In 2003 the number of CAT scans performed hit 57 million. There isn’t enough research yet to call these diagnostic devices safe. These are super X-ray machines that do a phenomenal job of detecting the smallest of abnormalities, so they have enormous potential in the disease care delivery system; however, as usual, because CAT scans are quickly reimbursable by insurance they are being over utilized (perhaps a gross understatement).
Please consider that the average resident of Hiroshima and Nagasaki received a mean dose of 20 millisieverts, a measurement of radiation exposure. The post bomb cancer rate was horrendous, as all of us who are old enough remember. Now consider this, the average full body CAT scan patient receives between 12 and 25 millisieverts. A mammogram measures about 0.84 millisieverts. A 10 millisievert level is associated with an increased risk of cancer, AND THIS RADIATION IS CUMULATIVE.
That means that the woman who receives a mammogram a year for 12 or 13 years has just increased her cancer risk as a result of the early detection mammographic testing. The average person receives about 3.6 millisieverts a year from natural sources, and that has to be added to the X-ray dosage we receive from our chiropractors and dentists, not to mention the worst offenders of all, hospital emergency rooms. There is a huge debate going on over the risks from one-time dosage versus cumulative exposure. Because of the huge financial incentives involved this will be a long drawn out debate.
The only one protecting your family is you and your knowledge. Some companies are advertising cardiac (heart) scans on the radio for any and all middle aged people. If you choose this path, be sure to get the millisieverts you will be exposed too, and don’t be sold the bill of goods that CAT scans are safe. They can be invaluable when used cautiously, but when has medicine ever proceeded with caution when a new tool had enormous possibilities for financial gain? If you can think of an instance, please let me know.
