CT Scans Cause Radiation-Induced Cancer

Flickr - CT Scan - MuffetApril McCarthy, Prevent Disease
Waking Times

Radiation-induced cancers have tripled in the last two decades and diagnostic imaging has been already been admitted as a cause by the U.S. government. According to a study of seven U.S. healthcare systems, the use of computed tomography (CT) scans of the head, abdomen/pelvis, chest or spine, in children younger than age 14 more than doubled from 1996 to 2005, and this associated radiation is projected to potentially increase the risk of radiation-induced cancer in these children in the future, according to a study published Online First by JAMA Pediatrics.

The use of CT in pediatrics has increased over the last two decades. The ionizing radiation doses delivered by the tests are higher than convention radiography and are in ranges that have been linked to an increased risk of cancer. Children are more sensitive to radiation-induced carcinogenesis and have many years of life left for cancer to develop, the authors write in the study background.

“The increased use of CT in pediatrics, combined with the wide variability in radiation doses, has resulted in many children receiving a high-dose examination,” the study notes.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned radiologists in the past that the scan expose children to doses of radiation far greater than is safe for their age and weight — by some estimates, up to six times more than what is needed to produce clear images.

In a public health notification, FDA officials warned recently that, despite earlier efforts by the American College of Radiology to warn doctors to reduce radiation levels when imaging children, the problem still exists.

Currently, 75 million CT scans are performed annually in the United States, around half in women, reflecting the large number of individuals who are exposed to this source of radiation. Thought leaders in radiology are often quoted as estimating that 30% or more of advanced imaging tests may be unnecessary, and while there are few scientific data to precisely estimate the amount of overuse, many radiologists believe the proportion may be even higher.

Diana L. Miglioretti, Ph.D., of the Group Health Research Institute and University of California, Davis, and colleagues quantified trends in the use of CT in pediatrics plus the associated radiation exposure and estimated potential cancer risk using data from seven U.S. health care systems.

The authors note the use of CT doubled for children younger than 5 years old and tripled for children 5 to 14 years of age between 1996 and 2005 before remaining stable between 2006 and 2007 and then beginning to decline.

The projected lifetime attributable risks of solid cancer were higher for younger patients and girls than for older patients and boy. The risks were also higher for patients who underwent CT scans of the abdomen/pelvis or spine than for patients who underwent other types of CT scans, according to the results.

The estimates also suggest that for girls, a radiation-induced solid cancer is projected to potentially result from every 300 to 390 abdomen/pelvis scans, 330 to 480 chest scans, and 270 to 800 spine scans, depending on age. The potential risk of leukemia was highest from head scans for children younger than 5 years of age at a rate of 1.9 cases per 10,000CT scans, the results show.

Developing radiation-induced cancer is at higher risk for children. The reason is children are much more sensitive to radiation because of the way their cells divide. Their DNA is much more susceptible to damage. While the risk of an adult developing cancer from a CT scan is about 1 in 2000, for a child the risk goes up to 1 in 500. Compounding the problem, it’s not always easy to tell when a CT scan’s levels are in the danger zone.

When radiation levels are too high on traditional X-rays, images appear overexposed; it’s easy to see that something is wrong. With CT scans, the picture is so good it’s not likely to be compromised, even when radiation levels are way above normal, according to the American College of Radiology.

“This is one reason that many centers don’t even recognize that there is a problem,” said Kevin Roche, a pediatric radiologist at New York University Medical Center.

The authors estimate that 4,870 future cancers could be caused by the 4 million pediatric CT scans performed each year. Based on their calculations, the authors also suggest that reducing the highest 25 percent of doses to the median (midpoint) may prevent 43 percent of these cancers, the authors suggest.

“Thus, more research is urgently needed to determine when CT in pediatrics can lead to improved health outcomes and whether other imaging methods (or no imaging) could be as effective. For now, it is important for both the referring physician and the radiologist to consider whether the risks of CT exceed the diagnostic value it provides over other tests, based on current evidence,” the study concludes.

Intense marketing focusing on profit leads to the rapid purchase of machines prior to completely understanding how this technology should be used to improve health outcomes has created excess capacity, complicated by few evidence-based guidelines for its use.

Strong financial incentives, reflected by the growing ownership of CT scanners by nonradiologists for use in their private medical offices, strong patient demand (in part resulting from direct-to-consumer advertisements that do not mention untoward effects), and medical malpractice concerns leading to defensive test ordering have all further contributed to high excess use.

Findings from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) have found that CT (computed tomography) scans are a major cause of the breast cancer they are supposed to detect, and women should avoid all ‘just-in-case’ and routine screening, a US government report concluded.

“Developing tissues in children are more sensitive to radiation and their longer expected life spans also allows additional time for the emergence of detrimental effects,” says co-author, Reza Fazel, M.D., M.Sc., a cardiologist at the Emory School of Medicine.

Dr. Steven Krug, emergency department chief at Chicago’s Children’s Memorial Hospital, said many institutions including his own have started using ultrasound to diagnose appendicitis in some kids with abdominal pain. Ultrasound images aren’t as detailed as CT images, and children with uncertain results will still need CT scans, but he said the trend may help limit radiation exposure.

“Irradiation of the brain with dose levels overlapping those imparted by CT can, in at least some instances, adversely affect intellectual development,” says Dr. Per Hall from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm Hall.

About the Author

April McCarthy is a community journalist playing an active role reporting and analyzing world events to advance our health and eco-friendly initiatives.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Waking Times or its staff.

~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with the buttons below…

  • With CT Scan it is What have you done, with Infraredscreening it is What are you doing… First screen with Infraredscreening!

    • mothman777

      Thanks for that, it looks like a very good way to analyse the body without damaging it.

      On another level, the Kirlian-based technique known as Gas Discharge Visualisation (GDV), developed by Professor Konstantin Korotkov from St. Petersburg is also well-established as a very accurate method to predict and diagnose didease.

  • mothman777

    I have a publication from the Hale Clinic in London UK, ICON Integrative Cancer and Oncology News, Spring 2010, that states that far from cancer only being caused in one in every 1,000 of those irradiated by a CT scan, the actual figure is one in every 50 people getting cancer from a single CT scan (page 23, ‘CT Scans Again Shown To Increase Cancer Risk’).

    I declined to have one, explaining this very fact to the doctor I was then referred to, yet was tricked into having one, whilst being told I was only having 3 X-rays maximum by a sadistic doctor called Dr Rubaie at the Royal Free Hospital in London, and got cancerous lesions inside my body and on the surface of my body as a result, a month or two later, one of which, a centimetre in diameter and growing rapidly and painfully inside my nose, completely blocked my left nostril, which I cured myself WITHOUT radiation or chemo, with a little self-surgery and a Chinese herb called He Shu Wu, which worked like magic within one month, actually removing one particular fast-growing one centimetre tumour on the outside of my body in just two weeks, as it contains two anti-tumour compounds, and also strengthens kidney chi, which is responsible for keeping the body clear of tumours. Very cheap too at 20 quid for 500 grams, a kind of chrysanthemum bulb that you make into tea, using just 5 grams a day, which I did by first powdering it with a coffee grinder.

    The CT scan had been entirely unnecessary anyway in the first place, as I had already purposely requested and received an ultrasound scan to confirm a kidney stone to avoid X-rays in the first place. Well, Dr Rubaie couldn’t let someone with a big mouth like me go running around saying how bad X-Rays are, and refused to confirm my ultra sound diagnosis with a simple phone call to a doctor in another local hospital, and refused me any treatment to remove my very painful kidney stone unless I consented to 3 X-Rays (he tried for 20 minutes to convince me to have a CT scan), after I had already walked out previously when he lied to me before and attempted to get a completely unnecessary CT scan (that it was entirely unnecessary was confirmed by several other doctors afterwards) done on me without my consent, and specifically against my wishes, and the X-Ray theatre staff utterly refused to cover my genital area with a lead apron, quite maliciously, after I said I wanted to have children and did not want genetic damage to my sperm. They lied cruelly, telling me they could not provide any cover for my testes, when they could have, as I have successfully requested such a shield before and since even for single X-Rays, and after the scan had been done, I saw that my testes had indeed been included in the scan, after all, completely unnecessarily (except if they specifically wanted to harm my future children).

    These people are dangerous, not genuine medical workers, but quite literally something far more sinister. I would have died from cancer, with my face eaten away, or suffocated to death due to the tumour blocking my air duct, but for giving myself medical treatment and avoiding theirs, which is often nothing more than a thinly-veiled Stalinist population reduction method. Several times in my life I have been callously refused medical treatment by the Stalinist British medical ‘NHS’ when I was dangerously close to death, or even given ‘treatment’ that very nearly killed me, quite callously and most definitely very deliberately, with there being no mistake whatsoever about the intent.

    I tried suing some of these people in court, and couldn’t; their power is like 007, they simply deny everything and the state covers them all the way.

    I am thoroughly convinced, in all seriousness, that the British state uses ‘medicine’ to harm and reduce the population in a genuinely Stalinist agenda, whenever it sees fit, on specific individuals or possibly whole classes of individuals, as with vaccinations of pregnant women, and infants, which cause catastrophic damage to the neuro- dendritic connections between brain cells in developing children, forever stymieing their intellectual development to render them a sub-class to those in power above.

    They certainly do cook the books when they tell you, the public, that the incidence of cancer from CT scans is so low as one in every 20,000, which is the false ‘official’ figure you will see on charts displayed on walls in doctors’ consultancy rooms, even when they themselves know that it is staggeringly higher than this figure.

    They do have a population reduction killing quota to keep up with after all, and what a way to get rid of any individual who is politically outspoken, as I am, or to make sure that whole generations of babies never develop the levels of intellectual skills to be properly able to challenge those in power, who come from well-established bloodlines, like rich multigenerational banking families and so on.

    See ‘Mothman777’s Blog’

  • abinico warez

    Nothing to worry about – these numbers are small compared to the 200,000 killed yearly by other means by the medical industry.

Thank you for sharing. Follow us for the latest updates.

Send this to friend