Do CT scans cause cancer?
Do CT scans cause cancer?
Noah Richardson
Wyatt Moore
Everything causes cancer. CT Scanner makes radiation which is what causes the cancer. It's unlikely, but luck of the draw, desu.
Juan Diaz
Fucking magnets, how do they work?
Chase Rogers
They cause like 1000x more radiation exposure than an X-ray. It's a significant amount. Avoid getting a CT scan if you can help it.
Benjamin Collins
>this spam thread again
Fuck off.
Elijah Barnes
not in a CT scanner, that's for sure.
Brayden King
Big Radiology at it again, I see.
Logan Brown
Jordan Russell
flawed study
Gavin Anderson
Of course X-Ray radiation can cause cancer. There's a reason people who deal with X-Rays on a regular basis leave the room when they do it (or maybe they don't do that anymore because they have better shielding techniques). But the statistical benefits of better internal imaging FAR outweigh the statistical risks.
Ethan Sanders
Why?
Bentley Price
doesn't take into account why they were getting the CT, for one. head CTs are for two reasons, hitting your head, and suspicion of a growth.
Colton Bennett
>Cancer incidence rates in individuals exposed to a CT scan more than one year before any cancer diagnosis
Sure they take it into account. It would defeat the entire purpose of the study if they didn't.
> head CTs are for two reasons
Two reasons, plus other reasons.
Justin Fisher
they don't diagnose something from a CT scan. they could give you multiple scans before anything can be diagnosed. you're wrong and it was brought up in other studies why this one was falsifiable.
Jaxson Torres
>they don't diagnose something from a CT scan. they could give you multiple scans before anything can be diagnosed.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. You're always going to have the problem, in studies like these, that people with cancer are more likely to get the scans in the first place. If the scans were causing cancer, you would also see a cancer patient who may have had multiple scans before being diagnosed. Time between scan and diagnosis was used to try and differentiate these different cases. The only way you are going to know for sure is expose people randomly, and the closest thing we have to that is atomic bomb survivor studies, followed by occupational exposure studies, which do show increased cancer rates at exposure levels equivalent to what you can get from a single ct scan (dose can vary quite a bit), so...
Adam Lewis
>which do show increased cancer rates at exposure levels equivalent to what you can get from a single ct scan (dose can vary quite a bit), so...
not in head CTs. maybe in an abominal/pelvis scan. the atom bomb studies show that anything under 5 mSv is 100% safe.
Austin Hughes
>Sure they take it into account. It would defeat the entire purpose of the study if they didn't.
How could they REALLY do that? It's not like you can do a double-blind study on this dangerous thing that you're doing because you're seriously worried for a child's health. Even if they're comparing against historical cancer rates, then either those rates also involved children who got CAT scans when needed or children who grew up under substantially different environmental situations.
Henry Davis
>Sure they take it into account
No, they don't and it's why every study on this topic has criticized that stupid australian study.
daily reminder that cancer rates have not increased since the introduction of CT scanners.
Gavin Robinson
I don't know, user, is here any peer-reviewed studies saying there is?
Isaiah Brooks
see >the atom bomb studies show that anything under 5 mSv is 100% safe.
A head ct that is 5 mSv is 50 mG, and 50 mG is more than 5 mSv for other parts of the body, and the tissue weighting factors only account for cancer risk.
Landon Lewis
no, according to literally everyone in medical physics
Head CT scans are never above maybe 3 mSv with modern scanners. most are about 2 mSv for an adult. nuclear workers can receive up to 20 mSv per year from their work with no causes for concern according to at least two major agencies.
Chase Martin
There are still quite a few of us around who've gotten head scans on older machines. Also, I see no need to use Sv in this context; it conveys less information than Gy.
>nuclear workers can receive up to 20 mSv per year
This is typically at lower dose rates.
Easton Perry
>This is typically at lower dose rates.
literally don't matter in these doses.
Matthew Harris
> nuclear workers can receive up to 20 mSv per year from their work with no causes for concern
This doesn't mean zero risk. It just means that the risk is low enough that it's not worth making an effort to reduce it further.
Most industrial exposure limits (toxins, radiation, whatever) are higher for workers in that industry than for the general public. Not because workers have some kind of immunity, but because the cost-benefit trade-off is different. Unemployment isn't exactly good for your health.
Any exposure to ionising radiation (including background) carries some risk. A single mutation has some minuscule chance of becoming a cancer which eventually kills you. But the probability from each event is so small that you need ten-to-the-something-significant such events before the odds start getting to the point where you can even measure them.
Nathaniel Hernandez
meaning you are arguing nothing because you're a semantical idiot.
Jordan Allen
Getting one CT probably won't do anything.
Getting several probably will. Not right away but maybe in 10 years.
Jace Richardson
>atom bomb studies show that anything under 5 mSv is 100% safe.
>Low dose radiation risks for women surviving the a-bombs in Japan: generalized additive model
>Low dose radiation and cancer in A-bomb survivors: latency and non-linear dose-response in the 1950–90 mortality cohort
>Hiroshima survivors exposed to very low doses of A-bomb primary radiation showed a high risk for cancers Tomoyuki Watanabe, Masaru Miyao, Ryumon Honda and Yuichi Yamada3
>Radiation-related cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors.
Pierce DA, Preston DL.
apparently Veeky Forums thinks my post is spam, because I'm trying to post actual links to sources
>Head CT scans are never above maybe 3 mSv with modern scanners.
This one is definitely more than 3 mSv:
Colton Morales
probably because it's two scan, Einstein.
Chase Hall
I don't know what the fuck "two scan" is supposed to mean
Nolan Stewart
That wasn't a single CT scan. It was two. Are you mentally challenged or something?
Liam Campbell
What fucking difference does that make?
Blake Green
>This is typically at lower dose rates.
dose rates mean nothing if you're not being exposed for a significant period of time.
The exposure time is not long enough to significantly limit cell doubling, or cause enough cell kill.
basically, cells have plenty of time to recuperate and regenerate if the exposure is not sustained for a time period on the order of the cell doubling time
Jacob Myers
example:
"For over
at least 40 generations there was no indication in terms of lethality that any sublethal dose of
radiation received in one generation of cells had an effect on the succeeding generation."
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Christopher Flores
>This one is definitely more than 3 mSv:
it was two. shut the fuck up already you fucking retard.
Nicholas Harris
66 mGy/2 = 33 mGy > 3 mSv
>Wow, look at how low the dose is from a single scan, even though multiple scans are routinely performed in a single session!
Brody Watson
no good hospital will give you two scans. they aren't necessary.
tissue weighting makes it so we can use mSv. stop using mGy.
Adam Russell
Many hospitals do multiple scans.
>tissue weighting makes it so we can use mSv. stop using mGy.
Again, the problem with effective dose is that it makes it more difficult to compare whole to partial body exposures and is inappropriate for gauging deterministic effects. Additionally, the tissue weighting factors change periodically as new data is collected. You can always determine the effective dose from absorbed dose if you know the radiation type and tissue.
Elijah Brown
the entire point of tissue weighting is to make it not difficult. you can calculate it out very easily. a single head CT is only giving your head about 0.002 mSv.
Asher Ortiz
well known fact that doctors come in contact with many sick people.
the doctor is the thing in common
dont go to a doctor
you could get sick
Oliver Davis
>the entire point of tissue weighting is to make it not difficult.
Here's an example: you get a head scan, and you want to compare it to the average annual background radiation absorbed dose in the US (you want to know how much radiation your head is exposed to in a year). If the idiot tech tells you your scan was 2 mSv, which would be 20 mGy using only the brain tissue weighting factor of .1 and not taking into account radio-sensitive tissue like the eyes (20 mGy is very low for a head scan) and average annual whole body effective background dose is 3 mSv, or about 3 mGy, you still would underestimate the scan/background dose ratio for your head if you only knew the effective dose. You would think it was 2/3, when it was really 20/3, or, more likely, 20.
Cameron Nguyen
>the entire point of tissue weighting is to make it not difficult.
Here's an example of why Grays are preferable: you get a head scan, and you want to compare it to the average annual background radiation absorbed dose in the US (you want to know how much radiation your head is exposed to in a year). If the idiot tech tells you your scan was 2 mSv, which would be 20 mGy using only the brain tissue weighting factor of .1 and not taking into account radio-sensitive tissue like the eyes (20 mGy is very low for a head scan) and average annual whole body effective background dose is 3 mSv, or about 3 mGy, you still would underestimate the scan/background dose ratio for your head if you only knew the effective dose. You would think it was 2/3, when it was really 20/3, or, more likely, 20.
Nolan Nelson
Where the fuck did you learn this? That is 100% incorrect. I had a head CT that came to about 50 mGy. That isn't high. It was maybe 1.5 mSv full body.
Kayden Parker
>That is 100% incorrect.
Point out specific things that are wrong.
>I had a head CT that came to about 50 mGy. That isn't high.
I never said that was high.
>It was maybe 1.5 mSv full body.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Carter Baker
equivalent full body dose was 1.56 mSv, to my head being about 0.0156 mSv, probably 0.02 mSv including the other tissues. That is not significant at all, according to every study done from the atomic bombings, and recent studies specifically looking at CT scans inducing growths.
Noah Hall
the catalog is telling me you're a massive faggot
Austin Barnes
Big Radiation I see.....
Christopher Bennett
>equivalent full body dose was 1.56 mSv
50 mGy cannot be 1.56 mSv
>0.0156 mSv
That's extremely low. Do you mean 0.0156 Sv?
Robert Smith
No I don't. Your brain in a head CT doesn't actually receive 50 mGy. It receives the tissue weighted dose of the scan, which would be 0.0156 mSv.
Elijah Morales
>Your brain in a head CT doesn't actually receive 50 mGy.
I didn't say anything about the absorbed dose to the brain itself, but it needs to be similar to tissues of similar opacity in order to obtain a clear image. What is the absorbed dose of the brain? It is shielded by the skull, and is self-shielded so that the dose drops as you move toward its center, but it is not so much less than for the skull.
>It receives the tissue weighted dose of the scan
It doesn't receive any such thing, that is not a physical quantity, but an indicator of risk. You are conflating the two units.
>0.0156 mSv
Please show your calculations, going from absorbed dose to effective dose. You said your equivalent dose was 1.56 mSv, and brain tissue weighting factor of .01 would yield an effective dose of 0.0156 mSv for the brain. But an equivalent dose of 1.56 mSv for a head scan makes no sense.
Charles Stewart
Sure if you have enough CT scans you will get cancer.
Chase Harris
pic related is mine using the DLP that was on the report for my scan.
John Diaz
1.56 mSv is the effective dose, not the equivalent dose.
Hudson Long
no, but this thread certainly does.
Juan Morris
I had a CT scan a couple months ago. I had flu like symptoms for a couple hours and then my wife's son contracted autism about a day later. Weird because he wasn't even in the room when I got it.
I'm a no-CATter now. Are you?