Ladies. This is Worrying.

[Python]

http://othernews.uk.myway.com/articl...43174A000.html

I've long held the belief that many of these tests are being done for no reason other than to boost statistics. Only a few weeks ago, our med profession stated that mammograms could increase the chances of developing breast cancer, so this latest finding doesn't surprise me at all.

I was invited for one of these mammograms earlier this year and was absolutely furious about it for three reasons. First, they couldn't even get my age right, so to start with that didn't inspire confidence, secondly, they took the liberty of actually making an appointment for me, just assuming I'd toddle along happily without question and thirdly, despite my phoning them and telling them I would not be attending and not to make a further appointment, about three weeks after they sent a letter stating since I had not attended for the mammogram they had booked me yet another appointment If they can't get basic things right, do they really think I'd trust them to get a mammogram right?

I emphasis at this point that this is only my own personal experience and opinion but I really think we need to think these things through logically and make informed decisions and not be led blindly up the garden path because the medical profession says that whatever test is the best thing since sliced bread.

Over here, the use of MRI scans is also being called into question because it would seem that people who have had MRI scans are subsequently put at a hugely greater risk of developing some form of cancer, due to the extremely high dosage of radiation they're exposed to. They are now trying to only do MRI scans if absolutely necessary.

Certainly food for thought.

[DeniseGoldberg]

I'd advise you to be very careful about what sites you use for health care information. Contrary to what the article you referenced states, screening mammograms along with clinical breast exams are the best there currently is for breast cancer detection. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have cancer detected early when there is still the possibility of a cure.

Here's a link to recommended screening for breast cancer as well as some statistical info from the National Cancer Institute, part of the US National Institutes of Health: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f...ing-mammograms.

I have a family history of both breast cancer and colon cancer; you can bet I go for those screenings on a regular basis. And even if I didn't have a familiy history, I would have these screenings based on my doc's recommendations.

Only you can make the choice - it's your body and your health care.

--- Denise

[KnottedYet]

Cause vs. effect.

could be that folks who get MRIs get 'em because something seems not right, like the doc thinks they have cancer.

Later, as things develop, perhaps the cancer becomes more obvious and is diagnosed.

Or perhaps folks who've had one MRI due to worrisome symptoms are more likely to be given another later for suspicious symptoms, so their cancer is caught earlier, rather than growing until the mass can be seen with the naked eye or felt by hand.

I had cancer. Weird symptoms since then are first suspected to be cancer recurring. CTs and MRIs ruled out cancer for me for the new symptoms (guts, brain), and I am ever so grateful for them. But when/if my cancer comes back the docs are more likely to have ordered scans just because of my history.

You can prove anything with statistics.

(PS. I was under the impression that MRI's don't use radiation. They use magnets to align the atoms in yer body and use that info to get the picture)

[Python]

Denise. That didn't come from a website as such. It is in the newspapers and news and that is an internet link to the information. Over the past few weeks we've had quite a lot of it on the TV too, hence I said people need to make an informed decision based on the facts, both pros and cons.

Professor Michael Baum, professor emeritus of surgery and visiting professor of medical humanities at University College London, told the Daily Telegraph that until now his position was that women should make an informed choice based on the facts.

But he added: "This latest evidence shifts the balance even further towards harm and away from benefits. If this report stands up, the NHS screening programme should be referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to decide whether it should be closed down.

These are very strong words and a very strong opinion from an eminent Professor.

As far as the MRI scans go, these are radiation based and a very high doseage at that. The problem seems to be some hospitals are using MRI scans as a matter of routine - even for minor complaints when they are not necessary. My son recently had an MRI scan - for appendicitis, and it didn't show up on the MRI scan so they treated him for something completely different - and he nearly ended up with a ruptured appendix, so they are not foolproof.

MRI scans are a relatively new concept and long-term side-effects are only just being discovered. There is no doubt that they can and do pick up things that would otherwise be missed but I really do believe that people need to start asking serious questions to their doctors - and get an answer based on hard, proven facts and not some statistical figure because as we all know statistics can be manipulated to suit any agenda.

All I'm saying ladies, is be careful and don't be afraid to ask questions, and if you're not happy with the answers, get a second opinion until you are satisfied.

PS. If it wasn't for the medical profession and the overall good job they do, my son wouldn't be alive today.

[Nanci]

MRI, magnetic resonnance imaging- does NOT use radiation.

Cat Scan, CT- that _does_ use radiation, though finely collimated, and the dose does not go all at once to the whole body, but each slice gets one small dose.

Now recently a study has shown that ultrasound can cause brain damage in mice. I wouldn't be surprised if routine obstetrical ultrasound becomes greatly reduced in the coming years.

Nanci

[margo49]

We already have a 1 in 9 (or even greater) chance of getting Breast cancer so what significant diff is the mammogram gonna make??
We're all phuqued anyway to the point where I think we can't avoid all the dangerous breast-cancer-inducing situations to which we have been or are being or will soon be exposed; so we might as well just concentrate on diagnosis and treatment

signed, margo the mono-tit who has no idea where it came from and doesn't care either because it's gone now and stayed gone for 10 years and counting

[Python]

signed, margo the mono-tit who has no idea where it came from and doesn't care either because it's gone now and stayed gone for 10 years and counting

And I hope it stays gone forever.

[chickwhorips]

And I hope it stays gone forever.

i'll second that and to anyone else that has overcome cancer.

my mom died at the age of 43 of breast cancer, i was only 3 years old. breast cancer runs in my family and i have good chance of getting it.

[jeannierides]

We already have a 1 in 9 (or even greater) chance of getting Breast cancer so what significant diff is the mammogram gonna make??
We're all phuqued anyway to the point where I think we can't avoid all the dangerous breast-cancer-inducing situations to which we have been or are being or will soon be exposed; so we might as well just concentrate on diagnosis and treatment

signed, margo the mono-tit who has no idea where it came from and doesn't care either because it's gone now and stayed gone for 10 years and counting

Yes and Yes! I'll take my chances with the mammogram, thanks. I've had two dear friends diagnosed after mammograms... and are survivors because of it!

Margo... may it STAY GONE!

[Xrayted]

First, Nanci is totally right. NO RADIATION with MRI. It uses extremely strong magnets to align the water molecules in your cells to get a "bounce back", for the lack of a better lay-term, that it turns into an image with some impressively intricate algorithms and programming. CT is like little, thin slices of x-rays. It's a finely controlled beam compared to general radiography.
Mammos use an extremely tiny amount of x-ray to get an image because it's only going through a relatively thin layer (few inches) of soft tissue. It also uses a highly sensitive image receptor compared to regular x-ray cassettes which allows for the much reduced dose.

What you may not think about is that you've lived in radiation since before you were born. The sun, earth and even our own bodies produce radiation. The amount you get from a mammo equates to about what you get if you hang out in the backyard (or on your bike ) for a few short hours. Your body is used to radiation. If it wasn't, no one would make it past childhood.
That said, yes, there is essentially no safe dose when it comes to radiation. Even small amounts could potentially damage a cell. But it so unlikely to happen from radiography that I'd rather "take a chance" and get a mammo or other test if it meant catching something early when it can be treated more effectively. It would be great if something better and safer was invented/discovered. But it ain't here yet, sister.

Personally, I've had about a 100 x-rays. Maybe I'll find out down the line that it did some damage. But without them, I wouldn't have lived past 21 y.o. and I certainly wouldn't be walking today. They have actually given me much more life than I would have had otherwise. It's a big reason why I became an x-ray tech. The alternative is a guy with a knife digging around in the dark trying to figure out why you're sick. (the good old days) No thanks!!

In the end, do what you feel is right for you. But when you make your decision, make a concerted effort to get the correct information. Newspapers/tv are the last place I go when I actually want to learn something of value. Medical journals can be found in any library and are available online as well. Remember, informed consent implies that the information used to come to the decision was thought to be as cpmplete/factual as possible.

**True story: In the spring, while I was a student, one of my x-ray mentors (and also a mammo tech and friend) had a lady from the ER who was having chest pain and a chest x-ray was ordered. As she was interviewing her to figure out what exactly was wrong, she burst out crying. Once she calmed her down, the tech finds out she is bleeding from her chest and that she has bandages taped on. Then she goes on to tell her that she's been bleeding under her left breast for months. She was hiding it because she was worried that her boyfriend would dump her if he knew. She never had it checked, never had a mammo performed. It was total carnage under there, just horrible. She was in end-stage breast cancer. It did not turn out happily.
** A good friend of mine happens to be a mammo tech and just had her 2nd mastectomy. Both times it was caught early while very treatable. She's one of the funniest, warmest people in my life and without those mammos, I would never have gotten a chance to meet her. (Love ya Steph!)

Good luck.

-X.

[Xrayted]

Congrats Margo, 10 years CA free! WOOHOO!!

[PscyclePath]

Cause vs. effect.
(PS. I was under the impression that MRI's don't use radiation. They use magnets to align the atoms in yer body and use that info to get the picture)

"MRI" stands for "Magnetic Resonance Imaging." It works by placing you in a super-strong magnetic field, then by squirting in a burst of radiofrequency signal. This causes all the little protons in the water molecules of your body to flip, and a humonguous amoount of computer processing converts the signal absorption to a 3-D image. The math is downright UGLY, but it works. It's also why your credit cards won't work if you're foolish enough to take your wallet into the MRI center... (the magnetic field, that is... not the ugly math).

CAT is "Computerized Axial Tomography," which uses different radiant energy and even uglier math and computers to generate the images... but neither procedure will leave you feeling like a poster child for Illuminite.

TE

[Trek420]

congrats margo49 and her mono-tit on 10 years and counting...here's to many many many more C-free years.

Trek, granddaughter of a bc survivor, lost an aunt, cousin, grandfather to cancer and most recently my father to prostate cancer.

I recall my dad musing what might have caused it, he had smoked lightly but quit before or shortly after I was born, I never saw him smoke.

He and my mom had almost an ultimate healthy lifestyle. Our joke was that if they had chickens and a cow they would be self sufficient. Lots of time outdoors and activity, the remaining 3 acres of their orriginal farm they raised everything organic from asparagus to zuchini.

Ultimately I guess you make your best choices from diet, health information based on the info we have and to me it's not about living forever because we don't get out of this alive. It's about quality of life while I'm here, being able to do what I want to do, having the strength to open the peanut butter jar ;-)

In Dads case he was 83 when he died, he lived a good long and very productive life and brought joy and laughter to many. If any of you had met him up to maybe a few months before the end you would not have guessed he was ill, or that he was in his 80s. He was chopping wood and gardening right up to shortly before the end.

That's why I do these healthy things, I enjoy it and want to be able to keep doing it for a long time but one can't anticipate everything.

[Geonz]

Okay, so I read through this thread and am feeling inspired by the courage and concerned about the medical field ... and I haven't had much tea yet, so when I clicked back to the big screen with all the posts... I swear that thread said "steering with your t*ts,"... which of course would be possible if you were aero enough...

[KnottedYet]

congrats margo49 and her mono-tit on 10 years and counting...here's to many many many more C-free years.

Trek, granddaughter of a bc survivor, lost an aunt, cousin, grandfather and father to cancer.

Have you been checked for the HRCA gene? Dang, I don't think I'm remembering the name right, but it's the genetic marker for a tendency for linked breast and ovarian cancer. And it's high in your ethnic demographic.

Geonz - would this count as steering with your t*ts?
http://www.terrybicycles.com/detail....tem_no=7333000