Are Mammograms Radiation? Are they killing us?

Certainly it is food for thought!  Mammogram missed my tumor at least 2 years in a row!  We know that from the growth factors of the cancer.  My oncologist told me it is like looking for a cotton ball in a cloud!  I also had ultrasound which missed it at least one year!  Obviously, I don't have a lot of confidence in these tests, as I was very diligent having had fybrocystic breasts for at least 10 years!

My diagnostic radiologist said he would prefer to see more thermography used!  Check it out.  It isn't harmful and finds "hot spots" much like our military uses heat seeking capabilities.  The only drawback that my oncologist saw was we have no medical tests advanced enough to confirm what thermography might show!  The upside, however, is if one is inclined, you can proceed with alternative measures to fight cancer cells! 

No more mammo's for me!  Why would I trust them now?

Yes mammograms deliver ionzing radiation. How much different the new digital  ones deliver  I don't know.  Chest xrays deliver ionzing radiation. Ct scan deliver 200x's the dose of a standard chest xray. MRI 's do not deliver ionizing radiation.Check out the American College of Radiologists(ACR) web page

There is a WHITE(position) paper on the ACR site that discusses there stand on the new standards recommended by the idiot government group. ACR is very much against the new standards and is working with other groups to get it changed.

There is also a WHITE paper on safety of the use of all forms of diagnostic imaging that identifies standards that they recommend for training and retraining for certification of  medical students,physicians, radiologists and technicians. The safety referrals identify how important it is to effectively have the dials set right for the size and density of the person. My interpretation, the next time my husband or I get scanned I'm going to ask for the certified radiologist to check the settings, because based on what I read they can leave the setting levels up to the technicians. In working with patients of girth over the years, I  now understand why the readings keep saying "unable  to get adequate blah blah blah". I now want to know what the radiologist says about the settings. As a nurse I never payed much attention, I now realize that there may have not been a radiologist consulted about the settings and that the technicians made the decisions"based on there training".

Both position papers are a really boring read so you will have to plod through them, but they are factual. Therefore, if you are fearful of exposure at least be educated about your fear., please, then make your decision of what your approach is going to be. The media does not give enough info, I believe, to make an informed choice.

I don't think anyone is saying that mammograms CAUSE bc, but rather that the radiation from them is another possible contributory factor IF other factors are present. Some of us got many years of mammos pre-dx and wonder whether this could have been the thing that tipped the balance.

For those of us who get annual mammos post dx and treatment, it does seem like a big load of radiation which could potentially add to other risk factors for recurrence.After all, the general population do not get annual mammos on the screening program. I found my tumor myself, so I guess I do not feel the same way about mammos as someone who only found out they had got bc because of being screened.

I don't really understand who would be scamming women in such a way, or WHY.  This sounds like distorted thinking, or perhaps fear speaking. I know a lot of people mistrust the medical system, but who is going to reap benefit from giving you a mammogram? Unfortunately, breast cancer can be hard to detect, and we have limited means for doing it. I don't know your circumstances, but I think if you were to have cancer and it progressed because you were afraid of testing, you would regret not having the test. 

I agree with the writer who referred to getting radiation from an airplane flight. I'll do what I need to do to fight cancer. I've seen the results of those women who chose not to be tested.

newalex-Either your doctor is ignorant or he/she is lying to you. Here is an excerpt from the website I posted earlier in this thread.

We are exposed to radiation from natural sources all the time. The average person in the U.S. receives an effective dose of about 3 mSv per year from naturally occurring radioactive materials and cosmic radiation from outer space. These natural "background" doses vary throughout the country.

People living in the plateaus of Colorado or New Mexico receive about 1.5 mSv more per year than those living near sea level. The added dose from cosmic rays during a coast-to-coast round trip flight in a commercial airplane is about 0.03 mSv.

Now compare that with the 'actual' dose from a CT scan.

Computed Tomography (CT)-Body 10 mSv Comparable to natural background radiation for:          3 years

Mammography 0.7 mSv Comparable to natural background radiation for: 3 months 

Safety In Medical Imaging Procedures:
http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?pg=sfty_xray#5

So true Carol1949. Whatever happened to "first do no harm?"

Whatever happened to "first do no harm?"

I think there is very little in medicine that has ZERO chance of harm.  You certainly have the option of no screening and no treatment.

Unfortunately, for radiation, they have found no threshold dose below which there is NO risk.  If we choose life, we all take some degree of risk from the backround radiation we receive. 

Like most things in life, it is risk vs benefit, and I'm sure there are many unknowns and undefined factors in the equation. Since most of us have some issue with our breasts, we tend to be very conscious of other risk factors.

Trust me, the techniologists know far more about radiation doses and equipment settings than Radiologists do!!  Radiologists are trained to interpret the studies.  I am a Radiologic Technologist/Mammographer.  During our training and also with our continuing education it is drilled into our heads to use the ALARA principle in all of our imaging studies.  ALARA is an acronym for As Low As Reasonably Achievable, pertaining to x-ray dose.  We are constantly being made aware of the radiation doses we use.  Our mammography equipment is closely monitored and checked for radiation safety.

My breast cancer was found on a mammogram in 2001at the age of 46 .  Our mammography department has found so many early breast cancers in women under age 50.  I shudder to think what may have happened if I and so many other women like me had not been encouraged to have mammograms before the age of 50.  I take my job very seriously, and consider it part of my job to find these early cancers in women.  Cancers found early have a much better prognosis.  I have seen so many women also that do not have mammograms until a lump is felt.  Sadly, by the time a lump is felt, the cancer has most likely spread to tissue outside of the breast and is much more difficult to treat.  I will still continue to promote mammography and be proud of the part I can do to help women find their breast cancers early enough to be successfully treated!

Mozinga, I second Ezscriiibe!  When I had my first mammogram in January 2009 I really appreciated how helpful, supportive and experienced the technologist was.  So important both for protecting the health of women and for making women as comfortable as possible so that they'll come back for their regular screenings.  And since my DCIS was found by my very first mammogram I KNOW it wasn't caused by the mammogram!  As I watch my cousin cope with Stage IV BC I feel so fortunate that the DCIS was found before it had reached invasive stage.  THANK YOU!!!!!

I am grateful for all of the very good medical information we've learned about through our conversations on these boards.  I think it is safe to say that we may have helped educate the medical professionals struggling through the maze with us.  

Until a better method of diagnosis is established (it's on the way), I will continue to participate in the yearly squashed boobs routine with ultra sound chaser (or visa versa) and my God awful trans vag ultra sound.  And don't stop there!  My thyroid and bladder now need the same attention.

Iodine makes good sense.  Seek better sources of information.  This road is hard enough to walk without walking in the garbage of media speculation and churned sound bites. 

The only glow that I am walking with is NED.  And that glow doesn't keep me away from the garden chores.  Thank God for them even with the radiation. ( In fact I'm attentive to be in the sun between 11 and 1 pm for a minimum of 15 min. with as much skin exposure as possible to help my body store Vit D3.)

 Best wishes to all as always,

Marilyn 

Radiation Exposure in X-ray Examinations

* What are x-rays and what do they do?
* Measuring radiation dosage
* Naturally-occurring "background" radiation exposure
* X-ray safety
* X-rays over your lifetime
* Pregnancy and x-rays
* Radiation exposure from interventional radiology procedures
The average person in the U.S. receives an effective dose of about 3 mSv per year from naturally occurring radioactive materials and cosmic radiation from outer space.Upon review and comparison of imaging procedures you will find that the dosage of radiation of a mammogram is NOT equivalent to a day in the sun, nor a plane flight across the USA as the medical technicians tell us.
http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?pg=sfty_xray#5