advance, and they probably don't even have an operator there outside normal hours.

Contrasted CTs are good for visualizing blood vessels and certain structural elements. In your case an MRI would've probably been fine, but I don't know your precise condition. Might well have been a CT was the best approach, but probably not necessarily so either.

Pressure in the forehead is usually muscular.

>>8309646
one thing that is a bit weird is that i keep feeling like i have to sort of move my jaw or stretch my neck. they don't even really feel tense, it's almost like a tick. it relieves something. i never really had that before this.

>>8309682
Don't know what that might be. Could be a lot of things, some transient, some significantly less so. I doubt it's neurological though.

Body doesn't always heal 1:1. If you have anything else strange though, you should probably have it checked. My jaw and neck are all fucked up, so I can relate with the sensation you're describing. Can be anything from mechanical to psychogenic.

>>8307971
>abdomen CT with contrast is the only one above "low" on that table
I had to get a nut removed and the rest of my body was cancer-clean, my doctor told me to get that one exam every 6 months. Should I get a second opinion on that? Never thought twice about it until now.

>>8310147
>my doctor
Just a small comment here, is it really yours? Are they really your doctor, or just, a, doctor? The, doctor, in this case.

Don't let the advertising and PR institutions control how you think. There is no your doctor, there is only a doctor.

>>8310158
Holy fucking autism. "My" as in the one I'm seeing about this. If I said "the" you'd probably nitpick that he's not the only doctor in existence. And if I said "a", you wouldn't be clear if he had my medical records or was just a random doctor that happened to randomly talk to me. My point is, choke on a dick.

>>8310173
No. "My" is possessive, implies an object or relationship that is of, or belonging to, you. When it comes to services this is muddied and a lot of the mental assumptions you might come to make are entirely misplaced and maladaptive. You must be careful with language.

if you said "the" it''d be fine and accurate, because it's implicitly referencing "the" doctor in your specific context. A subject of your post.

Anyway, stop talking to me so you won't feel like we're fighting over it. It's just not a good way to frame your interactions with a medical professional. Give it some thought.

>>8310173
Don't mind him. There is some random autist talking about how microwaves and WiFi causes cancer ITT and he says a lot of retarded shit.

Why would your doctor want you to get abdomen CT scans every 6 months after getting a testicle taken out? Do you mean pelvic scan? Maybe he's thinking it'd metastasis into your abdomen or something. I wouldn't get a CT scan. Get an MRI. CT scans are safe if you get one in a blue moon, and that's especially true for anything in the torso. Yeah, you can more than likely do as the doctor says and get them and you won't end up with cancer, but do you really want to just keep increasing the odds like that when you could just get an MRI instead? You get CT scans mostly in possible emergency situations where time may be important. CT scans DO have many benefits in terms of imaging to an MRI and maybe the doctor knows this and thinks that they won't be able to detect whatever it is through an MRI, but getting an abdominal CT twice per year? I'd rather just get an MRI twice per year. You will more than likely incur some small DNA damage if you get these abdominal scans, which theoretically can lead to cancer. Abdominal scans are just too high dosed to get them willy nilly like that. If you were talking about a head scan, or extremity, then go for it.

How old are you and are you a female? This is important as well. Females have about twice the radio-sensitivity of men, and your age is fairly important, although if you're an adult, it's basically the same across the board.

File: 1471229032682.gif (993KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 500x500px

>>8310197
>There is some random autist talking about how microwaves and WiFi causes cancer ITT and he says a lot of retarded shit.
That's me, and it's not my fault you don't know enough to say otherwise. Your cognitive discomfort is hardly my problem.

Start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage-dependent_calcium_channel
Then branch out to pubmed etc for the rest.

Otherwise, stop whining and go about your business. Those are your options if you're going to be a rational human being.

>>8310205
>>>/x/ isn't allowed here.

>>8310214
>>>/dogma/ doesn't belong here.
You don't belong here.

File: 21109236-Radiologist-or-female-doctor-studying-an-x-ray-film-of-the-spine-and-pelvic-region-holding-it-up-to--Stock-Photo.jpg (82KB, 866x1300px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 866x1300px

>>8310205
lol you're the only person whining because nobody is listening to you

>>8310197
I said abdomen for short, it's abdomen and pelvis. Thanks for the answer, I'll definitely consult another doctor about it.

>How old are you and are you a female?
Yes, I'm a female who got testicle cancer.

>>8310231
And yet it is you who keeps bringing me up. You just can't let go.

File: yes.jpg (15KB, 430x320px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 430x320px

>>8310235
>Yes, I'm a female who got testicle cancer.
lol oops. yeah, don't get an abdomen/pelvis CT unless it's actually necessary. that doctor isn't aware of the possible dangers. That's a big scan.
>>8310238
by your retard logic you're bringing him up too. lol wtf

>>8310238
>bringing me up
responding to you is bringing you up? kek can you go be autistic somewhere else like >>>/pol/ or >>>/mlp/

>>8310250
>responding to you is bringing you up?

>There is some random autist talking about how microwaves and WiFi causes cancer ITT and he says a lot of retarded shit.

Anyway, I won't be around after today. So if you have something to say, now would be the time.

>>8310147
>had testicular cancer
>get nut removed
>"welp lets get some radiation on that other one so we can see if we can give that one cancer too!"

testicles are very sensitive to radiation and you have one fucking nut left dude. your doctor is mentally challenged. just get MRI's. if its something you schedule, you take MRI, not a fucking CT although with some exceptions.
>>8310272
nobody cares and you won't be missed.

>>8310147
Yes. Please never follow a doctors advice. That way we'll get more examples to point to and less flip flopping people that trust a schizophrenic loudspeaker monkey on the internet over someone who have devoted over a decade of his life to learn a skill.

>>8310452
>A physician may do no wrong, their judgement will inherently get better results than your own
>Leave your brain at the door, don't bother with risk assessment, and never ask them to explain their reasoning. Never ask a physician a question, you must know your place. You have come only to be told.
On your knee, slave. Man, someone really robbed you.

>>8310481
didn't you say you were leaving like almost 3 hours ago? your shit is so autistic that it's really easy to tell it's you.

>>8296980

every trip to the CT scanner is a good dose of radiation.

long term there will probably be a small uptick in leukemia/lymphomas. especially in kids who got lots of CT scans before we figured out just how much we were overusing them.

>medfag

File: 2857121994_83a0ff6b25_b.jpg (692KB, 1024x736px) Image search: [Google]

692KB, 1024x736px

>>8310482
I said I wouldn;t be around after today (although it is 1:30 am here, but how autistic would you have to be amiright?), not that I was going to close the tab that very instant. Get some reading comprehension, or more likely in your case, choose to use it.

You're clearly upset about something. The offer still stands.

>>8310488
I'm really just bummed that you're still here because you use really stupid semantic bullshit logic, like an autistic person would.

File: 1471231994167.gif (2MB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x640px

>>8310490
More likely your issue with what I say is that I've started a few steps further than you tend to end.

Go on though. Pick apart my "bullshit semantic logic" and point out where it's wanting.

>>8310490
don't be retarded. everyone uses
"really stupid semantic bullshit logic" when it suits them, whether that's a conversation or a reference or a resume.

people use colloquial interpretations of words when it suits them, and people use literal, dictionary definitions when it suits them. autistic people just have a big tendency to almost always go with the dictionary definition.

File: 635947315427376547471919682_Airplane.jpg (42KB, 1200x750px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1200x750px

>>8310495
keep projecting that you're a faggot

>>8310494
Alright anon. I'm going to do laundry and take a shower. After I return it won't be long before I go to sleep.

If you haven't explained and made a solid argument by then, you'll forever be solidified as a know nothin' bitch who's all talk. The clock is ticking is ticking. ;^)

>>8310499
keep proving me right lel

>>8310520
why are you making this thread about you? fuck off you degenerate faggot.

File: george_washington_life_mask.jpg (15KB, 236x342px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 236x342px

>>8310522
Thanks for proving that I'm correct. How unwise of you.

>>8310527
the shitposting is real.

are you going to spew vitriol or are you going to try to refute my original point? it's below

>don't be retarded. everyone uses "really stupid semantic bullshit logic" when it suits them, whether that's a conversation or a reference or a resume.

>people use colloquial interpretations of words when it suits them, and people use literal, dictionary definitions when it suits them. autistic people just have a big tendency to almost always go with the dictionary definition.

>>8310533
I've hidden this and will hide any further autistic posts. You're turning the thread into something about you, like a typical autist, and I'm going to end that now.

>>8310524
Says the guy who brought me up repeatedly, then whines about the results. Speaking of degenerate gutter trash...

Keep proving me right, by the way. You've got nothing bud. Absolutely nothin'. Maybe if you turn off the wifi you'll be able to think better. :^)

>>8310535
no you fucking moron i just want you to respond to the fucking content in the god damn post. how stupid are you?

I've returned from the shower, and as expected, Anon has not generated anything intelligent nor meaningful. It is likely he cannot, and is just mad that microwave band radiation is bad for him, he doesn't know enough to argue it or offer even the most minute commentary, and cannot reconcile the psychological overhead of knowing all his little trinkets and toys will in the future be shown to be negative, and his attachment is childish and myopic.

>>8310555
Don't bother getting upset over him. He's a moron and his behavior thus far is generic (and transparent) at best. The probability of any surprises is pretty low. The question always becomes, if you likely know the outcome, and the nature of the ordeal, is it really worth bothering?

Eventually, no. It really isn't.

>>8297360
>The answer is obviously and definitively NO.
I had 2 ct scans within 1.5 months about 4 years ago.

the doctor told me there is an increased risk in cancer after 20-30 years.

who should I believe, doctor at the hospital, or some random faggot on 4chan?

>>8310655
ANON STOP YOU'RE MESSING WITH THE FALSE CONSENSUS.

/SCI/ HAD THIS SOLVED. YOU'RE RUINING IT.

>>8310655
What scans were they?

What does the doctor mean by after 20-30 years? That doesn't really make sense.

>>8305341
Sure, but that's literally saying it went from 7,300 to 8,000 in 100,000,000, which is actually how many white males in the USA get brain cancer each year. a 12% increase of 0.000073 is 0.000081, AKA a negligible number in itself. You can't even imagine what 1,000,000 looks like, let alone 100,000,000.

Brain cancer is pretty rare. Compare that to breast cancer and you'll see 225,000 - 450,000 women getting it each year per 100,000,000.

This is what 1,000,000 looks like

http://28oa9i1t08037ue3m1l0i861.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Million-Dots-one-red3.png

80 of those dots are white guys with brain cancer. it's just not even an issue that 99.9999% of people will ever deal with.

>>8299089
Good luck diagnosing cancer or any other disease without X-ray

>>8311423
this. have fun being in any emergency situation and them just not know what to do with you because they don't even know what's wrong. MRI's take like a fucking hour or two, you realize that? CT scans take seconds and have a superior resolution. This theoretical cancer risk is so small that you'd never be able to prove it was the cause of a cancer incidence, meaning it's negligible. Go outside and sit in direct sunlight for an hour, you know, like how millions of people do every year at the beach, and that will give you damage to your DNA, eventually leading to skin cancer. Most CT scans will not even do that. I think like 1/4th of CT scans are head scans, and they aren't nearly powerful enough to damage DNA or kill cells. CT scans aren't powerful enough to burn your skin, yet you can go outside on a clear day and you'll burn your skin within 10 minutes.

The dose rate of a CT scan at the actual beam is 1-8 mSv/hr at a maximum, not that much. It's just that our organs have tissue weighing factors because they're absorbing the radiation. It's a bit complicated, but you can say that it's equivalent of standing in Chernobyl.

Even a dose of 1 Sv wouldn't kill you and you'd have a 95% chance of it not giving you cancer. That's why these small doses from CT scans have never been a worry. It's like a 1 in 10,000-100,000 thing, so it could have been due to fucking anything and very well may have not been related to your CT scans at all.

x-rayrisk.com is a bad website. It takes absolutely no consideration into anything. It simply used the LNT model, doesn't care what part of the body even when that is extremely important, whether or not you're a female, etc. The actual rates that we've been able to find via ACTUAL studies are
HEAD CT
>one head CT scan under 10 years of age = 1 in 10,000
>one head CT scan in 20 year old woman = 1 in 250,000 - 1,000,000, for male, about half the risk
CHEST CT
>one chest CT scan in 20 year old woman = 1 in 50,000, for male, about half the risk
ABDOMEN AND PELVIS
>one abdo/pelv scan in 20 year old woman = 1 in 50,000, for male, about half the risk

Those are the actual chances when you take into account age, sex, and the body part being scanned. xrayrisk.com takes none of that into consideration other than age. They'll literally say a chest CT and a head CT with the same data will give you the same risk increase, or that a 1 year old getting a head CT is almost the same risk as a 21 year old male. It's just retarded. Children under 5 have a much more significant risk increase over adults or adolescents/teenagers, which is why this is a real issue for pediatrics, not teenagers or adults.

Coherent Raman scattering techniques are the future of medical imaging (see CARS or SRS)

>>8311582
no it isn't.

friendly reminder that the linear-no threshold model is fucking garbage.

>>8296980
You evolved on a giant magnet retard

>>8311364
>What scans were they?
abdominal ct scans.

>What does the doctor mean by after 20-30 years? That doesn't really make sense.
statistical increase.

maybe pass senior year in high school before posting on /sci/

>>8312411
Well, two abdominal scans within two months of each other isn't good, but when I say isn't good, I mean that on a small scale.

Why did you get them anyway? Please don't tell me its because you had the stomach flu/bad stomach ache or something.

>>8311582
That would be photon scanners.

>>8299089

RN here. Over exposure will lead to cancer. Fore example- People in my hospital who work in the cardiac cath lab take exrtra precautions and wear lead vests and are assigned tags to monitor monthly exposure within acceptable limits.

So in short you would literally have to be exposed to hundreds upon hundreds of consecutive scans/xrays in order to be at any sort of risk of developing cancer/disease.

If you go to the ER with a broken bone or a kidney stone and you get a CT scan you are not getting cancer from it.

TLDR OP is an idiot

>>8313498
>RN

and discarded.

>>8296980
Not necessarily. Cancer is caused when radiation ruins it eliminates part of your DNA that regulates cell reproduction. Radiation is a lot of things. Medical scanners user certain pieces of equipment that do use radiation, but in controller, largely harmless amounts. If this worries you, even viable light is radiation. And if you do get radiation-related genetic damage, chances are small that the damaged DNA is the reproduction-regulatory section.

DNA damage from CT scanning hasn't been DETECTED under 7.5 mSv on the chest, and our methods to detect radiation damage are pretty damn good. People that get cancer from medical imaging are getting like 30+ scans or some shit. A single scan isn't enough to be the sole fucking cause of cancer. That's like saying one day at the beach is the sole cause of your skin cancer. it's just retarded. CT scanners aren't that powerful. If they were giving us doses of like 200 mSv, then yes that'd be worrying, definitely.

>>8299089
you're going to die like 50 years from now

do you want to maybe die right now or do you want to maybe, maybe, maybe die 10-30 years from now?

the chance of you dying from why you're getting a CT scan is literally thousands of times more likely than you ever getting cancer from the CT. That's a bit ridiculous.

>>8297009
being a kid at all puts you at much more risk. any rapidly growing cells are susceptible. this is why your balls are very sensitive to radiation.

posting UCSF lecture on this specific topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSga5_LqezI