Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Mammograms Are Bad For You

Mammograms Are Bad for You. CT Scans Appear to be Really bad.

I was diagnosed with cancer and have had no choice but to undergo both procedures to determine the level of the disease. Although physicians will tell you that the radiation is minimal and not to worry, extensive studies have determined otherwise.

Chris Gupta offers a comprehensive compilation of data that expose the “great mammography deceit” which began in the early 1970’s. I tell my friends to ask their doctors instead for the much safer thermal and infrared imaging technologies, and funny thing…the doctors tell them mammography is the “gold standard” and refuse to offer alternate forms of screening. Read Gupta’s terrific research into learni$g why.

The following report below is printed in its entirety from a handy little newsletter called Natural News. For those women who have questioned whether mammograms are the problem or the solution to fighting cancer, new studies reveal that it may be time to rethink the annual mammogram. –t.t.

Americans Exposed to Atomic Bomb Levels of Radiation through Medical Imaging, CT Scans, Mammograms
-Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor-

(NaturalNews) A new report released by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement reveals that Americans' exposure to radiation has increased more than 600 percent over the last three decades. Most of that increase has come from patients' exposure to radiation through medical imaging scans such as CT scans and mammograms.Most patients have no awareness of the dangers of ionizing radiation due to medical imaging scans. Virtually no patients -- and few doctors -- realize that one CT scan exposes the body to the equivalent of several hundred X-rays (, for example.
Most women undergoing mammograms have no idea that the radiation emitted by mammography machines actually causes cancer by exposing heart and breast tissue to dangerous ionizing radiation that directly causes DNA damage.Even low doses of radiation can add up to significant increases in lifelong cancer risk. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2007) found that survivors of the 1945 atomic bombs unleashed on Japan during World War II still faced significant increases in lifetime cancer risk. And the levels of radiation to which these particular study subjects were exposed is equivalent to receiving only two or three CT scans, explains an ABC News story (

Read the rest of this Natural News article here.



Citizen Carrie said...

I am so sorry to hear the news, 2Truthy! Best wishes to you in your treatments and for your recovery. You will definitely be in my thoughts and prayers as you go through these difficult times.

I admire you for informing us about your research into mammograms, and how breast cancer rates may be directly tied to screening for the disease! That's terrible, and it must be stopped. Let's hope that 30 years from now, we look back and view mammograms the same way as we looked at lobotomy procedures from the 1950's. I'll definitely be talking to my doctor about mammorgrams! And think of how a lot of times, if your insurance policy otherwise sucks, mammograms are often covered at 100%!

2Truthy said...

Thanks, CC, I am out of the woods, for now. The alternative screening methods mentioned in the article are well worth insisting that doctors prescribe. My doctors are terrific, and despite this, I could not get one to easily let me opt for these alternate screenings. Hmm. A throwback to the "lobotomy" days, as you point out.

And great point - no matter how lousy your insurance policy, why are mammograms often covered at 100%? Further, why is it that every time within a six to twelve month time period for scheduled dental cleanings I am always told that I need X-Rays?

Red Oak said...

2T - I can only echo Carrie here - so sorry about your news, and I will be rooting for you.

And let me express my admiration for your keeping up the fighting spirit when you have so much else to deal with.

liz said...

OMG I am so sorry to hear about this. I wish you only the very best and I will be praying for you often.

2Truthy said...

CC, Red Oak and Liz, thanks for these wonderfully supportive messages. I'm in remission now and have, over the past few years, had to have these and other tests and screeinings. (I really do wish I could have avoided that damn CT scan.) But the repeated, annual exposure to radiation since the eighties for someone diagnosed with a not so good level of malignant melanoma, you would think that doctors might want to offer safer modes of screening like DITI (see below). I wrote this post to bring awareness to others of the safer alternatives I have learned about, particularly when it comes to the annual or eery other year continual breast screenings via mammography. Since I personally have had so much radiation exposure over these past few years, I am trying to minimize or eliminate any more of it if I can. I hope that you and/or yours with breasts (dunno RO:) will explore these options and pass them on to your mothers, daughters, and sisters and friends. The way I se it, Life is too short to be a walking mushroom cloud (like that creepy picture...)

Earlier this week I had tried to find out if one of the regional health centers offers what is known as Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging(DITI)and the receptionist said she had never heard of it. I am still waiting for a return call from one doctor's office which I placed days ago. I know that the last time I asked my own physician, I was told it was expensive and not the best method. In other words, I was 'discouraged' from pursuing the option. (And THIS doctor is one of the finest around.)

I know you will appreciate this comparison, but since the early nineties when the public started being bombarded with the myth of a "skilled labor shortage" in order for corporations to shore up wild profits to distribute at the very top, I can't help but wonder if the push for annual mammography exams is following the same profits over people path, given the research that is now coming out.

Aside from the articles referenced in this post, here are a couple of very helpful ones to learn more about DITI:


Don't worry, yours truly is not done kicking ass yet, nor will there be any end to the gallows humor or the profound sense of arrested development known to plaster this site.

Citizen Carrie said...

Whew! I guess I overreacted a bit. I was ready to head to my nearest radiology clinic and start busting some heads! Glad to hear you're OK!

I too have had a few more x-rays than usual the last few years, and I'll definitely be mindful of this if anyone orders more. And the oversimplistic answers and "discouragement" from seeking the DITI procedure is disgusting. PARTICULARLY in light of your past history and the need to limit your exposure to radiation. You're not exactly the lady off the street asking for her first breast exam.

I'm sure if pushed, the explanation against DITI's is the cost of the test. But, yes, I'm sure the profits from running mammogram factories have a lot to do with things as well. It's funny with "profits" and "efficiencies" being such a concern with my health care center, they don't seem in the least bit interested in "efficiencies" for their patients. I go for mammograms in a radiology department where men and women and children have to undress in one spot and get our x-rays as far away from the dressing areas as possible, and walk past each other with our gowns flapping in the wind. That's such a dehumanizing thing to go through. I remember when we used to get undressed in the same room where the procedure was being performed. I now realize that can't be allowed, since the amount of time to undress and dress would tie up the room too long.

Sara said...

I've been leery of mammography since I became aware of older female relatives getting radiated annually. Why the hell would someone subject tissue sensitive to estrogen to radiation voluntarily?

You have to think long and hard (or maybe not) about why medicine would hang onto a technology that is wildly inaccurate, does not easily differentiate between cysts and tumors, and requires repeated exams in order to sort of get it right.

And I know only one other woman who was able to get an ultrasound from the get-go, rather than a mammo, when she found a lump. She had to fight tooth and nail to avoid the mammo and the doctor finally relented. They were able to diagnose the lump as a benign cyst, and it was excised easily a week later.

And this isn't mammography, but re: the CT exams... Back when I worked for the devil as an asbestos disease claims processor, I had to read medical reports. And there was definitely a pattern. Retired workers would be screened this way if they'd been occupationally exposed to asbestos. And if there was a disease process it was evident. But the guys without evidence were generally screened until they presented with something, and it really begs the question of synergy.

Smoking and asbestos are terribly synergistic. You have one thing making the lungs prone to disease, and then a secondary contagion often guaranteeing future disease. But what about radiation for heck's sake? What about those CT scans? Not everyone develops mesothelioma, but the lung cancers are pretty evident.

It was not unusual for our firm to settle a claim for pleural disease one year, and then a couple years later settle one for lung cancer with asbestos-related disease markers. Same plaintiff.

But back to mammography, hospitals have a crapload of money invested in the technology. As long as the technology pays for itself they really do not care.

The Critic said...

Yikes. Keep up the fight, 2Truthy! We need fighters around here.