Are Mammograms Radiation? Are they killing us?

Indigoblue

I am set to have a Mammogram...and wondering if I should not have any more Mammograms.  I am wondering if Mammograms cause...CAUSE...Cancer...Breast Cancer.  I have read reports stating this may be true...the Radiation, Compression, and Misdiagnosis and absurd amount of women who are not diagnosed at the time of a Mammogram, however diagnosed a few months later, causes me to to wonder if this is a SCAM, a bunch of nonsense, and that we are all a population of Chumps?!!  Seriously wondering about "NOT: having any more moosh, crush, radiation, no results anyway tests".  Help!

baywatcher

I wonder the same thing.

The new guidelines tell us to start having mammograms at age 50 and then every 2 years. They say the reason for this is the amount of false positives. I think maybe it also has to do with the amount of radiation that the mammograms are giving us.

If you want to be screened, why not check out a thermogram?

MsBliss

Hello Indigo!

Well, there are certainly arguments that make me pause.  For younger women, mammography is a double edged sword:  breast tissue is very sensitive to radiation, add dense breasts and repeat mams and over many years you've got to wonder if you might be adding to the load.  With older women, mam probably is helpful and much more diagnostic in that the images are easier to read and the cumulative load of rads is less over time.  For me--I am not sure.  I am avoiding mams for now and going with thermography, SonoCine, and MRI.  But if I didn't have those options, I would do the annual mam.  My doctors want me to do it every 6 months but I resist.

You can always take some supplements that help protect and repair DNA--at least that way the idea of radiation damaging any DNA is tolerable.  You can take the supplements for a period before and after your mam, and then stop them. 

In Chicago they do underwater ultrasound that is as accurate as all combined modalities; but it is experimental and not widely available.

sheila888

My BC was found during a routine mammogram.

Sheila

makingway

Here is an interesting link concerning radiation. Also you may want to consider that although you aren't being radiated with an MRI, you have radioctive dye running through your body. I can't remember if it was for another MRI I had, but I also had to drink a radioactive creamsicle tasting fluid.

http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?pg=sfty_xray#5 

sheila888

Makingway...I thought we were talking about Mammograms.

I do not understand the radioactive dye running through your body.

Can you please explain the connection between mammogram and radioactive dye??????

Sheila

MsBliss

Well you are right about one thing--you do have an injection for MRI, but it is gadnolinium, not a radioactive.  Gad can be a problem for those that have poor kidney function, but otherwise it is peed out within one day. 

makingway

Gadolinium has stable isotopes and radioisotopes (radioactive). I don't which one is used for MRI scans.

Naturally occurring gadolinium is composed of 6 stable isotopes, 154Gd, 155Gd, 156Gd, 157Gd, 158Gd and 160Gd, and 1 radioisotope, 152Gd, with 158Gd being the most abundant (24.84% natural abundance). The predicted double beta decay of 160Gd has never been observed (only lower limit on its half-life of more than 1.3×1021 years has been set experimentally [9]).

Twenty-nine radioisotopes have been characterized, with the most stable being alpha-decaying 152Gd (naturally occurring) with a half-life of 1.08×1014 years, and 150Gd with a half-life of 1.79×106 years. All of the remaining radioactive isotopes have half-lives less than 74.7 years. The majority of these have half-lives less than 24.6 seconds. Gadolinium isotopes have 4 metastable isomers, with the most stable being 143mGd (T½=110 seconds), 145mGd (T½=85 seconds) and 141mGd (T½=24.5 seconds).

The primary decay mode at atomic masses lower than the most abundant stable isotope, 158Gd, is electron capture, and the primary mode at higher atomic masses is beta decay. The primary decay products for isotopes of weights lower than 158Gd are the element Eu (europium) isotopes and the primary products at higher weights are the element Tb (terbium) isotopes.

makingway

seyla888-I posted the link which shows that getting a mammogram is equilavlent to 3 months of natural background radiation exposure. The MRI contrast has nothing to do with a mammogram-sorry I went off topic. I posted that information because I thought you were concerned with safety in the routine practices we expose ourselves to. Thermography is a safer alternative to mammograhy.

seaotter

Mammogram did not find mine. I found it myself. As for me I will never have another mam. Therms are the way to go and or ultra sound. It has been said that trauma can cause bc, I can't think of anymore trauma to the breast than a mam. No more smash and burn for me!!!!!!

Patty

thenewme

Once again, nobody is claiming that mammograms are perfect or without issues.  However, thermography is not a substitute for mammography.

I'd bet that a LOT of us, who were preliminarily diagnosed via mammogram and went on to have mastectomies/lumpectomies, and would say that BC treatment is infinitely more traumatic to the breast than any mammogram could ever be.

The International Academy of Clinical Thermology says:

=========QUOTE===========

Is Breast Thermography an Alternative to Mammography?

In response to the growing confusion regarding the current accepted role of thermography for use in breast cancer screening and detection, the International Academy of Clinical Thermology issues the following position statement:

The proper role of thermography is not as a replacement for mammography.

Breast thermography is a complementary screening and detection procedure, which when added to a woman's breast health examination substantially increases the sensitivity in detecting pathologies associated with the breast. As a unique physiological examination procedure, breast thermography is the only known test that can also serve as an early warning system by identifying women who have high-risk pre-cancerous infrared imaging markers. The procedure can also play a role in prognosis and as a method of assisting in monitoring the effects of treatment.

Why Thermography is Not a Replacement for Mammography

* There is no one test that can detect 99-100% of all cancers. Therefore, no single test exists that can be used alone as an adequate screening or detection method for breast cancer.

* A physiological imaging procedure (thermography) cannot replace an anatomical imaging procedure (mammography). The two tests are "looking" for completely different pathological processes.

* Thermography is far more sensitive than mammography. However, some slow growing non-aggressive cancers will only be detected by mammography.

=======END QUOTE===========

makingway

My tumor was 'slow growing non-aggressive'. It was also 5.9cm and NOT seen with a mammogram.

GryffinSong

My cancer was found by mammogram, but as long as there's some kind of screening, I don't have any particularly strong feelings about them one way or the other. Other types of scans would probably have found it. I would never have found it on my own. Even the surgeon had a ton of trouble finding it by palpation, and that was knowing exactly where to feel.

ananda8

I found my own five months after a mammogram and sonogram.  It was 2.4 cm.  Why didn't such a large mass show up?  Who knows.  I know it is important to do self exams and have regular mammograms.  Had my tumor been in another place I would not have found it myself.

My radiologist says that some cancer only shows with mammograms, some shows more clearly on sonograms and some only shows with MRIs.

nene2059

Just to add my thoughts on whether or not radiation from mammo's cause breast cancer.  I can only speak to my experience and my diagnostic mammogram was my first mammogram.  I was 36 and had found a lump.  I have not been overly screened by any type of imaging devices in my lifetime and have had only the occassional xray and they were usually just the once a year bite wing xrays at the dentist.  Can not remember when I had an image test done before the mammo.  They say that you get more radiation from a flight but my father is a retired airline pilot and he (to the best of all knowledge) is cancer free.  I also do not think that there is an inordinate amount of flight attendants that end up with BC or other cancers.  I am not pro mammo or any other type of scanning and I will make my decisions on my follow up scanning taking all of the risks in to consideration as well but I just wanted to give a different view.  Best wishes and peaceful decisions to all:) 

Ezscriiibe

Mammograms, especially with the technology of those given today, are neither killing us nor giving us cancer.

Anonymous

My tumor was detected by digital mammogram - my 3rd or 4th mammogram, so I do not think the mammograms gave me cancer.   These were all digital and I have read that digital mammograms have much less radiation, and are better for dense tissue.  However, I am for screening - don't really have an opinion - if there is a better way, sign me up!  My tumor was also non palpable - so self exam and exam by 8 doctors that knew exactly where the tumor was located - could not find it by touch.

So many of the women I know personally have been diagnosed on their first mammogram, or find a lump and are under 40 without having had any mammograms.

It is scary that some of us have been failed by screenings.  

I think what we can all agree on - we need BETTER (and safe) diagnostics.

Nene - I really like your analogy and agree - if radiation was truly the cause, flight attendants and pilots - especially those working in the early days would have high rates of cancer.

So I am back to better, and safe diagnostics are necessary! 

sam52

I am in UK and breast screening starts at age 50, the reason normally cited as difficulties reading dense breast tissue of younger women.However,m i do believe cost is also a factor, since we have socialised medicine here.

I had some trauma to my right breast several years before bc was diagnosed (by myself - I felt a lump).I had been getting annual mammos to that breast as a 'precaution' since the trauma had presented as a slight puckering.The tumor was in a different quadrant altogether than the area of trauma - so I do feel that the excessive mammos played a contributory role in the development of bc.

I have been getting annual mammos since dx in Oct 2001 - however I 'forgot' to attend my last one, in December '09 and am planning on going only every 2 years as I am fearful that there is excessive radiation with an annual mammo.People on the screeening program only get screened every 3 years.

Sam

dreaming

I was a young woman when diagnosed,I think this kind of believes are a great disservice to women, is like Susanne Somers comments,many women die because of theories and radical comments.

If  one prefers not to have a mammogram is her choice but to publish in a Forum not proved statements is dangerous and not helpful.

MsBliss

I found my tumor.  With a mammographic bead over the lump, the mass was still completely invisible on mammography.  The faster growing your tumor is, the less likely it is visualized with mam.  If my tumor had not been close to the surface, I would not even know it is there.  It was only visualized with an MRI, ultrasound and thermogram. 

Indigoblue

Thank you, so much, for your replies.  It helps to know I am not alone, as I contemplate whether or not to have, yet another, Digital Mammogram, Ultrasound, and MRI.  The uncertainty and negative aspects of  diagnostic programs for finding, and treating Breast Cancer are finally being discussed, publically.  There are physicians who strongly believe the Mammogram is brutal, archaic, and dangerous.  I was simply wondering if anyone else knew, or read anything about this topic.  I am considering canceling my future Oncology & Surgery appointments...what's the point,  if I am endangered by exposing my body to more radiation and traumatic injury from the compression and squeezing involved in the Mammogram procedure?  I'd like to know about it.  I am lost, confused, and searching for answers! 

I began having mammograms at age 38, because my mother, aunt, grandmother and great grandmother all died from complications of Breast Cancer.  There was a nagging pain in my Breast for many years.  The tumor was NOT found by a Mammogram.   I found the lump in 2005, after 3 previous mammograms performed that year failed to indicate there was an aggressive, nasty cancer growing, and sometimes I wonder, maybe there was NOT anything, maybe it was induced by the years of mammograms, and...because there was something there, and "dense breast tissue" indicated there was nothing wrong, no lumps, no problems.

A dis-service to other women, wondering the same thing?  I don't think asking other women wondering  if they consider our present diagnostic tests, possibly  injuring our breasts and actually causing Breast Cancer~ is a problem.

Why speak out in a public forum, unless you are seeking information, answers, and honest observations and help?  After I discovered the dang lump, I was treated like I was crazy.  Thank goodness, I had a wonderful Radiologist.  She had performed my mammograms for years, and I like her very much.  Now, who, who, who, are we supposed to ask, who will give us an HONEST answer, as to whether or not Mammograms cause Breast Cancer?  It's like plastic baby bottles...they are so toxic, but nobody wants to talk about it. 

When I was having my sentinal node biopsy injection, I asked if the radioactive nuclear isotopes  would alter my prognosis & cause future problems.  The Intern replied, So What, You already HAVE Cancer!...all the while, sucking on a PLASTIC bottle of water...

Well, so what?  I went through the rigors of Surgery, Chemotherapy, Radiation, and wonder if the follow-up test will induce even more Cancer. 

 The worst part of my experience with Breast Cancer, was that nobody believed me, after all the Mammograms, Ultrasounds, previous Breast Cancer Treatment, and questionable results leading to more Ultrasounds and Mammograms, ...and the doctors refused to give me an MRI (and I have fantastic Health Insurance).  Now, I can say I am a Survivor, because my body has been pumped full of Radioactive Material, exposed to Radiation, and dosed with Poison, and I am alive to talk about the experience.

None-the-less...do Mammograms indirectly "cause" Breast Cancer?

Inquiring minds (what is left of them) would like to know.

vivre

Indigo-All I can say is that you are speaking for many of us. I still feel that if I had know then, what I know now, I would be better off. All the junk they pumped into me for these tests still weighs on my mind, and I am doing everything I can to detox. I would love to have their friggin metal markers taken out! But at least I feel confident that the four thermographs I have had since finishing treatments, is keeping an eye on things for me, without exposing me to any more of this garbage.

MsBliss

There is meta analysis that indicates that women who have fewer mammograms have less diagnosed breast cancer.  The suspicion is that the undx bc regress naturally, while those dx by mam are treated.  The other side of the coin is whether all the regular radiating of sensitive breast tissue is causing a certain percentage of those cancers.  I have a huge lifetime dose of radiation from medical diagnostics and work related environments.  I will say this:  I am through with mammograms.  I can even get all of my wide, though small, dense boobs in those mam plates anyway.   I will be getting thermograms, MRIs and Sono Cine Ultrasounds.  There is an upcoming technology of water aided ultrasounds that is about as clear and clean a picture you can get by any means.  That will be how I hope we can all get the best breast imaging.

Ezscriiibe

Indigoblue said: There are physicians who strongly believe the Mammogram is brutal, archaic, and dangerous.

Really? Who are these physicians?

Do you have any contact information for any of them? Or possibly links or cites for the physicians who believe that mammograms are "brutal, archaic and dangerous"?

Mazy1959

Making,

ILC often is not seen on mammograms but I did not know this until after I already had stage 2b ILC. My gyno told me this when I went into his office 5 months after having a clear mammogram. I wonder if they could do the mam and if nothing shows then consider a different mode just to check for ILC. What made me mad was the little letter I got that my mammagram was clear and all was well. I was not well and surely with all the money bc gets someone could figure out how to be more careful. IDC is most common but that shouldnt mean that ILC is overlooked.

Hugs, Mazy

makingway

Mazy -I've read that before. I'll tell you, after all I've learned since being diagnosed I have lost all confidence in the 'medical system'. I wont be getting another mammogram. I didn't want another MRI but, I think I might get one to try and resolve the pain issues I've been having since my surgery last June. I've had 2 bumps since surgery that they said didn't exist, "Oh, that's just your rib". Hopefully then my doctors can find the cause of my 'imagined pain'.

Mazy1959

making,

I do still get scans on a regular basis..annual mam, bone scan and CT every 6 months or more if I have problems. I had a PET and MRI recently. I do qualify to have them every 3 months but choose not to unless I have symptoms to avoid whatever evil happens in there from too many scans . I am stage 4 so I do need to keep an eye on things. I have asked my onc why I should have a mammogram and she says there is risk of me having IDC to come in a breast instead of ILC and that sometimes mams do see the ILC. After 7 years none has returned to my breast..it came back to bone. I hope you get help soon and get this figured out. Hugs, Mazy

Yazmin

Indigo, you wrote: ".....I am considering canceling my future Oncology & Surgery appointments"

I am glad to see that I am not the only one in that case! In fact, I read somewhere that about 40% of breast cancer patients give up on mammograms due to doubts about their efficacy.

I found my own tumor myself, after years and years of faithfully having a mammogram taken on my birthday. I am convinced that those yearly mammograms were at least a contributing factor in my case. 

And MsBills, you wrote: "....The suspicion is that the undiagnosed breast cancer regress naturally, while those dx by mam are treated" Yes, I am more and more firmly convinced that undiagnosed tumors regress in a significant number of cases. 

Right now, I am just looking for ways to dodge my next standing appointment with my oncologist: I have become convinced that one should only see an oncologist when life-extension alone is the issue: I really don't think that modern oncology thinks in terms of CURING. I really don't think they think in terms of good health/making your body as strong, nourished, and cancer-resistant as possible. I believe they are trained to keep on "bombing" (first, they bombard us with "diagnostic X-rays, then, they bombard us with "preventive" treatments, many of which are carcinogenic).

Their logic does not make any sense to me, no matter how hard I try to understand.

mawhinney

I'm thankful for mammograms.  While they are not perfect, they are part of a whole spectrim of tests that are available today.  Without mammograms, I probably would not be around today!

climbergirl

Wow,

 I understand this type of thinking and yes Mammo's do expose you to a radiation, as do Dental XRays, sitting in front of a computer and traveling in an airplane. Want a really big dose?  Get a full body CT Scan. Look these things up, understand what a normal daily baseline is and understand that we are exposed to radiation DAILY. Remember Radon? 

 Honestly, I am not a big fan of the mammogram and am a firm believer that we need a replacement test and that we will get one eventually. Having said this I can tell you, my lump was found on my FIRST mammogram @ 41 and I had NO KNOWLEDGE that there was a lump of almost 2cm that was in my lower left outer quadrant.  No family history of BC,  a swimmer, runner, yogi and climber, breast fed my kids and although I have some theories about what may have caused this I can tell you that getting that Mammogram was not one of them. I did end up with a Mx, as my DCIS had gone invasive so now I get an MRI for the right side. Why? It's more sensitive than the mammo. If I happened to be a woman that had no BC history I really do not know what I would do with all the new guidelines. It is quite the shit storm. But I will tell you this, if you are worried about Mammo Radiation then please also look at what you eat (eat organic and local,) look what products you put on your body(check out skindeep.org) and pay attention to what we allow companies to pollute us with in this country. Your genes sadly(or happily) will also hold your fate as well as your stress levels. Most women are completely in the overachiever category when it comes to demands made on them between work and family.  My feeling is that the real problems lie more with such things. To me Standard of Care should be viewed as a constantly changing guideline but ultimately the choice in how we travel though the journey of prevention and treatment is up to us on a very basic level. Be wise, be critical and choose well.

Best,

Climbergirl

Indigoblue

I have 2 days to make-up my mind..  Honestly, I would not have posted this topic had I not felt a sense of fear, confusion and desperation.  It is difficult to trust anyone, after you've been through the "ringer".  Thank you for all of your opinions & help...

Your friend,

Indi