Re: Mammogram

Yes, a blood test would be much better than us exposing ourselves to radiation. This would be a breakthrough

Re: Mammogram

Mercury amalgam fillings have been banned by the EU for children and pregnant women. Most British dentists no longer use it.

But I think banning it is a load of nonsense. It's a very good material and far better than the alternatives. Lasts forever and doesn't cause decay. Millions of perfectly healthy people have had mercury fillings for years. It's actually more dangerous replacing them.

Re: Mammogram

They will probably find out that most cancers are caused by ordinary household products. It will be something you never think about such as air freshener or toothpaste. We are surrounded by chemicals and low level radiation. We have wireless tech everywhere going through our bodies. You get on a plane and the longer you are in the air the more radiation exposure there is. Apparently we could never live on Mars because it doesn't protect against the sun's radiation in the way Earth's atmosphere does.

Risks are unavoidable if are alive on this planet. At least we have some form of detection and cure for cancer. It's not perfect but it's better than just putting half an onion in your sock and hoping for the best.

Re: Mammogram

Let's remember that the dose received from having a chest X-ray, is less than that from cosmic gamma rays when you take a transatlantic flight.

Nobody seems to worry about taking long-haul flights.

Re: Mammogram

http://www.traveller.com.au/flight-r...e-you-to-1a54m

"A 14-hour trip from New York to Tokyo produces about 0.1 millisieverts, less than a quarter of the radiation needed for a mammogram."

"Even one X-ray, by itself, has the potential to cause a cancer,"

"The average passenger is exposed to about 0.01 millisieverts per year."


On average the total dose for a typical mammogram with 2 views of each breast is about 0.4 millisieverts.
Radiation damage is cumulative. Mammograms squash breast cells flat which maximises the area that is being irradiated. If Mammograms were the least bit reliable this risk might be worth taking, but unfotunately they are not reliable and have been proven to do more harm than good.

Re: Mammogram

A list of radiation doses for various procedures or activities. Living in Cornwall exposes people to more radiation annually than a CT scan of the spine.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...se-comparisons

Re: Mammogram

My apologies!

I had said before that I have no intention to continue this long-term debate, yet I posted my opinion again.

I think we should agree to disagree on this particular topic.

Re: Mammogram

The facts won't change whether we agree or disagree. They are what they are.

Re: Mammogram

Good article here in the NCBI, goes back to 2011 !

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3225414/

Time to stop mammography screening?

"These guidelines are an important step in the right direction, away from the prevailing attitude that a woman who does not undergo screening is irresponsible. Recent research even suggests that it may be most wise to avoid screening altogether, at any age, as outlined below."

"If screening does not reduce the occurrence of advanced cancers, it does not work. A systematic review of studies from seven countries showed that, on average, the rate of malignant tumours larger than 20 millimetres was not affected by screening.2 Because the size of a tumour is linearly correlated to the risk of metastasis,4 this result is evidence against an effect of screening."

"It has often been claimed that mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 30%.9 However, thorough systematic reviews have estimated only a 15% reduction,2,3 and data on tumour size from the trials are compatible with only a 12% effect.4 This effect is similar to the results seen in the most reliable studies, which showed a 10% effect after 13 years."

"Any possible effect of screening on breast cancer mortality must be marginal and could be counteracted by the life-shortening effect that radio-therapy and chemotherapy have when used in healthy women in whom breast cancer has been overdiagnosed (i.e., a diagnosis of breast cancer that would not have been made in the woman’s remaining life had she not undergone screening).3 The main effect of screening is to produce patients with breast cancer from among healthy women who would have remained free of breast disease for the rest of their lives had they not undergone screening. Compelling data from the US, Norway and Sweden show that most overdiagnosed tumours would have regressed spontaneously without treatment.2,10 In addition, screening substantially increases the number of mastectomies performed,2,3 despite routine claims to the contrary by advocates of screening.2"


"The best method we have to reduce the risk of breast cancer is to stop the screening program. This could reduce the risk by one-third in the screened age group, as the level of overdiagnosis in countries with organized screening programs is about 50%.11

If screening had been a drug, it would have been withdrawn from the market. Thus, which country will be first to stop mammography screening?"

Re: Mammogram

Yes and you would condemn a lot of us to death no one makes anyone have one. You make that choice personally I chose to do so