FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Mammograms aren't safe!
Mammograms aren't safe!
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
One for the women.
Try to avoid mammograms if you can.
Research shows that you are exposed to atomic bomb levels of radiation through a mammogram.
Mammograms can actually CAUSE cancer! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I have never had one, I would have to travel 4 miles to get there, im more concerned about other illnesses.
I don't want to have my boobs all squashed, its painful and that can also cause cancer, so they say. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
What terrible and dangerous advice.
"According to the National Cancer Institute, “The benefits of mammography, however, nearly always outweigh the potential harm from the radiation exposure. Mammograms require very small doses of radiation. The risk of harm from this radiation exposure is extremely low.”" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What terrible and dangerous advice.
"According to the National Cancer Institute, “The benefits of mammography, however, nearly always outweigh the potential harm from the radiation exposure. Mammograms require very small doses of radiation. The risk of harm from this radiation exposure is extremely low.”""
Just this ^^^ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
Forum Mod |
"What terrible and dangerous advice.
"According to the National Cancer Institute, “The benefits of mammography, however, nearly always outweigh the potential harm from the radiation exposure. Mammograms require very small doses of radiation. The risk of harm from this radiation exposure is extremely low.”"
Just this ^^^"
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They're not ideal but, and I don't mean this in a horrible way, you just posted a thread praising PSA check's to help detect cancer early... Mammograms do exactly the same, sometimes detecting breast cancer in women who have no obvious signs or symptoms and who otherwise wouldn't have known.
Sometimes it's a necessary evil. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ickawitchCouple
over a year ago
Away with the fairies (Liverpool to you) |
I have had four over the last eight years and I am fine......they found a benign tumour (which was removed) and numerous cysts. I will continue to have them as there is a high risk of breast and ovarian cancer in my family.....the mammograms could one day save my life. I realise it's a personal choice and I choose to be pro active about my cancer risk  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
Forum Mod |
"I've heard that to, I'm just trying to raise some awareness in a positive way!"
Positive? How?
You were scare mongering without decent evidence |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ickawitchCouple
over a year ago
Away with the fairies (Liverpool to you) |
"What terrible and dangerous advice.
"According to the National Cancer Institute, “The benefits of mammography, however, nearly always outweigh the potential harm from the radiation exposure. Mammograms require very small doses of radiation. The risk of harm from this radiation exposure is extremely low.”""
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *s louWoman
over a year ago
Enniskillen |
CT scans are the same.....there's as much radiation in a CT scan as there is in approx 1000 'normal' xrays (as told to me by my oncologist). I have to have a CT once a year. I'd still prefer to have it done once a year than risk having something there and not being diagnosed until too late) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What terrible and dangerous advice.
"According to the National Cancer Institute, “The benefits of mammography, however, nearly always outweigh the potential harm from the radiation exposure. Mammograms require very small doses of radiation. The risk of harm from this radiation exposure is extremely low.”""
I have a family history of cancer and saw what undiagnosed and untreated breast cancer did to my little nan. It breaks my heart to think that if she had been having regular mammograms then the cancer might have been caught early and she could have gone for treatment. When she was eventually diagnosed, it was too late. The cancer had spread and she decided that she preferred to die than undergo the treatment that it would have taken being so advanced.
The OPs advice is thoughtless and stupid. Early detection and early treatment saves lives and keeps families together for longer.
crystal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I found a lump and went for a mammogram - it showed nothing! Had a scan straight after and the lump was cancer - the mammogram didn't even spot it!
Thankfully after an operation and radiotherapy I am now 2 years in remission . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"They're not ideal but, and I don't mean this in a horrible way, you just posted a thread praising PSA check's to help detect cancer early... Mammograms do exactly the same, sometimes detecting breast cancer in women who have no obvious signs or symptoms and who otherwise wouldn't have known.
Sometimes it's a necessary evil."
PSA is through blood testing! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I'm not trying to cause offence or scare people here, that is not my intention.
Everyone has different opinions, and from talking with professors in this field, I am simply stating what they tell me!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not trying to cause offence or scare people here, that is not my intention.
Everyone has different opinions, and from talking with professors in this field, I am simply stating what they tell me!
"
You talk to professors? And they advise this?
Call me a cynic but I'm not convinced  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not trying to cause offence or scare people here, that is not my intention.
Everyone has different opinions, and from talking with professors in this field, I am simply stating what they tell me!
"
And out of interest how your original post and subject header fit with your claim that you aren;t trying to scare people?
Your post is scaremongering. End of |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not trying to cause offence or scare people here, that is not my intention.
Everyone has different opinions, and from talking with professors in this field, I am simply stating what they tell me!
"
Which professors? Which particular piece of research that you so confidently quote are you referring to? I'm sure you won't mind sharing the actual article as you're clearly so sure of what you're asserting |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not trying to cause offence or scare people here, that is not my intention.
Everyone has different opinions, and from talking with professors in this field, I am simply stating what they tell me!
"
Then give us some scientific facts which show that the risk to life from exposure of radiation from mammograms is higher then the risk to life from not taking advantage of a free screening technique designed to spot a life threatening disease. Surely professors would be able to direct you to peer reviewed scientific research papers?!!!
crystal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not trying to cause offence or scare people here, that is not my intention.
Everyone has different opinions, and from talking with professors in this field, I am simply stating what they tell me!
Which professors? Which particular piece of research that you so confidently quote are you referring to? I'm sure you won't mind sharing the actual article as you're clearly so sure of what you're asserting
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/07/mammogram-screening-risks.aspx"
You didn't mention which professors you've been talking to who recommend avoiding mammograms as they cause cancer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The key to it is risk!.
Yes mammograms may cause cancer, but is the risk of it causing cancer greater than the risk from it not finding the cancer.
I'm sure there'll look back at radiotherapy and Chemotherapy in thirty years and think what the hell were we doing!, but right now it's the best we've got! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not trying to cause offence or scare people here, that is not my intention.
Everyone has different opinions, and from talking with professors in this field, I am simply stating what they tell me!
Which professors? Which particular piece of research that you so confidently quote are you referring to? I'm sure you won't mind sharing the actual article as you're clearly so sure of what you're asserting
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/07/mammogram-screening-risks.aspx"
And you're in actual conversation with Dr Mercola? The page the article is on has a link to a story about "what the colours and shapes in your toilet can tell you"...it's hardly the BMJ is it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andb69Couple
over a year ago
leeds |
"What terrible and dangerous advice.
"According to the National Cancer Institute, “The benefits of mammography, however, nearly always outweigh the potential harm from the radiation exposure. Mammograms require very small doses of radiation. The risk of harm from this radiation exposure is extremely low.”"
Just this ^^^"
Exactly - idiotic, very dangerous scare mongering advice. The dose is less than you would receive from cosmic rays on a transatlantic flight. Does the OP recommend we avoid x - rays at the dentist, or if we have a broken leg, or suspected lung cancer? And remember the most effective ways or diagnosing and treating cancers is with radiation. Women should be queuing up for their mammograms! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ipsTeaserCouple
over a year ago
here and there, thereabouts |
As someone whose at a higher risk of breast cancer and has has a close fily member survive it twice, as well as one lost to cancer Iam sorry op but I consider this dangerous advice. Yes they are not without risk, but as with many diagnostics and treatments it's about which you consider the greatest risk. Random Mammograms for someone with no history I could understand you urging caution but since they are only generally offered over a certain age to most and to those already at higher risk below, or at the time concern is raised by a patient I think you are being rather short sighted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Not trying to cause offence or scaremongering, simply trying to put detection and survival rates back by decades by TELLING people to avoid mammograms.
Let me guess,you're and anti-vaccer too, welcoming the increase of diseases that people worked hard to control through effective vaccination programmes.
Luckily there are intelligent people on here that are able to discredit your claims and so I hope that others take heed of them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
And wearing deodorant or an underwire bra causes cancer.
The risk of ionising radiation exposure is ever changing area of research. To equate dose levels to that of atomic weapons use is scaremongering.
Alas we live in a society that wants zero risk or at least the impression of that. The fact that millions happily fly at 35,000 feet with corresponding increase in radiation exposure is often ignored. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
ive had a lump removed when i was in my early 20s - had my first mammogram last year and it was a little bit uncomfortable but not painful - Doreen 4 miles is no distance at all - |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uby0000Woman
over a year ago
hertfordshire |
"CT scans are the same.....there's as much radiation in a CT scan as there is in approx 1000 'normal' xrays (as told to me by my oncologist). I have to have a CT once a year. I'd still prefer to have it done once a year than risk having something there and not being diagnosed until too late)"
im fucked then as when in hospital in December I had two CT scans and an alarming amount of radiation when I had angioplasty |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago
Over the rainbow, under the bridge |
"What terrible and dangerous advice.
"According to the National Cancer Institute, “The benefits of mammography, however, nearly always outweigh the potential harm from the radiation exposure. Mammograms require very small doses of radiation. The risk of harm from this radiation exposure is extremely low.”"
Just this ^^^
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andb69Couple
over a year ago
leeds |
OP you might not be trying to scaremonger but you are certainly succeeding. Offering advice like this from a base level of ignorance could lead to death should someone be daft enough to take your advice.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And wearing deodorant or an underwire bra causes cancer.
The risk of ionising radiation exposure is ever changing area of research. To equate dose levels to that of atomic weapons use is scaremongering.
Alas we live in a society that wants zero risk or at least the impression of that. The fact that millions happily fly at 35,000 feet with corresponding increase in radiation exposure is often ignored."
.
It's one of those myths that nuclear bombs have.... Oooo the radiation, fuck that I'm more concerned with the 1 million degree heat blast  .
The scientific evidence so far is that short term high level gamma radiation is bad or that long term small level alpha/beta or gamma ain't good either.
It's not the radiation perse in long term effects but the ingestion of particles that has the truly horrendous effects like Alexander lithenko.
Either way the best you can do is go with your doctors advise |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"One for the women.
Try to avoid mammograms if you can.
Research shows that you are exposed to atomic bomb levels of radiation through a mammogram.
Mammograms can actually CAUSE cancer!"
atomic bomb... really? you mean all those bomb tests in the 60's didn't need people to move back several miles and get into lead lined bunkers, all they needed was a perspex screen...
Raising questions about a diagnosis process is not helped by extravagant claims that are clearly nonsensical. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"One for the women.
Try to avoid mammograms if you can.
Research shows that you are exposed to atomic bomb levels of radiation through a mammogram.
Mammograms can actually CAUSE cancer!"
sounds like bollocks fella..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I always get my health advice from internet forums; the folk there are so much more knowlegeable than people who have undertaken years of rigerous study to obtain science and medical degres,
Oh Dr Mercola; that will be the same guy that the FDA ordered together with his Optimal Wellness Center to stop making illegal claims for products sold through his Web site.
In 2006, the FDA sent Mercola and his center a second warning that was based on product labels collected during an inspection at his facility and on claims made on the Optimum Wellness Center Web site.
In 2011, the FDA ordered Mercola to stop making claims for thermography that go beyond what the equipment he uses (Medtherm2000 infrared camera) was cleared for.
From the Science Based Medicine website:
"Mercola.com is a horrible chimera of tabloid journalism, late-night infomercials, and amateur pre-scientific medicine, and is the primary web presence of Joseph Mercola. Unfortunately, it is also one of the more popular alternative medicine sites on the web and as such is uncommonly efficient at spreading misinformation" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Loads of things can cause cancer, if we never did or ate anything that was said had a possibility of causing cancer we would be doing very little
My friend went for a mammogram last year and they spotted an abnormality, had a biopsy and discovered it was cancer, because they spotted it so soon they only had to do a lumpectomy, she got the all clear last month and is now going through radiotherapy, the mammogram certainly worked for her |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The OP is scaremongering, the breast screening service is very important and for him to advise against mammograms is utter bollox.
Don't listen to a word would be my advice. So far as I'm aware he is no expert. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Research shows that you are exposed to atomic bomb levels of radiation through a mammogram.
"
complete cobblers
Mammogram Dose Expressed in Terms of Average Natural Background Radiation in the UK.
Average background radiation in the UK 2.2 mSv/annum
Effective dose = breast dose x tissue weighting factor (from ICRP 103)
Effective dose STD mammogram 3 x 0.12= 0.36 mSv.
1 screening round at for a std dose mammogram is equivalent to: 8.5 weeks or 2 months of average annual background radiation in the UK.
(Source London Quality Assurance Reference Centre) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *fcdTV/TS
over a year ago
Southend |
It would be interesting to know what they are professors in...
Like anything, mammograms aren't 100% same. nothing is. However, the small risk is massively outweighed by the advantages of early detection of cancer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"One for the women.
Try to avoid mammograms if you can.
Research shows that you are exposed to atomic bomb levels of radiation through a mammogram.
Mammograms can actually CAUSE cancer!"
If I had read this last year, I may have panicked. Thankfully I had mine and it was painless and the nurse doing it was wonderful. My results were clear.
Would you prevent your wife or any family member from having this procedure, which is to detect possible cancer? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Seen some posts that are bad but this is scaremongering at the very least.
what about the thousands of lives saved by mammagrams and early detection the very nature of any procedure like this or xrays carry a risk but the compared to benefits its a no brainer.
O p engage brain before mouth matey.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I have never had one, I would have to travel 4 miles to get there, im more concerned about other illnesses.
I don't want to have my boobs all squashed, its painful and that can also cause cancer, so they say."
Doreen, you are ten miles from me. I had my screening in a proper hospital type portakakabin in the car park of the Quays swimming pool in Southampton. It was a painless procedure |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"One for the women.
Try to avoid mammograms if you can.
Research shows that you are exposed to atomic bomb levels of radiation through a mammogram.
Mammograms can actually CAUSE cancer!"
How dumb can you be?
If you drink too much water, it can kill you. You going to stay away from water mate?
Unscientific (in terms of interpreting risk) rubbish.
Why not talk about and 'give advice' on something you know about? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I have never had one, I would have to travel 4 miles to get there, im more concerned about other illnesses.
I don't want to have my boobs all squashed, its painful and that can also cause cancer, so they say."
I thought that and avoided it but when I got persuaded to go, it wasn't painful at all |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"One for the women.
Try to avoid mammograms if you can.
Research shows that you are exposed to atomic bomb levels of radiation through a mammogram.
Mammograms can actually CAUSE cancer!"
Thankfully most women will take their advice from properly qualified medical practitioners, not quack doctors.
This is very dangerous scaremongering.
I hope your view doesn't result in a woman you care for missing out on a crucial diagnosis.
Clearly the women on here are intelligent enough to ignore your advice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This is your level mate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsGYh8AacgY
Come back and tell us some facts about Unicorns when you've watched it. Although this vid does not cover unicorn defecation, I believe they shit rainbows.
And no, not sorry to be rude. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They're not ideal but, and I don't mean this in a horrible way, you just posted a thread praising PSA check's to help detect cancer early... Mammograms do exactly the same, sometimes detecting breast cancer in women who have no obvious signs or symptoms and who otherwise wouldn't have known.
Sometimes it's a necessary evil.
PSA is through blood testing!"
The point is they are still both methods of early detection.
Different, but both can be life-savers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What terrible and dangerous advice.
"According to the National Cancer Institute, “The benefits of mammography, however, nearly always outweigh the potential harm from the radiation exposure. Mammograms require very small doses of radiation. The risk of harm from this radiation exposure is extremely low.”""
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago
Somewhere in North Norfolk |
I believe the advice in the OP is very bad, dangerous advice so I won't be following it. I have had one mammogram already and I will attend for every one I am invited to have in the future.
Incidentally, my experience of a mammogram was that it wasn't painful. I couldn't even call it uncomfortable really.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
During my last mammogram I sustained a rotator cuff injury that put my arm out of action for months and took nearly two years to heal. That is a dangerous side effect!
Still going to have them in future though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *londeCazWoman
over a year ago
Arse End of the Universe, Cumbria |
If converted to the Banana Equivalent Dose (BED, which is a bit of a whimsical way of explaining seiverts and rads, a mammogram works out as eating 4000 bananas, which is the same as the average yearly normal background dose, the majority of which comes from naturally occurring sources.
A fatal dose of bananas would be 80 million bananas.
I used to use this when I tutored Nuclear Safety as it's a rather dry subject otherwise |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Burnt toast is carcinogenic - STOP EATING TOAST AS IT CAUSES CANCER!!!
OP you are scaremongering. The potential benefits outweigh the risks for those whose medical teams put forward for early mammograms.
I know of women who have family history of breast cancer who have avoided going because they were too busy or because they heard that it was unpleasant. When they finally went they were surprised by how easy it was and that it is a little uncomfortable and undignified but that the peace of mind is worth it.
I also know a 40 year old woman who went as part of an early screening programme due to family history only to discover that she had breast cancer. She had no lump, just a scattering of cells. Without a mammogram it would have been years before they found it.
When they operated they discovered that despite it being so small that it had already spread to some of her lymph nodes.
If she had been scared off going for that mammogram by the time it grew big enough to be felt it would have already spread around her body - that's what happens when it's in the lymphatic system.
Have you ever known anyone die from breast cancer OP? It's a horrible way to go. It used to be called the stinking disease because it would cause breast tissue to rot.
Due to early diagnosis it's one of the most survivable cancers.
Apparently 1 in 4 of us will have some form of cancer at some point in our lives. I'll be going for my mammograms and taking the very slight increased risk - the risk level is higher every time I cross the road or get behind the wheel of my car. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Google xkcd radiation. The guy produced a wonderful infographic about levels of radiation and it's effects. The OP, rightly or wrongly, produced a scaremongering post.
We are all exposed to radiation everyday. It's all around us. Some folks in places get more exposure than others from exposure to Radon, medical treatments, flying, or working with radioactive materials. None of those activities come remotely close to reaching permissible limits.
The risks from mammograms and CT scans are ludicrously low. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ugby 123Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod O o O oo |
Only put allowed links in please.
To the OP.....if you cant provide evidence of this then I think this is scaremongering at its best and not helpful at all.
To Hilda....obviously you sound like you cant be bothered going for one, but they don't hurt if you do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Burnt toast is carcinogenic - STOP EATING TOAST AS IT CAUSES CANCER!!!
OP you are scaremongering. The potential benefits outweigh the risks for those whose medical teams put forward for early mammograms.
I know of women who have family history of breast cancer who have avoided going because they were too busy or because they heard that it was unpleasant. When they finally went they were surprised by how easy it was and that it is a little uncomfortable and undignified but that the peace of mind is worth it.
I also know a 40 year old woman who went as part of an early screening programme due to family history only to discover that she had breast cancer. She had no lump, just a scattering of cells. Without a mammogram it would have been years before they found it.
When they operated they discovered that despite it being so small that it had already spread to some of her lymph nodes.
If she had been scared off going for that mammogram by the time it grew big enough to be felt it would have already spread around her body - that's what happens when it's in the lymphatic system.
Have you ever known anyone die from breast cancer OP? It's a horrible way to go. It used to be called the stinking disease because it would cause breast tissue to rot.
Due to early diagnosis it's one of the most survivable cancers.
Apparently 1 in 4 of us will have some form of cancer at some point in our lives. I'll be going for my mammograms and taking the very slight increased risk - the risk level is higher every time I cross the road or get behind the wheel of my car."
I heard on BBC London during the week that it's suspected the numbers of us faced with cancer will increase due to our lifestyles and longer life span. I think they said it could possibly increase to 1 in 2.
crystal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Google xkcd radiation. The guy produced a wonderful infographic about levels of radiation and it's effects. The OP, rightly or wrongly, produced a scaremongering post.
We are all exposed to radiation everyday. It's all around us. Some folks in places get more exposure than others from exposure to Radon, medical treatments, flying, or working with radioactive materials. None of those activities come remotely close to reaching permissible limits.
The risks from mammograms and CT scans are ludicrously low."
.
I'd be a bit more worried about the538,100 terabecquerels (TBq) of iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 was released. 520,000 TBq was released into the atmosphere between 12 to 31 March 2011 and 18,100 TBq into the ocean from 26 March to 30 September 2011. A total of 511,000 TBq of iodine-131 was released into both the atmosphere and the ocean, 13,500 TBq of caesium-134 and 13,600 TBq of caesium-137 from Fukushima every year. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You might as well say don't use ambulances, they might crash, and you might get injured....
If it was me, I'd report my own post and get it removed. Tosh. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Mammograms pick up lesions undetectable by any other ways. By the time you feel a lump it's well established and quite possibly already spreading around you're body.
Prevention is better than cure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"CT scans are the same.....there's as much radiation in a CT scan as there is in approx 1000 'normal' xrays (as told to me by my oncologist). I have to have a CT once a year. I'd still prefer to have it done once a year than risk having something there and not being diagnosed until too late)"
I have had a CT scan at least once a year for the duration of my treatment for cancer, it didn't bother me much as I knew it was keeping my safe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *s louWoman
over a year ago
Enniskillen |
"CT scans are the same.....there's as much radiation in a CT scan as there is in approx 1000 'normal' xrays (as told to me by my oncologist). I have to have a CT once a year. I'd still prefer to have it done once a year than risk having something there and not being diagnosed until too late)
I have had a CT scan at least once a year for the duration of my treatment for cancer, it didn't bother me much as I knew it was keeping my safe."
my point exactly - sorry I'm not good at putting my point across! I know there's a risk from the CT scans, but I'd still prefer to have one once a year to keep an eye on things than not have one and get diagnosed with something too late to be treated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Breast cancer used to be the biggest killer of women. It's only been overtaken by lung cancer because of the rise in women taking up smoking. I recently had to have a mammogram,thankfully it isn't cancer. I will continue to have them when called upon |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
