X-Rays, CT Scans, Ultrasounds, Pregnancy and Conception

see the original blog for some compelling info. liora

Here is an article by Burton Goldberg in which he quotes John
Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the
University of California at Berkeley, and on the faculty of the University of
California Medical School in San Francisco (UCSF).

Dr. Gofman has published six books on the effects of ionizing radiation on
health, the latest being Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease. In this 700-page tome, Dr. Gofman presents study after study that point to medical x-rays not only playing a major role in causing 50% of cases of cancer - but also
in causing 60% of the cases of coronary heart disease (CHD) .

The probable mechanism, Dr. Gofman explains, is radiation-induction of mutations in
the coronary arteries, resulting in dysfunctional clones (mini-tumors) of
smooth muscle cells (more on this in future issues of Alternative
Medicine. Dr. Gofman earned his doctorate in nuclear/physical chemistry at UC Berkeley,
where his faculty advisor was Glenn Seaborg, later chairman of the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC). In the 1960s, the AEC asked Dr. Gofman to establish a
Biomedical Research Division at the Livermore National Laboratory for
the purpose of evaluating the health effects of all types of nuclear
activities.

>From 1963 through 1965, Dr. Gofman was the division's first
director, and concurrently associate director of the entire Laboratory.

So, maybe we should be paying attention! It appears that thermography is a much safer method of testing. And Dr. Mercola has confirmed this as well.

Article: Are Medical X-Rays a Major Cause of Cancer and Heart Disease?

By
Contributing Editor Burton Goldberg

Dr. John Gofman's revolutionary work could prevent the deaths
of millions of people with simple, inexpensive monitoring techniques.

Suppose you read that medical x-rays were responsible for fully half the
incidence of cancer in this country - what would your reaction be?
Wouldn't your reaction be based to a great extent on where you read it?
If it was a banner headline on the National Enquirer, you would
instantly dismiss it. If it was a page one story in the New York Times,
however, you would give it credibility.

Still, no matter where you read it, your reaction would probably be one of
disbelief. "Impossible, " you might think, "Absurd." Why? Would it be
because you believe that contemporary medicine is based on thoroughly tested
science, and that if medical x-rays were a major cause of
cancer, this would have been discovered early on, and never allowed to
happen? If so, do you have any evidence for such a belief - or is it
reflective only of blind faith in the medical profession?

X-rays have been considered a valuable medical tool ever since their discovery
in 1895. Yet it has been known for over 70 years - and it is
universally acknowledged today - that x-rays
cause genetic mutations and cancer.

The belief that medical x-rays are not a major cause of cancer is based on
three basic assumptions: First, that risk from minimal doses of
radiation is just hypothetical. Second, that doctors and technicians
administer the minimum dose. And third, that repeated x-ray exposures
are not cumulative in their effect. Search, and you will find
overwhelming evidence that none of these are true. But first, you need
to know where to look; and second, you have to look at the raw data
without bias.

The evidence, in fact, is published in peer-reviewed, mainstream medical
journals. The problem is that all too often, they are published only in
the more obscure journals read by only a few thousand specialists. And,
because of the threatening nature of the data to our current medical
system, the findings are rarely played up by the mainstream media.

For example, a paper was recently published entitled "Breast
Cancer Mortality After Diagnostic Radiography. "

It showed the results of a study sponsored by the National Cancer
Institute that examined the correlation of breast cancer mortality with
receiving diagnostic x-ray exposure for scoliosis [curvature of the
spine]. These women, who had an average of 25 diagnostic x-rays taken,
had a 70% greater risk of dying of breast cancer than the general
population. One of the paper's key conclusions was: "Consistent with
radiation as a causative factor, risk of dying of breast cancer
increased significantly with number of radiographic examinations in
which the breast was exposed and with increasing cumulative radiation
dose to the breast [italics added]." So much for assumption number
three. But the chances are that your doctor - or your oncologist or
radiologist - has not seen this report, because it was published in Spine. Spine has a
worldwide circulation of less than 8,000, consisting primarily of
physical and medical rehabilitation specialists.

Let us look at the second assumption - that doctors and technicians administer
the minimum dose. In the September, 1998, issue of Diagnostic
Imaging, Joel E. Gray, Ph.D., former Professor of Medical Physics at the Mayo Clinic,
reported on an earlier nationwide survey of 300 radiographic
facilities. In this study, the same radiographic procedures were
performed on identical test dummies. Seventy-five percent of the
facilities tested gave higher doses than were needed to produce clear
images. For chest and spine images the difference was as much 8.5-fold.
For gastrointestinal exams the difference was as much as 27.5-fold.

When it comes to assumption number one, there are no studies that can prove
that small doses of x-rays are risk free. Just a single photon can
damage a cell's DNA, and send it on the path to malignancy. A single
chest x-ray exam of only 0.015 rads ("radiation absorbed dose") will
deliver 30 million photons per gram of tissue, containing approximately
675 million cell nuclei. A one-minute fluoroscopic exam of 5 rads
delivers almost 10 billion photons per gram of tissue.

The FDA estimates that seven out of 10 Americans received at least one x-ray last year.
How many did you and your family members receive? How many have you
received over your lifetime? What was their dosage? Do you know? Do
your doctors know? {my 14 month old has had 2 chest xrays in her short lifetime, and I'm cautious about Xrays and even refused 2 additional ones! Liora)

The person who probably knows as much about the effects of radiation as
anyone in the world is John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of
Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkeley,
and on the faculty of the University of California Medical School in
San Francisco (UCSF). Dr. Gofman earned his doctorate in
nuclear/physical chemistry at UC Berkeley, where his faculty advisor
was Glenn Seaborg, later chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC). In the 1960s, the AEC asked Dr. Gofman to establish a Biomedical
Research Division at the Livermore National Laboratory for the purpose
of evaluating the health effects of all types of nuclear activities.
From 1963 through 1965, Dr. Gofman was the division's first director,
and concurrently associate director of the entire Laboratory.

Dr. Gofman has published six books on the effects of ionizing radiation on
health, the latest being Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease. In this 700-page tome, Dr. Gofman presents study after study that point to medical x-rays not only playing a major role in causing 50% of cases of cancer
- but also in causing 60% of the cases of coronary heart disease (CHD) .
The probable mechanism, Dr. Gofman explains, is radiation-induction of
mutations in the coronary arteries, resulting in dysfunctional clones
(mini-tumors) of smooth muscle cells (more on this in future issues of Alternative
Medicine.

Dr. Gofman is quick to point out that, first of all, he is not against
medical x-rays - only their use at needlessly high dose levels. And
second, that x-rays are not by themselves the only cause of these
diseases, but are a necessary co-actor. What this means is that medical
x-rays are not solely responsible for ourepidemic of cancer and CHD,
but that when combined with other factors, they can and do cause the
onset of these diseases. Reduce the amount of exposure to medical
x-rays and the incidence of cancer and CHD is proportionally reduced.

Dr. Gofman shows how x-ray dosages can easily on average be reduced by 50%
from present levels. He points out procedures as simple and inexpensive
as taking frequent dose measurements. Proper training for technicians
is essential. Dr. Fred Mettler, Chief of Radiology at the University of
New Mexico School of Medicine, points out that a CT scan typically
exposes a patient to 2 to 3 rads compared to 0.015 rads for a
conventional chest x-ray - that's over 100 times more radiation. A
fluoroscope typically delivers 5 rads per minute - that's over 300
times more radiation than a standard x-ray. Radiographers also need to
compensate for the age and size of patients. And specialists need to be
aware of how much previous exposure their patients have had, and be
judicious in ordering only necessary imaging.

Physicians also need to be aware of diagnostic imaging devices that do not use
ionizing radiation - such as MRIs for neurological and musculo-skeletal
conditions, and thermography for breast screening - and
able to detect cancer years earlier than mammography. If Dr. Gofman's
hypothesis is right, making these prudent steps the rule rather than
the exception would save at least 250,000 lives per year.

Although a few radiologists have taken exception to Dr. Gofman's work, none have
refuted it in any way. Why, then, are these simple, life-saving
measures not embraced by the entire medical community? Why is this
story not on the front page of the and every other newspaper in America?

Two hundred and fifty million x-rays will be performed in the United States
this year. At a conservative average cost of $50 per x-ray, that is an
industry with annual sales of $12.5 billion. Diagnostic x-ray imaging
is a cornerstone of much of mainstream medicine. Nothing that weakens
the public's perception of the value and safety of x-rays is likely to
be publicized.

Those radiologists who have criticized Dr. Gofman's work have criticized it
on the basis that it might scare patients away from having any x-rays
at all, when they might very well benefit from the procedure. This brings up a very serious issue of a patient's right to know. Says Dr. Gofman, "We doubt that x-ray practitioners would want to
assert that x-rays are the one agent, in all of medicine, where
referring physicians and patients must be told about only the benefits,
and must be kept uninformed about dosage and risk."

Why should the idea that medical x-rays are a major cause of death be such
a surprise? This is by no means the first instance of medical treatment
proving hazardous to one's health. To quote from an editorial in the
November 11, 1998 issue of the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA): "Iatrogenic (physician-caused) disease caused by
conventional medicine is a major cause of death and hospitalization in
the United States." In that same issue, JAMA estimated that 106,000
hospital patients die and 2.2 million are injured each year by adverse
reactions to prescription drugs - not including cases where errors are
involved.

In November, 1999, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report that
estimated that medical errors kill between 44,000 and 98,000 people a
year in hospitals alone. Putting these two reports together makes receiving
conventional medical treatment in a hospital the number three cause of
death in the United States. But these statistics haven't stopped people
from using drugs or going to the hospital. Rather, this information
should be saving lives by spurring hospitals to incorporate sweeping
reforms to improve patient safety. The same should be true of the x-ray
industry.

There is a revolution going on in medicine right now. It is the growth of what
we call alternative medicine - a movement typified by the absolute minimization of toxic medical
modalities. This is being driven not by the efforts of healthcare
professionals but by the market demands of patients, who are becoming
better informed and no longer blindly accepting unnecessary and
unacceptable "risk-benefit" ratios. Dr. Gofman has information to help
the public not only protect itself but to help get the x-ray industry
to clean house, through patient right-to-know policies.

To receive a wealth of eye-opening - and quite possibly life-saving -
information contact: Dr. John Gofman, Committee for Nuclear
Responsibility, P.O. Box 421993, San Francisco, CA 94142. Tel:
415-776-8299. Website: www. x-raysandhealth. org.

Scientists Say F.D.A. Ignored Radiation Warnings

By GARDINER HARRIS

WASHINGTON - Urgent warnings by government experts about the risks of
routinely using powerful CT scans to screen patients for colon cancer
were brushed aside by the Food and Drug Administration, according to agency
documents and interviews with agency scientists.

After staying quiet for a year, the scientists say they plan to make
their concerns public at a meeting of experts on Tuesday called by the F.D.A.
to discuss how to protect patients from unnecessary radiation exposures.

The two-day meeting is part of a growing reassessment of the risks of
routine radiology. The average lifetime dose of diagnostic radiation has
increased sevenfold since 1980, driven in part by the increasing popularity of CT
scans. Such scans can deliver the radiation equivalent of 400 chest
X-rays.

An estimated 70 million CT (for computed tomography) scans are performed
in the United States every year, up from three million in the early 1980s,
and as many as 14,000 people may die every year of radiation-induced cancers
as a result, researchers estimate.

The use of CT scans to screen healthy patients for cancer is
particularly controversial. In colon cancer screening, for instance, the American
College of Radiology as well as the American Cancer Society have endorsed CT
scans, in a procedure often called a virtual colonoscopy, while the American

College of Gastroenterology recommends direct examinations in which
doctors use a camera on a flexible tube.

For patients, navigating the debate can be difficult because doctors,
patient advocacy groups and manufacturers often endorse positions that
are in their economic self-interest. Radiologists, who often own and use CT
machines, for instance, often endorse their use; while
gastroenterologists , who often own and use camera scopes, often favor their own methods.

Patient groups often get financing from drug and device makers, or
physician-specialty groups.

The Food and Drug Administration, charged with sorting out such
competing claims, has been just as torn on the issue. The internal dispute has
grown so heated that a group of agency scientists who are concerned about the
risks of CT scans say they will testify at the Tuesday meeting that F.D.A.
managers ignored or suppressed their concerns, and that the resulting
delay in making these concerns public may have led hundreds of patients to be
endangered needlessly.

Scores of internal agency documents made available to The New York Times
show that agency managers sought to approve an application by General
Electric to allow the use of CT scans for colon cancer screenings over
the repeated objections of agency scientists, who wanted the application rejected. It is still under review.

After an agency official recommended approving G.E.'s application, Dr.
Julian Nicholas, a gastroenterologist who trained at Oxford University
and the Mayo Clinic and worked under contract with the agency, responded by
e-mail that he felt strongly that approving the application could "expose a
number of Americans to a risk of radiation that is unwarranted and may
lead to instances of solid organ abdominal cancer."

Dr. Robert Smith, a former professor of radiology at both Yale and
Cornell and an F.D.A. medical officer, wrote that he agreed with Dr. Nicholas
because "the increased radiation exposure to the population could be
substantial and would raise a serious public health/public policy
issue," documents show.

Alberto Gutierrez, deputy director of the F.D.A. office with
responsibility over radiological devices, said in an interview that the right course on
CT colonography was far from clear.

"This device that you've mentioned has not been cleared or approved at
this time, and that should tell you that the process we go through is not
done," Dr. Gutierrez said.

Arvind Gopalratnam, a spokesman for G.E. Healthcare, wrote in an e-mail
message that research had shown that "CT colonography can be a very
valuable, noninvasive screening tool to help diagnose colorectal cancer
at early stages and ultimately improve overall survival rates."

For decades, scientists at the F.D.A. approved many radiological medical
devices with minimal oversight, declaring them modest improvements over
older devices and thus not needing extensive reviews or clinical trials
to prove their safety and efficacy. But these devices now play a central
role in American medicine, helping not only to diagnose a wide array of
ailments, but also to treat cancers.

And the agency has done little to assess whether the rapid proliferation
of scans is in the best interests of patients, and whether the machines
themselves properly protect patients or are beneficial for all of their
now-routine uses.

The Times ran a series of articles this year documenting the harm that
can result from mistakes involving medical radiation, leading to a House
subcommittee hearing last month and a chorus of calls by radiology
groups, researchers, medical physicists and equipment manufacturers for stronger
patient protection.

Even President Obama's recent physical examination became part of the
debate when the president had a virtual, rather than an actual, colonoscopy.
Growing awareness of the risks of scanning led F.D.A. scientists several
years ago to begin demanding more and better information from
manufacturers to prove that their devices actually were effective for such clinical
applications as cancer screening and mapping blood flows in the brain.

But agency managers responded that suddenly changing the rules for the
devices would be inappropriate and unfair to manufacturers, documents
and interviews show.

The battle between the two sides intensified over a push by some device

manufacturers and radiologists to use CT scans routinely to screen
healthy

patients for lung, colon and other cancers. At stake was another rapid

increase in radiation exposures and scans worth hundreds of millions of

dollars annually.

General Electric, one of the biggest makers of the devices, told F.D.A.

managers that the company wanted CT scans approved for colon cancer

screenings because Medicare officials and private insurers were
"actively

discussing whether to reimburse for use of CTC for screening
asymptomatic

individuals" and "to assist their customers in reimbursement for

procedures," internal agency documents show.

Even in the absence of an explicit agency approval, doctors are allowed
to

use approved medical devices however they see fit. But without an
explicit

approval, manufacturers are not allowed to market CT machines for colon

cancer screening, and insurers often refuse to reimburse the costs of
the

procedure.

An agency approval of CT colon screening could lead to extensive
marketing

campaigns, greater acceptance of the procedure by doctors, changes in

insurance policies and millions more people having the tests done. Since
the

agency had approved similar requests for similar uses of CT scans in the

past, agency managers said they had little choice but to approve the
G.E.

application.

The conflict between the two sides escalated throughout 2009, documents

show. Minutes of a May 12, 2009, meeting, for instance, reveal that an

agency manager, Joshua Nipper, dismissed the scientists' concerns by
saying,

"We don't need to be reinventing a big bugaboo about radiation." Mr.
Nipper

did not respond to an e-mailed request for comment.

Dr. Nicholas refused to budge.

"I was first ignored, then pressured to change my scientific opinion,
and

when I refused to do that, I was intimidated and ultimately terminated,"
he

said in an interview. "And I'm going to tell the committee exactly that
at

this meeting."

As the fight over the G.E. application escalated, Dr. Nicholas, who
lives in

San Diego, expressed growing concerns in internal e-mails messages that
his

contract would be allowed to expire - which it did in October.

The day after that expiration, an agency manager, after five months of

inaction, began processing the G.E. application by deciding to give G.E.

another chance to explain why its application should be approved,
documents

show.