Electromagnetic Smog Archives

Radiation from tests?

[ Electromagnetic Smog Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!
 
        

Radiation from tests?

Posted by
Mary on November 08, 2003 at 00:18:21:

Hi,

Not sure if you're the right people to ask, but if not please re-direct me...have a kind of odd question I hope you can answer.

If a person has had between 2-4 CT scans with contrast for at least three years of the chest, neck, abd and pelvis, 2-3 xrays a year for other reasons, 2 PET scans with injection twice annually for a year, 1 bone scan with injection per year, and at least 2 MRI contrast administrations per year, I am wondering if there is any risk for developing cancer as a result of these repeated tests combined with contrast intake? If so, is it a significant risk?

Thanks

Mary



Re: Radiation from tests?

Posted by L on November 08, 2003 at 01:37:38:

In Reply to: Radiation from tests? posted by Mary on November 08, 2003 at 00:18:21:

It is weird that you should ask and I am not a physicist because I was out on a university's (trying to remember which one--somewhere in the midwest) website attempting to learn why it is that radiation is naturally present in certain produce and I came upon a comparison chart of what I guess I would call radiation indeces. Anyhow, it seems that the radiation to which you are exposed during one of the more highly radioactive medical procedures is roughly equal to living in Denver, Colorado for a year, or smoking 12 packs of cigarettes (more specifically 1 pack of cigarettes every day for 12 days), or, surprisingly to me, eating 20 bananas (again, I banana a day for 20 days). I don't know that much about how harmful radiation is in terms of units of mrem but there are 100 mrem of radiation in a single exposure to the more radioactive medical tests according to the research published by some midwestern university.
Now, I wonder if someone could explain to me why bananas and broccoli are naturally radioactive?



Re: Radiation from tests?

Posted by deb on November 08, 2003 at 12:36:57:

In Reply to: Re: Radiation from tests? posted by L on November 08, 2003 at 01:37:38:

to give you that healthful glow?



Re: Radiation from tests?

Posted by L on November 08, 2003 at 12:42:32:

In Reply to: Re: Radiation from tests? posted by deb on November 08, 2003 at 12:36:57:

Hehe! But I mean, is it just that some of these foods grow in soils where the radiation is naturally occurring...or is radiation more prevalent in produce than I realized?



Re: Radiation from tests?

Posted by Rose on November 08, 2003 at 20:12:00:

In Reply to: Re: Radiation from tests? posted by L on November 08, 2003 at 01:37:38:

Radioactive potassium is in our produce.. in our Earth from when it was formed. It is not a contaminate that man put in it.



Re: Radiation from tests?

Posted by Rose on November 08, 2003 at 20:18:14:

In Reply to: Radiation from tests? posted by Mary on November 08, 2003 at 00:18:21:

Try this link below. Remember that risk of something related to radiation is extrapolated from data from Hiroshimo/Nagasaki(excuse the spelling) bomb drops.. that was different type of radiation and different data collection methods years ago. Also, orginal dose 'facts' were changed recently in the BEIR IV data report by the U.S. government.



Re: Radiation from tests? try THIS link

Posted by rose on November 08, 2003 at 20:19:47:

In Reply to: Re: Radiation from tests? posted by Rose on November 08, 2003 at 20:18:14:

ok try this link http://www.hscer.washington.edu/clinicaltrialshandbook/4RadRisk.html

Follow Ups:


Re: Radiation from tests?

Posted by L on November 08, 2003 at 23:26:20:

In Reply to: Re: Radiation from tests? posted by Rose on November 08, 2003 at 20:12:00:

I remember that now from chem...I just forget that stuff...

Follow Ups:


Re: Radiation from tests?

Posted by L on November 08, 2003 at 23:37:52:

In Reply to: Re: Radiation from tests? posted by L on November 08, 2003 at 12:42:32:

Oh my goodness...I always forget that K is a mildly radioactive substance...I guess its just that it is so beneficial to so many things that you forget that it has this characteristic that seems so ominous.

Follow Ups:


Re: Radiation from tests? (Archive in elecromagnetic smog.)

Posted by Walt Stoll on November 09, 2003 at 06:52:30:

In Reply to: Radiation from tests? posted by Mary on November 08, 2003 at 00:18:21:

Hi, Mary.

The one thing we know, for sure, is that one's risk of cancer (among other risks) is directly related to the TOTAL amount of radiation one is exposed to in one's lifetime. Of course there are natural sources but these unnatural sources greatly increase our total. Therefore the answer is yes. As exposure increases, the damage is not additive but logarithmic.

Why all the tests?

Walt

Follow Ups:


Re: Radiation from tests?

Posted by L on November 10, 2003 at 11:42:07:

In Reply to: Radiation from tests? posted by Mary on November 08, 2003 at 00:18:21:

I think that my infro came from Ohio State.

Follow Ups:


[ Electromagnetic Smog Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!