More about the dangers of X-rays

Digital gadgets damaging children's spines

DANIELLE STREET

DANIELLE STREET/Fairfax NZ

MODERN HAZARD: Chiropractor Margaret Bryce says young people are damaging their spines by heavy usage of digital devices.

Children as young as 10 have spinal deformities caused by prolonged use of handheld devices, according to an Auckland chiropractor.
Margaret Bryce is deeply concerned by the increase in the number of people coming to her with straightening of the neck curve, or cervical kyphosis.

Rest of article:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/9009972/Digital-gadgets-damaging-childrens-spines

_____________________________________
Gary:

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

Good article overall but it does highlight the unnecessary use of x-rays on young people, increasing their lifetime risk of developing cancer.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

We have got to stop relying on X-rays.  This technology is causing far too much harm.

Alternatives include:

• Looking, asking, observing, palpating - a lost art in medicine
• MRI imaging
• Ultrasound

Avoid all unnecessary x-rays, including airport body scanners.  Be particularly wary of x-rays of the head, neck, chest and abdomen.  Avoid x-rays of the long bones (they contain bone marrow which is very sensitive to radiation - Think "leukaemia").

In my experience the best part of 90% of all the x-rays done on people are unneccesary.

All New Zealanders should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

All New Zealanders should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

All New Zealanders should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

All New Zealanders should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

should be deeply concerned at the over-reliance of health professionals with using x-ray imaging for diagnosing the obvious, as portrayed in this article.

X-rays do increase cancer risk and their use should be judicious to the extreme with young people. This is especially the case when x-raying the head, neck and trunk of a young person.

In the case of these young people who are suffering postural pain the need for x-rays is as good as zilch!

If you don't believe what I am saying here is a search string of a research database that gives you an idea of the weight of evidence against the use of this kind of imaging technology in anything other than the most needy of cases:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/x-ray%20risks

About this website 

The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.

Candida and Fungal Infections? Gary Moller recommends you explore this programme: Click Here!

More about x-ray risks

Fact:

Early X-ray machine

Repeated doses of x-rays from x-ray imaging do increase your risk of developing cancer. The most potent is CT scans, one session of which carries a 1/1,000 risk of developing cancer. You can curb the risk from excessive radiation by using other imaging methods that do not involve ionising radiation which include MRI and ultrasound.  Avoid all forms of radiation, be it ionising or non-ionising other than for medical purposes.

Here is the body of a letter sent to the radiation whistle blower, Dr Semelka:

"I am a radiologist and like you, Dr. Semelka and apparently too few others, am deeply concerned about the profligate use of CT that is currently the norm. I am especially concerned about the deep state of denial (or ignorance) that practicing radiologists manifest about the radiation burden CT is imposing on the public. In my conversations with residents and staff at the university hospital I taught at for many years, I am able to summon only grudging acceptance of the realities of adverse biological effects of what has become a nearly reflex use of CT both in the ER and in the rest of the practice".

Radiation Risk From CT Scans by Gary Moller

Xray Safety Semelka

Moral of the story:
Some health professionals can be very slow to change their ways, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. So, be prepared stick up for yourself when it comes to looking after your own health and that of your family.

Read my other articles about this topic.

Should I allow my injured child to have an Xray or a CT Scan?

"Let's play a new game: Its called Fry Teddy"

Fact: Repeated doses of x-rays from x-ray imaging do increase your risk of developing cancer. The most potent is CT scans, one session of which carries a 1/1,000 risk of developing cancer. The risk is greatest by far with children who have rapidly dividing cells (DNA is most vulnerable to damage during the process of cell division - mitosis).

If your child is injured, such as from a fall, a CT Scan may be ordered as a matter of course to assist with making an accurate diagnosis. An accurate diagnosis is most important, especially if internal injury to the abdomen or brain is suspected. However; those regions of the body are the last places one would ever want to irradiate, especially of a child.

I have written about this before and am writing about it again because the use of the CT Scan continues to be routine in this country and my questioning of doctors and radiologists shows an appalling level of ignorance and lack of any concern about the known health risks of CT Scans. This continues despite the facts and the availability of excellent alternatives.

You can curb the risk from excessive radiation by insisting on using other imaging methods that do not involve radiation these include MRI and ultrasound.

If you are asked to consent to your child undergoing a CT SCan, my advice to you is to refuse to allow it. Insist on readily available alternatives and do not allow yourself to be fobbed off by excuses about availability or extra cost, or flippant comments about how miniscule the risks are - this is your child's long term health that you are dealing with here!

Please read my earlier articles about this most important health issue.
Here and
Here is the original.

Zapping by Xrays - Keep it in perspective Gary

In response to my blog about health risks of X-ray imaging Anonymous said... "Radiation Risks -- keep these risks in quantitative perspective!" Anonymous then went on to list a variety of hazards, including mercury in fish, radon in houses, arsenic in plants and so on.... Read the complete posting here Anonymous concluded with: "All in all you can get totally paranoic - keep risks in perpective - don't worry about the tsunami if you're living on MtRuapehu! " ____________________

Riposte by Gary Moller

Thank you, Anonymous, for raising some interesting points which I am most appreciative of. Here is my response: She was a small woman so, when she got pregnant, her doctor ordered x-rays of her pelvis to determine the size of her birth canal. Further x-rays were ordered as the pregnancy progressed to compare the baby's head with the mother's pelvis. A healthy baby was born; but at about 7yrs, deadly leukaemia was diagnosed. She died a slow and horrible death at about 14 years of age. The mother, racked with guilt and grief, was prescribed various medicines to dull the pain. She died years later of liver cancer, the consequence of too many years on these medicines. This was not an unusual scenario that was played out many times over during the 50's, 60's and even during the 70's. Keeping risks in perspective means being aware of them and doing what is easily practical to minimise them such as:

• 
  insisting on an MRI or ultrasound scan rather than a ct scan
• no x-rays of the head, neck, chest or abdomen
• fitting a lead gonad shield during all x-rays, including dental ones
• no x-rays of children

Testis and children have rapidly dividing cells that are most susceptible to genetic damage by x-rays, so this is why they must be protected with extra care.

Now, what about other hazards like radiation during jet travel, tv sets, and what about toxins like mercury and arsenic that are in our waterways? Not too many generations ago, there was little prospect of living past 40-50 years. Pre-European Maori, for example, seldom lived past 30 years, partly due to wearing their teeth out on the highly fibrous foods. Environmental toxins and radiation damage usually take time to express themselves as diseases and we simply did not live long enough for them to have much significance on health.

Things are different nowadays: We should all be able to live to 90 or 100 years. But this is dependent on our minimising the damage to our genetics. This means avoiding damaging radiation from all sources because the damage to our genetic code is cumulative and this is a key determinant of life expectancy and many dieases, including cancer.

Not only do we have more time for this damage to accumulate nowadays; we have also devised many ways to expose us to the perpetrators - air travel, dental x-rays, ct scans and so on. With regards to mercury and other heavy metals being found in waterways like the Waikato, these are not "natural"; they are principally the consequences of geothermal electricity generation and industries like the big Kinleith paper mill. Toxic compounds that were previously locked deep in the ground water, or in solid rock formations or chemically neutralised, have been extracted, concentrated and finally discharged to find their way into the food chain where they are again concentrated with deadly consequences. Mercury poisoning is matter close to my heart: My older sister left her job as a school dental nurse due to ill-health from mercury poisoning, caused by inhaling the fumes given off while heating mercury amalgum. About 22 years later,and in good health, she returned to her chosen profession.

I think we have every reason to be very concerned and we should be doing everything we can to minimise these damaging exposures. Imaging professionals are obliged to minimise the risks of x-ray imaging; the BEIR report quantifies those risks and my impression is many are still downplaying or casully dismissing those risks despite the clear evidence that more could and should be done to reduce exposure over the course of a lifetime and not just single x-ray exposures. Insisting on an mri instead of a ct scan is a most sensible action.

When you go to the dentist, is a lead body and gonad shield automatically fitted, or do you have to ask? I always have to ask. What is your experience?

Essential reading: Imaging X-rays Cause Cancer

Imaging X-rays Cause Cancer

"Let's play a new game: Its called Fry Teddy"

Go here for a PDF summary of the BEIR VII report on this most important subject.

http://fermat.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/11340.pdf
The report was issued by the National Academy of Sciences in the fall of 2005. The National Academy of Sciences is the largest scientific body in the world. The focus of their report was the part that ionizing radiation plays in the development of cancer. The benchmark that they came up with is that an x-ray exposure of 10 mSieverts (mSv; units that radiation dose is measured in), which is roughly equivalent to the radiation a patient is exposed to with a CT study of the chest or a CT study of the abdomen, produces cancer in 1 per 1000 patients.

Read the following quotation by imaging expert Dr Richard C. Semelka, MD:

“The indisputable fact, and in my opinion rendered truly indisputable by the BEIR VII report, is that medical x-rays cause cancer. BEIR VII also emphasizes that there may be no safe lower limit.^[1] This statement taken as said has the potential to cause considerable alarm, so my intuitive modification is that perhaps below the dose of a standard body CT, which is approximately 10 mSieverts (mSv; units that radiation dose is measured in), there is likely negligible if any risk for an individual test.
However, even 1 body CT scan (1 CT scan of only 1 of the following regions: the chest region, the abdominal region, or the pelvic region) carries with it some element of risk. The risk that BEIR VII reports is 1 in 1000 chance of developing cancer from a 10 mSv radiation dose. In my prior report, I described what is written on the US Food and Drug Administration Web site, which is a 1 chance in 2000 of developing cancer from a dose of 10 mSv. The BEIR VII report doubles that risk. The risk in children is even higher, with a reported chance of 1 in 550 of developing cancer.”

Read this extract carefully about what the Dr Semelka says about medical x-rays:

“In general, BEIR VII supports previously reported risk estimates for cancer and leukaemia, but the availability of new and more extensive data have strengthened confidence in these estimates. A comprehensive review of available biological and biophysical data supports a "linear-no-threshold" (LNT) risk model that the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans.”

Note that there is no safe lower threshold – cancer risk is linear.

The following is a table of the standard reported dose of radiation for various common imaging procedures:

Table: Average Radiation Doses Associated With Common Imaging Studies

Diagnostic Examination	Effective Dose (mSv)
X-rays
Chest (PA film)	0.02
Head	0.07
Cervical spine	0.3
Thoracic spine	1.4
Lumbar spine	1.8
Abdomen	0.53
Pelvis/hip	0.83
Limbs/joints	0.06
Upper GI	3.6
Lower GI	6.4
Screening mammogram	0.13
CT
Head	2.0
Abdomen	10.0
Chest	20-40
Pulmonary angiography	20-40
PET - CT	25

You can see from this table that many people are easily getting far too much radiation; especially from CT scans and when one takes account the number of x-ray studies that one may receive throughout a lifetime, including dental x-rays.

There is too much damaging radiation in my opinion and the experts now agree.

Patients who are receiving multiple CT scans and more x-rays from other sources are getting dosages that far exceed what would appear reasonable risk.

It is the patients and their families who end up carrying the can for the consequences. By the time any cancers rear their ugly heads, the institutions and the individuals who first ordered the radiation will probably be long gone. Who pays? Ultimately, it is the patient and their families.

Here is what Dr Semelka recommends to patients”

“I believe it is your right to know that radiation exposure from medical x-rays, in particular procedures utilizing high x-ray doses (eg, CT, PET, PET-CT), may result in cancer, and it is your right to request an alternative procedure when that alternative procedure generates comparable diagnostic information. Providers should know which alternative imaging modalities provide comparable information for the medical indication that you have. It is your right, based on the Hippocratic oath that all physicians have taken, that you undergo the safest test that has sufficient diagnostic accuracy to evaluate your condition. I recommend that you refer your provider to the BEIR VII report regarding radiation hazards, and Abdominal Pelvic MRI regarding how to perform and interpret MRI studies -- if the capabilities of MRI are questioned. Liver exams are one study in particular that should almost always be done with MRI.”

Concluding advice:
Always question the need for imaging x-rays, no matter the reason and to avoid CT scans altogether – be the imaging for a dental exam, a suspected fractured foot or to find the source of abdominal pain. In most cases, there is a good alternative. Where there is not, insist on the lowest possible exposure in order to get the job done and always insist on a protective lead shield to protect the rest of your body from radiation scatter.

Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII-Phase 2. 2005. Available at: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11340.html