Medical Imaging Scan Equivalent to 725 Chest Xrays

(NaturalNews) Researchers from Duke University Medical Center in North Carolina have discovered that the tests administered to a person undergoing a heart attack emit radioactive elements at levels equivalent to 725 chest X-rays. The aggregate average of radiation administered is about a third of what nuclear power plant workers are allowed to be exposed to annually. Dr. Prashant Kaul, author of the research study, indicated that doctors typically fail to identify any other tests a heart attack victim may have already received when administering their own. As a result, patients are being exposed to high levels of radiation that far exceed safe maximum levels.The research team accumulated and analyzed data from over 64,000 patients who had undergone treatment for heart attacks between 2006 and 2009. The team discovered that patients underwent an average of seven tests utilizing ionizing radiation, the kind that is capable of penetrating tissue and damaging DNA cells. The vast majority of the tests were chest X-rays, followed by catheter procedures and computed tomography, also known as CT scans. According to the American Heart Association, the aggregate number of medical tests given each year that involve some sort of radioactive exposure has skyrocketed, increasing 700 percent between 1980 and 2006. Most of these tests deal in some way with heart disease as it is one of the fastest growing disease epidemics in America. Improvements in scanning technology have resulted in a sevenfold increase in radiation exposure compared to diagnostic scans performed in 1980. The New England Journal of Medicine reported in August that roughly 4 million Americans are exposed to dangerously high levels of radiation each year due to such medical testing procedures. The obvious threat from radioactive testing procedures is the potential for increased rates of cancer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has indicated that a person subjected to a CT scan may develop cancer at some point in his or her life due to the amount of radiation emitted from the test. For this reason, doctors should be cautious in advising patients to undergo such tests unless absolutely necessary. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an alternative technology that involves no ionizing radiation. MRIs utilize magnetic fields to generate images that are typically clearer than those produced by a CT scan. Ultrasound is another option that uses sound waves to form images. Heart ultrasounds work especially well at assessing the heart for possible risk factors before a heart attack occurs.
Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/heal http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-Emitti...
Mammography Causes Breast Cancer
A new study presented on December 1 at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) verified that annual mammography screenings may be responsible for causing breast cancer in women who are predisposed to the disease. Epidemiologist Marijke C. Jansen-van der Weide from the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands suggests that doctors should be very cautious when screening younger women, especially those under age 30.There are many conflicting reports about the benefits of mammography screenings, particularly among younger women below the age of 40. Because there is a high risk among women with genetic or familial predispositions to breast cancer when getting mammograms, Dr. Jansen-van der Weide and her research team are suggesting that these women get an alternative screening. Ultrasounds, MRIs, and heat thermography screenings are some alternatives that do not expose patients to radiation.The study evaluated women in the high-risk group and determined that low-dose mammography radiation increased these women's risk of developing breast cancer by 150 percent. Women under 20 who have had at least five mammograms are 2.5 times more likely to develop breast cancer than high-risk women who have never undergone low-dose mammography screenings.Study authors emphasized the fact that doctors should be cautious in administering mammograms to younger women, especially those with a family history of breast cancer. Moderate- to low-risk women were not evaluated in the study. Alternative screening methods were encouraged in order to reduce the risk of women in high-risk groups from being harmed by radioactive exposure.
Comments by Mike Adams, the Health RangerWhat this study really reveals is that there is no reason for any women to ever receive a mammogram ever again. Ultrasound and thermography should now be the new standard for breast cancer detection screenings, as they do not subject women to excess radiation.This study also reveals that mammograms are really "repeat business machines" for the cancer industry. When enough women are subjected to mammography, a windfall of future cancer patients is absolutely assured, and this translates into billions of dollars in profits for the businesses invested in cancer: Big Pharma, mammogram machine manufacturers, and so on.In fact, mammograms represent the slickest marketing gimmick we've ever seen in modern medicine. It's a technology that recruits new patients by actually causing the disease is claims to "detect." No wonder all the cancer industry non-profit groups donate so much money to breast cancer screening -- it's the best way to keep their sponsors in business!Just take a look at the Susan Komen for the Cure non-profit, and you'll see that a huge percentage of all the money they raise for "finding a cure" is really redirected to funding "free breast cancer screenings" that target poor women. The purpose of this whole scheme is to herd more women into extremely profitable (and extremely dangerous) cancer treatment cancers that generate billions for the cancer industry.
Sources for this story include:http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...