ThermoScan: 3D mammography doubles your radiation exposure

I received this from Dr Mercola today. Please share with your friends and family who still believe in going for mammograms instead of thermoscans.

Breast cancer has become big business, and routine mammography is one of its primary profit centers. While mammograms are touted as the best way to prevent breast cancer death, studies suggest otherwise.

The fact that you are reading this article gives you an enormous advantage, as most women are unaware of the mounting research indicating routine mammograms harm far more women than they save.

Despite the facts, the industry is fighting tooth and nail to keep mammography alive by downplaying or outright ignoring its significant risks.

One of industry’s latest tactics is introducing a “new and improved” type of mammogram called 3D tomosynthesis, which is basically a CT scan for your breasts. Tomosynthesis is a clever re-branding of the status quo.

The multi-millions of dollars spent on creating these invasive machines could have been better utilized for educating women about cancer prevention; developing less dangerous technologies, such as ultrasound and infrared imaging; and inventing completely new and safer technologies.

3D Tomosynthesis: Three Steps Down on the Ladder of Progress

Two of the greatest mammogram risks are high radiation exposure and compression of breast tissue, which potentially causes cancer cells to spread. 3D tomosynthesis does not reduce or eliminate either of these risks!

In fact, with this “new and improved” technology, your radiation exposure is even greater than from standard mammograms—and by a significant margin. This is disturbing, as we know that all levels of ionizing radiation can cause cancer.

According to one study,1 annual screening using digital or screen-film mammography on women aged 40–80 years is associated with an induced cancer incidence and fatal breast cancer rate of 20–25 cases per 100,000 mammograms. Meaning, annual mammograms cause 20-25 cases of fatal cancer for every 100,000 women getting the test.

The 3D mammogram requires multiple views in order to achieve three-dimensionality, so it stands to reason your total radiation exposure would be considerably higher than from a standard 2D mammogram.

With mammography, each breast is X-rayed at least twice—once from top to bottom and once diagonally from the outside in. With tomosynthesis, the X-ray tube rotates around the breast. Twenty-five exposures are taken, with up to two pictures per second. Multiple images result in higher radiation exposure. But the picture gets even worse…

3D mammography is not a stand-alone diagnostic test—it’s typically an add-on to the standard mammogram. So, not only do these 3D images prolong your exposure to radiation, but if you’ve already had a regular mammogram, they further compound your risk. This is certainly NOT progress—it’s a huge step backward, making breast cancer screening even more dangerous than before.

3D Mammograms May Actually TRIPLE Your Radiation Dose

Just how much more radiation are you getting with these new 3D mammograms? There are different estimates in circulation, partly because some folks are not including the radiation exposure from the standard mammogram into the total. When you add the 2D and 3D scans together, utilizing tomosynthesis at least doubles your radiation exposure, and some estimates have your exposure tripling, such as this 2011 study published in Radiology Today,2 which states that:

“Because the digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) exam requires two additional exposures over a standard mammogram, the total radiation dose from the combined 2D and tomosynthesis examination is three times that of a standard mammogram.”

The authors note that both scans (2D and 3D) are required because studies done prior to FDA approval failed to conclusively show better sensitivity of 3D alone, compared to 2D imaging.3 They also state that it’s too early to know how useful this new breast imaging technology will be. Some insurance companies—Aetna4 for one—have rejected it, citing “insufficient evidence of its effectiveness.”

The bottom line is, the industry reports tomosynthesis has 1.5 to 2 times the radiation dose. The FDA reports it has double the dose. And the radiologists, who are looking at total exposure, report triple the dose over conventional mammograms. You can see this comparison in a chart on page 8 of an FDA Executive Summary, “Average Glandular Dose per Breast.”5

Tomosynthesis is being touted by the industry as being particularly helpful for identifying cancer in women with dense breast tissue. However, these women already have a four to six times greater risk of developing breast cancer. Knowing that ionizing radiation is a direct cause of cancer, how can a test that triples your radiation exposure be of any benefit if you have potentially cancer-prone breasts to begin with?

Smarter CT Scanning of Kids Would Prevent Over 3,000 Childhood Cancers Each Year

Women are not the only ones being excessively irradiated with unnecessary medical scans. Children are receiving more CT scans than ever, and CTs expose them to much more radiation than standard X-rays. The average American child gets seven radiation scans by the age of 18.

One CT scan exposes your child to 100 to 500 times more ionizing radiation than a standard X-ray. Your child’s growing body is even more sensitive to radiation than yours, being more likely to develop radiation-induced cancers, such as leukemia and cancers of the brain, lungs, thyroid and colon.

Previous studies have estimated that at least one-third of CT scans in children are medically unnecessary. How many children could be saved from cancer if these unnecessary CTs were eliminated and replaced with safer diagnostic tests? A team of researchers actually set out to answer this question. They calculated that smarter CT scanning of kids would prevent 3,020 children from developing radiation-induced cancers each year.6

Did You Know That 30 Percent of Breast Tumors Go Away on Their Own?

Getting back to breast cancer, it is important to realize that, if your immune system is healthy and strong, it’s capable of ridding your body of tumors—even cancerous ones. According to breast surgeon Susan Love of UCLA, at least 30 percent of tumors found on mammograms would go away if you did absolutely nothing.7 These tumors appear to be destined to stop growing on their own, shrink, and even go away completely. Nearly everyone has cancerous and pre-cancerous cells in their bodies by middle age, but not everyone develops cancer. The better you take care of your immune system, the better it will take care of you.

One way to strengthen your immune system is to minimize your exposure to mammograms and other sources of ionizing radiation, especially mega sources such as these new 3D scans and CTs. But you can also build up your immune system DAILY by making good diet and lifestyle choices.


via cancer


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s