Index, Table Of Contents, About Page

▼

Dr. Caldicott MD Reports On Danger of CAT CT Scans, X-Rays; Dental Xrays, Tomography; Cancer Or Leukemia Is Caused By Low Doses Of Medical Radiation, Harm Versus Benefits Analysis, Nuclear Fuel Chain, Shifting Baselines

Dr. Caldicott MD Reports On Danger of CAT CT Scans, X-Rays; Dental Xrays, Tomography; Cancer Or Leukemia Is Caused By Low Doses Of Medical Radiation, Harm Versus Benefits Analysis, Nuclear Fuel Chain, Shifting Baselines

This article focuses on the negative health consequences of radiation imaging devices used in the dental and medical industry. How many cancers and other diseases are CAUSED by medical imaging and medical isotopes, throughout the entire fuel chain and including transport, incineration, mining, processing, and 'disposal'? Has anyone even bothered to calculate this 'harm'? Hippocrates said that medical professionals should above all, NOT CAUSE HARM.

BEWARE OF CT SCAN NEGATIVE SIDE EFFECTS, BY DR JULIAN WHITAKER


BEWARE CT SCAN SIDE EFFECTS | DR. JULIAN WHITAKER

The multiple images taken by CT scans expose you to incredibly high doses of radiation—doses at least 100 times what you’d get with conventional X-rays—which increase your cancer risk.

David Brenner and colleagues from the Columbia University Medical Center reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that the typical radiation dose for a single CT scan is 15 mSv (millisieverts, a common unit for measuring radiation), and most tests involve two or three scans for a total of 30–45 mSv. 

Often, repeat scans are ordered every few months to follow patients’ progress.

As a point of comparison and illustration, Japanese atomic bomb survivors who received what was considered a “low” dose of radiation (an average of 40 mSv) had a significant increase in cancer risk.

DR MERCOLA REPORTS CT SCAN RADIATION IS DEADLY DANGEROUS


HIGH CT SCAN RADIATION IS DEADLY | REASONS TO AVOID CT SCAN
JANUARY 24, 2017 A GREEN ROAD DAILY NEWS 

According to a study in the Archives of Internal Medicine last year, CT scans alone will cause nearly 30,,000 unnecessary cancer cases (about 2 percent of cancer cases), which will lead to about 14,500 deaths.But wait, there’s more bad news.

While 30,000 cancer cases is a large number, a New England Journal of Medicine study from 2007 estimated that overuse of diagnostic CT scans may cause up to 3 million excess cancers over the next 20 to 30 years.For those slow on math that is 1,00X more deaths over the next 25 years.

David Brenner of Columbia University, lead author of the study, told USA Today:”About one-third of all CT scans that are done right now are medically unnecessary … Virtually anyone who presents in the emergency room with pain in the belly or a chronic headache will automatically get a CT scan. Is that justified?”
Source: High CT Scan Radiation is Deadly | Reasons to Avoid CT Scan

STORY OF NEGATIVE SIDE EFFECT TO CT SCAN


lobstahguy I had a ct scan in March of 2013 and within 8 hours of the scan i woke up with all of the symptoms of irritable larynx syndrome. I felt like i had a lump in my throat and then i lost my voice. Ive spent the last three years going to doctors non-stop trying to figure out what happened. Ive been diagnosed with hypersensitivity of the visceral nerves and it has destroyed my life. I also had a second ct scan a year later and within hours of that one i developed vasomotor rhinitis which is another nervous system disease. I truly believe that these ct scans altered my nervous system and now my quality of life is unbearable."

pinky34 I went into the E.R. with nausea and dehydration. I ended up getting a brain CT scan with a 64 slice machine. This was 2 years ago. I have been sick for these 2 years and now have a "lump" under my chin. I am an ovarian cancer survivor. I did not get chemo but was operated on for tumor removal. For many years I built immunity with success. Now I do not know what to do. After the CT scan, I got an array of side effects including a fall due to uncharacteristic disorientation."

chen411 CT Scan Radiation Damage...Now What? Our infant received a CT scan 24 months ago. The diagnosis was "minor" head injury. She did not vomit after the fall. She did not become unconscious after the fall. She was functioning fine after the short fall down 4 wooden steps. After visiting the physician from a center open on Sundays (her Pediatrician's office is closed on Sundays), we were initially told our infant was fine and to observe over the next few days for abnormal behavior. As I walked out the door, all I said was, "are you sure she's okay?" which at that point; the doctor said to wait and she left the room. She returned insisting on a CT scan! Instinctively thought to avoid the scan and watch her for abnormal behavior. We were refused the option of an MRI, ultra-sound, standard x-ray, observation, or any less invasive procedure. We were not explained the extent of risk involved in CT brain scans to an infant's head by the physician. It was not until after her scan that we were able to research, to our HORROR, the lifetime risks of CT brain scans to an infants head and when it is and when it is not necessary to prescribe such scans. It is UNTRUE that one dose of ionizing radiation from a CT scan on an infant is relatively safe. It is now estimated, from a recent study completed at UCSF (see link below) that 1 in 60 female children, aged 18 months or younger receiving a single CT scan will die as a direct result from the CT scan. Now what do we do? Aside from attempting to avoid future ionizing radiation what can we do to help remove free radicals and DNA damage from this?





DOCTORS MAY USE A RADIOACTIVE CONTRAST MEDIUM WHICH CAN INJECTED, SWALLOWED, OR ADMINISTERED IN OTHER WAYS ALONG WITH CT SCAN; THAT RADIOACTIVE POISON ALSO HAS NEGATIVE SIDE EFFECTS WHICH MAY SHOW UP IMMEDIATELY, OR CAUSE CANCER DOWN THE ROAD

The CT scan all by itself can use huge amounts of radiation, but then one has to add the radiation danger from additional 'contrast agents' which are injected or swallowed, often more than once during a CT procedure. Radioactive iodine or other radioactive heavy metal poisons are used to make various parts of the body show up better on Xray film. Few people are warned about the numerous negative side effects. Anything radioactive increases cancers, after a latency period runs out. Both ionizing radiation and patent 'drugs' have numerous negative side effects, which are not fully disclosed. Doesn't this sound much like illegal drug pushers, selling heroin, which has been cut with strychnine?

Deepak ChopraVerified account‏@DeepakChopra
.@joeblogsmusic Real doctors are legalized drug pushers. I still have a license to do that

Wikipedia; "Radiocontrast agents are a type of medical contrast medium used to improve the visibility of internal bodily structures in X-ray-based imaging techniques such as computed tomography (CT), radiography, and fluoroscopy. Radiocontrast agents are typically iodine or barium compounds. When an agent improves visibility of an area, it is called "contrast enhancing"

An older type of contrast agent, Thorotrast was based on thorium dioxide. While it provided excellent image enhancement, its use was abandoned since it turned out to be highly carcinogenic, unfortunately though not before having been administered to millions of patients prior to being disused.


Contrast-induced nephropathy is defined as either a greater than 25% increase of serum creatinine or an absolute increase in serum creatinine of 0.5 mg/dL.[17]

Effects on thyroid function

A 2012 paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that "Iodinated contrast media exposure is associated with subsequent development of incident hyperthyroidism and incident overt hypothyroidism."[1][2]

Ionic (Radioactive)

Ionic contrast media typically, but not always, have higher osmolality and more negative side-effects.
Commonly used iodinated contrast agents
CompoundNameTypeIodine contentOsmolality
Ionicdiatrizoate (Hypaque 50)Monomer300 mgI/ml1550High
Ionicmetrizoate (Isopaque 370)Monomer370 mgI/ml2100High
Ioniciothalamate (Conray)600-2400High
Ionicioxaglate (Hexabrix)Dimer320 mgI/ml580Low

"It got worse so I phoned her a few days later. I asked her why my hand is swollen and veins puffing out, like they were plugged. It felt like I was developing blood clots; my veins felt hard and bumpy. It spread from my wrist to my elbow. Why? Again, she said wait two weeks. I called the hospital again. The MRI technician told me that I had a higher dose of contrast agent with gadolinium than usual but they do this often and it shouldn't be a problem. And she added that if I did have a reaction, it would happen immediately and my kidneys would fail. And it happens only to those who have weak kidneys. I told her my kidneys aren't functioning at 100 percent. 

Many more stories from patients who experienced severe negative side effects at this link...

Midas1 In 2008, I went in for a screening colonoscopy which was touted as routine for my age. Actually, I was older than the age recommended, but felt fine. I was instructed to take the Fleet's Phosphosoda for the prep. The scope was normal. Thanks to the phosphorus-filled prep, I now have Stage III chronic kidney disease. I had never had a renal issue in my life before this. But I'm much luckier than many others in the U.S. who have died, are on dialysis, or have had transplants. I no longer believe in half the crap offered by the health care system. Screenings are moneymakers. Drugs prescribed by the billions. Can't sleep-take a drug. Feel a little down-take a drug. We have puppy uppers and doggie downers, and we have become a society of pill-popping zombies, compliments of Big Pharma that uses doctors as glorified drug pushers. Medicine is dismal at best. I look at Michael Douglas for the excellent actor he is and know he is about to go through a hell that is being sold to him as a sugar-coated "we will cure you". Nothing could be further from the truth. All we offer cancer patients is the burn, cut and poison routine. CT scans, like American cancer "treatments" are just another tool by which to scam the American people. Alternative medicine does work! I've been an RN in my work life. Call me anything you want--just don't call me an RN wannabe now! At least it gave me the knowledge to see the truth. I'm thankful for that."

Although barium is a heavy metal, and its water-soluble compounds are often highly toxic, the low solubility of barium sulfate protects the patient from absorbing harmful amounts of the metal. Barium sulfate is also readily removed from the body, unlike Thorotrast, which it replaced.

Barium has been found to potentially cause gastrointestinal disturbances and muscular weakness when people are exposed to it at levels above the EPA drinking water standards for relatively short periods of time. Some people who eat or drink amounts of barium above background levels found in food and water for a short period may experience vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, difficulties in breathing, increased or decreased blood pressure, numbness around the face, and muscle weakness. Eating or drinking very large amounts of barium compounds that easily dissolve can cause changes in heart rhythm or paralysis and possibly death. Animals that drank barium over long periods had damage to the kidneys, decreases in body weight, and some died.

The geometric mean barium level measured in the U.S. general population aged 6 and older is reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as 1.56 µg/g creatinine (measured in urine)

"However, barium sulfate or other insoluble barium compounds may potentially be toxic when it is introduced into the gastrointestinal tract under conditions where there is colon cancer or perforations of the gastrointestinal tract and barium is able to enter the blood stream. (Got leaky gut syndrome?) 

The available animal data provide strong evidence that the most sensitive adverse effect of barium is renal toxicity. There are some reports of renal effects in case reports of individuals ingesting high doses of barium. Nephropathy has been observed in rats and mice following long-term oral exposure to barium. BARIUM AND BARIUM COMPOUNDS 11 2. RELEVANCE TO PUBLIC HEALTH In both species, there is a steep dose-response curve for the incidence of nephropathy. For example, nephropathy was not observed in mice exposed to 205 mg barium/kg/day for an intermediate duration; at 450 mg barium/kg/day, 95% of the animals exhibited mild to moderate nephropathy.

Dr. Mercola; "Gadolinium is a paramagnetic metal ion that moves differently within a magnetic field. When used during an MRI, it may make certain tissues, abnormalities, or diseases more clearly visible.

However, because the gadolinium ion is known to be toxic, it is chemically bonded with non-metal ions when used during MRIs to allow it to be eliminated from your body before it is released in your tissues.

For the first time, a new study has shown that the gadolinium may not be immediately eliminated and may instead persist in your body.1 The study compared brain images of patients who had undergone six or more contrast-enhanced MRI brain scans with those of patients who had received six or fewer unenhanced scans.

It revealed areas of high intensity, or hyperintensity, in two brain regions (the dentate nucleus (DN) and globus pallidus (GP)), which correlated with the number of gadolinium-based enhanced MRIs

Bottom line, heavy metal poisons are POISON, and they impact the body, even if the 'experts' claim otherwise. Listen to the evidence and data, rather than the sales and marketing claims of people who stand to profit. 

X RAY DANGERS REVEALED

A short 1 minute video explaining how radiation damages body cells and DNA specifically.
VIDEO:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHPFz1UnP3o

DR HELEN CALDICOTT MD EXPLAINS DANGERS OF X RAYS AND MEDICAL RADIATION, WHICH IS THE SAME RADIATION COMING FROM NUCLEAR BOMBS AND NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS


Dr. Helen Caldicott MD explains about the dangers of dental X rays and radiation in general. Don't get an X ray unless it is absolutely necessary, according to her professional opinion.
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qX-YU4nq-g 1 hour

Bottom line, explore all other non toxic, non radioactive alternatives first.

EXAMPLE OF HARM CAUSED BY MEDICAL RADIATION: BABY BORN WITH CYCLOPS EYE IN FOREHEAD



The tragic 'cyclops' baby born with one eye in the middle of his forehead after his mother 'was exposed to radiation during pregnancy'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3261905/The-tragic-cyclops-baby-born-one-eye-middle-forehead-mother-exposed-radiation-pregnancy.html#ixzz3nntogQMA 

How many Xrays or medical radiation scans did this mom get during pregnancy?


CHART OF VARIOUS RADIATION MEDICAL SCANS AND ASSOCIATED RADIATION DOSES

Pro nuclear medicine site; radiation doses from X rays, CT scans, Tomography and more
http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?pg=sfty_xray

This site supports giving X rays to pregnant women.. and is part of the pro nuclear hormesis theory crowd. They believe that giving radiation doses to people and infants increases health, when all of the evidence actually proves the opposite; that even low doses of radiation cause harm to all life; insects, animals, plants and humans.

Go deeper

SARI Wants NRC To Raise Civilian Radiation Limits To 500% More Than Radiation Workers Are Limited To, Using Hormesis Theory, Via Mark Miller, Ed Calabrese, Carol Marcus
https://www.agreenroadjournal.com/2015/07/nrc-being-asked-to-raise-civilian.html

DEATHS AND INJURIES CAUSED BY X RAYS 


The video above takes a look at "the danger of radiation to cells. However, this clip only looks at the acute effects which were apparent from the outset. Too much x-radiation caused recurrent reddening of the skin or loss of hair, hours or days later, often followed by painful radiation burns. 

By 1897, 69 cases of skin damage were reported. By 1902, hundreds of cases of x-ray injuries were documented. Surgery was often needed to repair the damage. Radiation burns which had apparently healed often developed into cancers later on. 

By 1922 that more than 100 early radiologists had died of occupationally produced cancers. In the 20-year period before 1949, radiologists also suffered an incidence of leukemia nine times the normal rate. In the late 1920s, researchers discovered another kind of biological effect from ionizing radiation: damage to genes and chromosomes. Some of this damaged genetic material may be transmitted to future generations. 

Go to http://www.ccnr.org/ceac_B.html for more information on health effects from radiation exposure. This was clipped from the 1963 film, About Fallout, from the U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Civil Defense. The entire film is available at the Internet Archives." Source; video explanation.

X-ray Shoe Fit Check 1920s
VIDEO: https://youtu.be/wbMN6jueU1A 2 min.
ONE radiograph during pregnancy: 20 % increase for cancer probability before the child is 10 years old. Two radiographs during pregnancy: 28 %. Three: 70 %. FOUR:…. 100 PERCENT. There is NO SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION EXPOSURE:
Google books
Source; https://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/damage-caused-by-ct-scanners-and-low-doses/

ERRORS AND MISTAKES HAPPEN AROUND RADIATION TREATMENT AND SCANS, MORE OFTEN THAN YOU THINK; TOO HIGH A DOSE, WRONG PART, CALIBRATION ERRORS, DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT, LEAKS, ETC


A calibration error on a radiosurgery linac that affected 77 patients in Florida in 2004-2005 • Similar errors in measurement of output factors affecting 145 patients in Toulouse, France in 2006-2007, and 152  patients in Springfield, MO from 2004 to 2009 • An error in a cranial localization accessory that affected 7 centers in the U.S. and Europe • Errors in failure to properly set backup jaws for treatments using small circular collimators affecting a single arteriovenous malformation patient at an institution in France, 3 patients at an institution in Evanston, IL.38 Solberg, et al, Practical Radiation Oncology (2012) 2: 2-9

How would a patient know if they are getting a 'proper' dose or not? Since radiation is invisible and undetectable, there is no way to check of the dose prescribed is what one actually receives. With dental Xrays or medical Xrays or other radiation scans, how would a patient know if the equipment is properly set up, calibrated, is working the way it is supposed to, is getting the right dose, etc?

Again, there is no way to check independently. The process is not transparent and there is no meter on any of these machines telling the patient what they are getting in an open way.

NEGATIVE EFFECT OF XRAYS ON DOCTORS WHO USE X RAY MACHINES AND ARE BEHIND LEAD SHIELDS THAT BLOCK 99.9999% OF ALL RADIATION 


by Albert Schweitzer, April 24, 1957

(Two and a half years after Dr. Schweitzer gave his Nobel Peace Prize Lecture, leaders and scientists from many countries chose Dr. Schweitzer to be their voice against the nuclear danger and it was Norman Cousins who pressured him to do so. On April 24, 1957, Dr. Schweitzer's statement, "Declaration of Conscience," was broadcast worldwide from Oslo, Norway, under the auspices of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee for the consideration of the world's peoples.)It is a fact - even if the statistical material being published in the press needs checking - that in Nagasaki, during the years following the dropping of the atom bomb, an exceptionally high occurrence of stillbirths and of deformed children was observed.

RADIOLOGISTS ARE NOT IMMUNE TO THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF RADIATION; THEY GET CANCER JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE


In order to establish the effect of radioactive radiation on posterity, comparative studies have been made between the descendants of doctors who have been using X-ray apparatus over a period of years and descendants of doctors who have not. The material of this study comprises about 3,000 doctors in each group. A noticeable different was found. Among the descendants of radiologists a percentage of stillbirths of 1.403 was found, while the percentage among the non-radiologists was 1.222. In the first group 6.01 per cent of the children had congenital defects, while only 4.82 per cent in the second. The number of healthy children in the first group was 80.42 per cent; the number in the other was significantly higher, viz. 83.23 per cent.
It must be remembered that even the weakest of internal radiation can have harmful effects on our descendants. The total effect of the damage done to descendants of ancestors who have been exposed to radioactive rays will not, in accordance with the laws of genetics, be apparent in the generations coming immediately after us. The full effects will appear only 100 or 200 years later.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/albert-schweitzer-institute/programs-and-conferences/declaration-of-conscience-fifty-years-later/a-declaration-of-conscience/




Troy Livingston credit/source

Remember that the negative effects of radiation do not show up right away.. This is slow motion, invisible, hidden danger.

If Xray radiation can do this, imagine what internal hot particles of radiation from things like man made artificial plutonium, cesium and other heavy metal poison radioactive elements can do long term.



LATENCY PERIOD FOR CANCERS CAUSED BY XRAYS AND CT SCANNERS IS 5 TO 80 YEARS, IONIZING RADIATION IS ALSO CAUSE OF 6,000 GENETIC DISEASES


Ionizing radiation from radioactive elements and radiation emitted from X-ray machines and CT scanners can be carcinogenic. The latent period of carcinogenesis for leukemia is 5-10 years and solid cancers 15-80 years. It has been shown that all modes of cancer can be induced by radiation, as well as over 6,000 genetic diseases now described in the medical literature.
http://www.nuclearfreeplanet.org/articles/the-impact-of-the-nuclear-crisis-on-global-health.html

Just because you do not feel any pain or smell smoke when you are getting a medical radiation exposure, does not mean anything. All man made radiation is artificial and causes genetic damage on a DNA level. If the damage is not repaired, it can result in a birth defect or genetic disease down the road, even many generations later due to a recessive gene. Or the genetic defect can trigger a cancer, but you don't hook the radiation exposure and cancer together because they are years apart, due to the latency period. 

For example, ask your doctor how long it takes to get thyroid cancer after being exposed to a high dose of radioactive iodine during a nuclear accident. If he knows his or her stuff, they will answer that it takes average of AT LEAST 2-4 years before the first cancers show up and then they continue showing up after that for generations at a higher rate than before the exposure.

Any medical radiation exposure is like very slow acting poison, which causes DNA breakage and initiation of all kinds of health issues or genetic defects, including cancer.

HISTORY OF X RAY MACHINES


X-ray machines and radiation used to be very common. These machines were used to X-ray feet, in shoe stores for example. Many shoe salespersons put their hands into the x-ray beam to squeeze the shoe during the fitting. "One of the more serious injuries linked to the operation of these machines involved a shoe model who received such a serious radiation burn that her leg had to be amputated. 

For more on the history and use of these X-Ray devices, go to: http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm 

This clip is from the 1920s silent film, General Personal Hygiene, available on the Internet Archives." Source; explanation under video.

XRAYS AND BREHMSSTRALLUNG


Another explanation of brehmsstralung
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7JZ-SJ2KqE 9 min

The 'temporary' storage tanks at Fukushima contain high level nuclear liquid waste, and they are emitting xrays over the whole site. These xrays, and/or gamma rays are called brehmstrallung. The video above explains this radiation. There is no difference between the toxic and deadly radiation coming off of these tanks at Fukushima, and what is coming out of the medical Xray machines.

DR HELEN CALDICOTT ON DANGERS OF X RAYS


In the following video, Dr. Helen Caldicott MD explains the dangers of X-Rays in a very simple, easy to understand manner. As she explains, each dose of radiation accumulates, and a fetus is up to 2,000 times more sensitive to a dose of radiation than an adult is, which is why X-Rays are not done anymore on pregnant women. The risk of leukemia or other cancers in following years for fetuses exposed to a SINGLE X-Ray is HUGE.

Dr Helen Caldicott MD on  Xrays Full body scanners
VIDEO:  https://youtu.be/lazixVRRx30 1 min.

DNA damage seen in patients undergoing CT scanning
Using new laboratory technology, scientists have shown that cellular damage is detectable in patients after CT scanning, according to a new study led by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine.

CANCER RISKS INCREASE RAPIDLY WITH EACH CT SCAN


Medical doctors at the IPPNW report that cancer is caused by even low doses of radiation, such as from CT scanners and X Ray machines used for medical purposes.

 
Scientists and a few medical doctors have been warning against the use of and negative side effects of ionizing radiation on human health.

A study published in the British Medical Journal in May 2013 study documented the risks of computed tomography: patients who were exposed during CT examinations radiation doses from an average of 4.5 millisieverts, compared to the average population had an increase of 24% in cancer rates. With each CT examination after the first one, the cancer rate increased by a further 16%.

Even low exposure to X-rays, gamma rays increases cancer risk, study finds
http://news.stanford.edu/.../october26/abrams-102605.html

Jebus
November 6, 2014  Childhood and Adult Cancer After Intrauterine Exposure to Ionizing Radiation
We have known this since before there were iPhones. The evidence is clear that the nuclear industry kills babies. It's just that nobody gives a damn when there's money to be made…
http://www.columbia.edu/~ejh1/papers/teratol2.pdf

Jebus November 6, 2014 Here is a little gem of truth from more honest times and voices past…
Risk of childhood cancer from fetal irradiation. Abstract
The association between the low dose of ionizing radiation received by the fetus in utero from diagnostic radiography, particularly in the last trimester of pregnancy, and the subsequent risk of cancer in childhood provides direct evidence against the existence of a threshold dose below which no excess risk arises, and has led to changes in medical practice. 

Initially reported in 1956, a consistent association has been found in many case-control studies in different countries. The excess relative risk obtained from combining the results of these studies has high statistical significance and suggests that, in the past, a radiographic examination of the abdomen of a pregnant woman produced a proportional increase in risk of about 40%. A corresponding causal relationship is not universally accepted and this interpretation has been challenged on four grounds. On review, the evidence against bias and confounding as alternative explanations for the association is strong. Scrutiny of the objections to causality suggests that they are not, or may not be, valid.…A causal explanation is supported by evidence indicating an appropriate dose-response relationship and by animal experiments. It is concluded that radiation doses of the order of 10 mGy received by the fetus in utero produce a consequent increase in the risk of childhood cancer. The excess absolute risk coefficient at this level of exposure is approximately 6% per gray, although the exact value of this risk coefficient remains uncertain.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9135438

WHAT IS A PET/CT SCANNER? HOW DOES IT WORK?

PET / CT scanner. These are systems that simultaneously do (X-ray) computer tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) of a whole person. The PET is a nuclear medicine three-dimensional method in which positron emitters are used – mostly fluorine-18 – with a half-life of 1.8 hours (or full decay time of 18 hrs). For a single whole-body examination while the effective dose climbs to 10 millisieverts (mSv) for CT alone to 25 mSv. The organ doses are correspondingly: bone marrow 29 mSv, 27 mSv lung, ovary 33 mSv, 36 mSv intestine, stomach 29 mSv. For comparison, the threshold for the population at a nuclear power plant is 0.3 mSv (effective) per year for occupationally exposed 20 mSv per year:

HOW MANY CHEST XRAYS EQUALS CT SCAN, FLUOROSCOPY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE?

Getting ONE SINGLE CT scan gives a patient to as much radiation .... 800 chest X-rays.

Getting a nuclear medicine study exposes a patient to as much radiation as.... 2,050 chest X-rays.

Getting a fluoroscopic procedure exposes a patient to as much radiation as.... 3,500 chest X-rays.
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20100331/faq-radiation-risk-from-medical-imaging

DENTAL X RAYS



The medical doctor in the following video reports that there are 15,000 extra cancers generated from just the CT scans done in 2007. Most of those cancers will occur in women. There will be 2,000 excess breast cancers due to CT scans done in just 2007. We have to multiply this number for each year CT scans are done, from 2007 to today; 2,000 X 5 = 10,000 women getting breast cancer up to 2012. 

One chest CT scan creates a 1 in approximately 250 chance of getting cancer, just from that CT scan, if it is done properly, with the proper dosage. Dr. Gregor reports...

Cancer risk from CT scans
VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-L28fyueVI 4 min.

DENTAL XRAYS LINKED TO BRAIN CANCER


“Exposure to some dental x-rays performed in the past, when radiation exposure was greater than in the current era, appears to be associated with an increased risk of intracranial meningioma. As with all sources of artificial ionizing radiation, considered use of this modifiable risk factor may be of benefit to patients. ” Claus, E. B., Calvocoressi, L., Bondy, M. L., Schildkraut, J. M., Wiemels, J. L. and Wrensch, M. (2012), Dental x-rays and risk of meningioma. Cancer.

Remember that radiation has a LONG latency period. So if someone gets a series of dental xrays year after year, aimed at the head, what would be the logical consequence of that?

PhilipUpNorth FEBRUARY 6, 2017  Ken is implying that dental xrays are not harmful.

Turns out they are.
http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20120410/dental-x-rays-linked-brain-tumors#1

Google "dental xrays harmful" for a quick survey of the literature. The above link is just one example.

P.E.T. SCAN TRIGGERS A 13,000 CPM RADIATION READING ON A DOSIMETER, WHICH IS FAIRLY INSENSITIVE AND ONLY MEASURES A SMALL FRACTION OF THE RADIATION THAT IS ACTUALLY THERE


Chuck Kiker I have a SOEKS Quantum. It's a dual tube doseometer. Russian made. I like it. I seems to get reliable readings. I had a P.E.T. scan and was reading 14,000 CPM.

Kristina Vitalone Get out, 14,000 PET! I've know clue 2 what 1 b, but damn. Heard any cancer patients getting radiation treats r fairly toxic to the folks standing next to them. their urine even more so.


Chuck Kiker Let me get you the picture from my archive. I have to get a follow up P.E.T. scan in August. It's the most single disturbing and scary thing ever after having the initial one. The nuclear tech is not betting on anyone ever having a doseometer. I'm going to video the next one so you can hear the doseometer basically pegging out for what seemed like a eternity before it could slow down to get a count. I thought it was reading 1280 when I took the picture. Then had the realization it was 12,800 when I snapped the picture.

Credit/source; Chuck Kiker


ONE CAT CT SCAN EQUALS 200 - 800 CHEST X-RAYS


People do not think about the risks of medical or dental radiation imaging devices. One CT scan is the equivalent of several hundred chest X rays, and there is a radiation risk. A CT scan will increase your lifetime risk of cancer. A CT scan will often lead to a biopsy, and other invasive tests, which increase the risk of negative things happening. The increased anxiety that is received from a CT scan is not always helpful.

The FDA is concerned about overdosing patients with radiation via CT scans.... How does a person protect themselves from 'excess' radiation, whether from X rays, CT scans, airport scanners or just nuclear power plant radiation? 

CBS News covers radiation risk from CT Scans in the following video. According to this report, CT Scans will generate an additional 29,000 cancer cases per year, and another 15,000 deaths per year, just due to the use of CT scans.
VIDEO:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIuGqQBs3XI

CHILDREN ARE MUCH MORE SENSITIVE TO THE SAME DOSE OF RADIATION; HOW MANY CANCERS AND DEATHS ARE CAUSED BY CT SCANS?


ABC News covers risk to children around CT scans in kids, according to study in pediactric journal.

Multiple 30,000 cancer cases times five years, from 2007 to 2012, and we arrive at 150,000 extra cases of cancer, just due to the use of CT scans..
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p46SK1u4aM8

MULTIPLE CT SCANS AND HOW TO REDUCE THE RADIATION DOSE 

In the following video, the doctor discusses what a CT scan is and how much radiation is received with a CT scan. One amazing statistic is that 1% of all patients receiving CT scans have had 32 total CT scans since 2007.. There are dangers to getting multiple CT scans, especially when following something like a lung nodule. There are ways to decrease the dose in radiation by 80 to 90 percent, but most doctors don't do this. 

THE SHIFTING BASELINE KEEPS MOVING UP 


The baseline that they use to calculate 'excess cancer risk' is that they start with assuming that 42% of EVERYONE will get cancer in their lifetime. WITHOUT a CT scan. Anyone above this baseline is in the group that has received CT scans.  Interestingly enough, this 'baseline' seems to keep increasing as we move forward from year to year, despite the 'war' on cancer. 

Why is it that the percentage of people getting cancer seems to constantly INCREASE? See the links to nuclear articles below the bottom of this article for a possible answer to this very basic question. The baseline used in any study affects the total number of 'excess' cancers found. The higher the baseline percentage, the fewer 'excess' cancers will be found. Of course, once 100% of everyone gets cancer in a lifetime, then we will no longer need these studies anymore, and that only seems to be a few years away, at the rate we are going. 

Back in the age before nuclear weapons, bombs and nuclear medical technology, the baseline was very different. In the days before the industrial and nuclear age, only 1 in 100,000 people  or less got cancer. It used to be normal to die in one's sleep, and not of disease or cancer. 

Cancer was unknown in those good old days, and cancer was just about impossible or unheard of in children. Nowadays, Cancer seems to be common children and it is at an epidemic rate in adults.

Many nuclear related industries and organizations want to INCREASE the amount of ionizing radiation that a person can be exposed to in a lifetime, thus SHIFTING THE BASELINE. The nuclear industry wants unlimited amounts of ionizing radiation emissions, and unlimited maximum amounts allowed to be ingested into humans, because they get off the hook for all of the diseases, cancers, die offs and environmental destruction that way. 

Jebus DECEMBER 23, 2016 Shifting Baseline Syndrome

EPA
FDA
DEQ
NRC
DOD
WHOI

Baseline Regulators

Who's baseline?

The Earth's?

Shifting baselines only change perceptions…

GE PROFITS OFF OF CREATING THE HEALTH PROBLEMS SUCH AS CANCER AND 6,000 GENETIC DISEASES, THEN PROFITS AGAIN FROM THE VERY EXPENSIVE 'SOLUTIONS'


We Not They Finally November 7, 2014  "Also part of the vicious cycle (well, vicious for US): You give people the disease, then you patent medical technologies to combat it. It's a win-win money-wise, a lose-lose for ethics and people. GE a good example."

stock November 9, 2014  "Ya indeed, even for the Meds….their precious is their old GE machines, ability to see inside the body, with radio isotopes injected to help the gamma cams see, and with xrays. And now, MRI does almost everything better, yet they continue to DOUBLE the population (radiation) dose with their old school technology….to promote their jobs and income. Criminal this is. Oppy would be sick he helped create this."

Did you know that GE not only builds nuclear power plants, they also build radiation machines that both measure and deliver radiation to the body? As GE nuclear power plants deliver DNA damaging radiation and cause cancer, GE offers the 'solution' as well; more radiation in all ways. No matter what, GE makes money off of radiation. 

MEDICAL IMAGING IS KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCERS AND DNA DAMAGE


Bottom line, we are being overrun with medical imaging radiation -- it causes DNA damage and cancer. Learn the real dangers:

Harvard Medical video: Radiation exposure and cancer risk from CT scans
VIDEO:  https://youtu.be/0oneHWjd7co 4 min.

For more information on the dangers of CT Scans, see the following article; http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2010/aug2010_Lethal-Danger-of-CT-Scans_01.htm

Via ebus September 30, 2014 American Heart Association: Pay More Attention to Radiation in Imaging Procedures
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2014/09/29/american-heart-association-pay-more-attention-to-radiation-in-imaging-procedures/

Health Impact                     Approximate Threshold Dose (mGy)           Approximate Time to Onset

Eye Effect Lens opacity (detectable)        1,000 - 2000                             5 years 
Cataract (debilitating)                                1,000                                       5 years
http://www.crcpd.org/Pubs/Proceedings/2012AMProceedingsOnlineVersion.pdf

Remember that latency period; it takes many years for the radiation caused consequences to show up. What effect are those dental and medical xrays that affect the head area having on the most sensitive organ in the body to radiation, namely the eyes and the lens in the eye? Where do you think all of those cataracts are coming from? 

ALTERNATIVE TO CT SCANS RARELY USED, DESPITE BEING A LOWER RISK

Via stock September 30, 2014 "New term: Pimp Dissonance PD - Fazel offered some overall reassurance: “In general, the radiation-related risk of any imaging test to an individual patient is very small and, when the test is clinically appropriate, the benefits of the test typically far outweigh any potential risks.” MRI is better for almost everything, yet they have these old CT machines and they get highly paid to use them. And every "expert" doctor want his "own" set of data so patients get dosed the shite out of them. Medical radiation is HALF our "new background". Eff med radiation, rarely is it now the best course of action."

Via Dick Shenary November 27, 2014 "From the 48th meeting of the National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) – "VOMIT (Victims Of Modern Imaging Technology) to refer to excessive use of imaging studies to detect diseases of minimal consequence or for legal protection. Alternative imaging studies (e.g. MRI instead of CT) are often preferable; however, the former is not readily available after hours. Why the hell not? IF CTs are available after hours why is MRI technology not available? Possibly some medical people have the answer. My guess would be CTs are more profitable to use and quicker to analyze the results."

There are many options that do not involve injected or scanned atomic radiation exposure to figure out what is going on inside the body, from sonograms, MRI's, to blood tests and accupucture. 

TSA SCANNERS


Helen Caldicott on Airport X-Rays
VIDEO: https://youtu.be/qCVPIM-dk2A

In the video above, Dr. Helen Caldicott MD speaks about the dangers of radiation from enhanced airport security screening radiation emitting machine. This was excerpted from a talk at The Sanctuary for Independent Media in Troy, NY on November 13, 2010. 


TOBACCO/SMOKING

Tobacco products contain harmful radiation products. Avoid tobacco smoke. Do not smoke or take tobacco products. 

SECRET MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS DONE WITHOUT PERMISSION


Radioactive iron Fe-59 given to 820 pregnant women (between 10th and 35th pregnancy week). The women knew nothing about it. Result: High malignancy rates in offspring: Acute lymphatic leukemia, synovial sarcoma, lymphosarcoma, primary liver carcinoma.

DON'T BELIEVE THE HORMESIS THEORY PRO NUCLEAR APOLOGISTS

The pro nuclear apologists love to claim that all man made radiation is just like bananas, and that it is good for you. Do you believe? Listen to Ann Coulter claim that there are thousands of studies proving that this is the truth...

Now let's dive in, shall we, because it is one thing to claim something as truth, and quite another to prove that it is true. The stories of radium, radon and thorium below will serve to educate, inform and enlighten you as to the heavy metal, radioactive dangers of even 'natural' radioactive elements. 

Bottom line, all radiation exposure is cumulative. Chronic exposure to even small amounts of radiation accumulate and cause long term damage.

CHART COMPARING RADIATION DOSAGES FROM VARIOUS MEDICAL PROCEDURES


More info at; http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?pg=sfty_xray


IF YOU ARE GETTING EXPOSED TO RADIATION, TAKE PROTECTIVE SUPPLEMENTS


Finally, if you decide that a medical Xray or other procedure is required and you are willing to take the risk, take protective supplements that may protect your cells from radiation effects to some extent.

The takeaway is that radiation is not 'safe' at any dose. Each radiation dose is cumulative and has a risk. The risk grows with each dose of radiation you receive, whether that dose is from a 'medical' source, or from a nuclear accident, or from thorium, radon gas in your home, or from a tour of a nuclear bomb test site. There is no difference between a 'medical' radiation exposure, and an exposure from a cesium hot particle sitting on your skin.

SUMMARY AND STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO MINIMIZE RADIATION RISKS


What have we learned? To summarize, all radiation that is man made is risky and ultimately harmful. All doses of radiation you receive; dental, medical, airport, flying, nuclear power plants and more all accumulates into a larger and larger risk of getting some genetic disease, or a cancer in later years.

If one method works better than another by not causing negative side effects, even though it does not benefit a doctor financially, doctors are supposed to do that, but when the profit motive enters in, all of that Hippocratic Oath, and Precautionary Principle stuff often goes out the window, especially when huge education bills and $5,000 kickback payments are involved for administering  chemo for example.

mon ami March 19, 2016 "There are many other imaging techniques like ... ultrasound. There are also other ways and techniques to treat and to kill cancer. Medical isotopes are a terrible con job. Don't buy into it. It takes a tremendous amount of energy and radioactive waste to make them. They cause way more cancer and other health damage than they can ever be used to supposedly help. Time to cut our losses way back and stop lying to ourselves about medical isotopes."

Weigh carefully whether you REALLY need that radiation dose, and compare it to the risk of getting some disease CAUSED by the radiation down the road. Also think about the whole nuclear industry that is being supported through the use of medical isotopes, and the harm that the whole nuclear fuel chain causes.



If you do choose to get radiated voluntarily, make sure it is the absolute MINIMUM dose required. Ask about alternative ways to get the same information that is required to make a medical decision. Ask questions such as; What is the minimum number of 'pictures' needed? Is there a way to reduce the radiation dosage? 

Make sure the technician knows what they are doing, and that the equipment is in good repair. Hopefully it is the latest and greatest equipment with the least radiation exposure possible. 

Wear lead aprons and whatever shielding you can get. Use a digital machine instead of the older machines that mean much higher doses of radiation. Ask to see if the radiation dose can be lowered in some form by exposing less of the body, or taking other steps.

Take a radiation detector along to the hospital and measure the radiation while you are being exposed, or while you are visiting someone there. Ask about the dose you are getting, and see if it matches up with what the radiation detector says.


ARE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS FOLLOWING THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH, WHEN THEY ARE ADMINISTERING HARMFUL IONIZING RADIATION AND TOXIC HEAVY METAL POISONS?



Wikipedia; A 12th-century Byzantine manuscript of the Oath

Another equivalent phrase is found in Epidemics, Book I, of the Hippocratic school:

 "Practice two things in your dealings with disease: either help or do not harm the patient".[7]

The exact phrase is believed to have originated with the 19th-century surgeon Thomas Inman.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath












WHAT YOU CAN DO; RESEARCH THE DARK SIDE OF THE NUCLEAR MONOPOLY VIA LIBRARY OF IN DEPTH NUCLEAR ARTICLES AND VIDEOS

A Green Road Journal has the largest, most organized, deepest set of articles, videos and pictures exposing the dark side of the nuclear monopoly in the world.

Zero Nuclear Weapons Peace And Justice Project; First Strike Policy, Ban Nuclear Bombs, DU, Down Winders, Acute Radiation Sickness, Nuclear War, Dirty Bombs, Bomb Shelters

Zero Rads In Children And Adults Eco Justice Project - Negative Effects Of Chronic, Cumulative Man Made Radiation Exposure

Zero Rads Extraction Eco Justice Project; Uranium Mining, Enrichment, Nuclear Fuel Chain, Open Air Testing, Fracking

Zero Internal Rads Eco Justice Project; Negative Effects Of Internal Radiation Exposure, Risk Models, Hormesis, Radiophobia, Radiation Monitoring Networks

Making Invisible Heavy Metal Radioactive Poison Visible Eco Justice Project; Ionizing Heavy Metal Poisonous Radiation In Food/Water/Products, Geiger Counters, Dosimeters, Radiation Readings, Test Labs, Conversions, Global Detector Network

Zero Harm To Animals, Insects, Birds And Plants Eco Justice Project; Negative Effects Of Chronic, Cumulative Man Made Heavy Metal Radioactive Poisons In Animals, Insects, Birds And Plants

Zero Nuclear Power Plant Threat Eco Justice Project; Accidents, Recycling Nuclear Fuel, Movie Reviews, Next Generation Nuclear Plants, Terrorists

Radiation Research, Education, Database Eco Justice Project; Individual Radioactive Elements/Isotopes, USA Radiation, Radiation Exposure Prevention, Reversal, Chelation

Eco Justice Art - Artists As Activists; Art, Aging, Poetry, Lyrics And Lawsuits Project; Lawsuits, Aging Nuclear Reactors, Recertification, Music, Lyrics, Poetry

Zero Rad Waste Eco Justice Project; Long Term Storage Of Nuclear Waste, Decommissioning, Ocean Dumping, Incineration, Decontamination, Water Contamination, Dry Cask Storage

WHAT YOU CAN DO; ENDORSE, LEARN, TRANSFORM, DONATE, SHARE, SUPPORT, SPONSOR, CONNECT, COMMENT, AND/OR COLLABORATE

DONATE

Please help AGRP get this news out... thanks for your generous and very appreciated support! What you support grows and expands. What you withhold support from shrinks, shrivels and disappears. Even .50 cents per month is a great help. What is teaching the science of sustainable health worth?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Donate To A Green Road Project; Help Dr. Goodheart Teach How To Make A Positive Difference For Seven Future Generations Of Children, Animals, Plants And The Planet

TRANSLATE

Click to Translate; 60 languages - German, French, Russian, Spanish

JOIN THE NETWORK OF OTHER ACTIVISTS; PLUG INTO AGRP


* Join the AGR Network. Forward this or any other article by clicking on the social media facebook, google plus and/or twitter buttons below any AGRP article. The first step for activists is to bring awareness of an issue to the public, by being informed yourself. Which news and information network do you prefer to plug into and network with?








 Email AGRP

RSS Feed

Subscribe to; A Green Road Project Magazine, monthly issues
It is easy to join the AGRP network, and your email will never be rented, sold or shared.

Subscribe/sign up, give feedback, or offer news tips or story ideas by sending an email to agreenroad@gmail.com . Subscribe by typing the word subscribe in the subject line.

COPYRIGHT

Wayne Dyer - What You Think, You Become (Wayne Dyer Meditation)

"Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, "ALLOWANCES ARE MADE FOR FAIR USE" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute, that otherwise might be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use." For more info go to:www.lawcornel.edu/uscode.

Copyright protected material on this website is used in accordance with 'Fair Use', for the purpose of study, review or critical analysis, and will be removed at the request of the copyright owner(s). Please read Notice and Procedure for Making Claims of Copyright Infringement.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: SHARE THIS ARTICLE

A Green Road; Teaching the Science of Sustainable Health. 

Keep asking - what works for 7 future generations without causing harm? 

Support AGR and share this article via by copying and pasting title and url into;

Website and contact page

Index, Table Of Contents

End

Dr. Caldicott MD Reports On Danger of CAT CT Scans, X-Rays; Dental Xrays, Tomography; Cancer Or Leukemia Is Caused By Low Doses Of Medical Radiation, Harm Versus Benefits Analysis, Nuclear Fuel Chain, Shifting Baselines
https://www.agreenroadjournal.com/2012/05/lethal-danger-of-ct-scans-and-x-rays.html

A Green Road Project - Science Of Sustainable Health Open Source Commons Knowledge Database
- Click in search box in upper right corner and type in search term to find any related article(s)


Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of A Green Road or its staff.

#####################################################

The information published here is not intended as a substitute for personal medical advice. Before making any decision regarding your health, please consult a physician or other qualified health-care practitioner.

#####################################################


Government Required Disclaimer: AGRP statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The products and information mentioned or contained herein are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any diseases or, medical problems. It is not intended to replace your doctor's recommendations. The information is provided for educational purposes only. Nutritional benefits may vary from one person to another. Seek out a medical professional before using any of this information.

#####################################################


CONTENT DISCLAIMER

The views and opinions expressed in the media, articles or comments on this site are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by A Green Road. The editorial staff of A Green Road oversees and administers the site based on our editorial policy but should not be held accountable for all of the information you may find on this web site.

A Green Road does not warrant the accuracy, timeliness or completeness of the information contained on our website. If you have a particular complaint about something you've found on this web site, please contact us.

###########################

THIS GROUP, WEBSITE OR VIDEOS ARE NOT INTENDED TO DIAGNOSE OR TREAT ANY MEDICAL CONDITION. PLEASE CHECK WITH YOUR HEALTH FOOD STORE OR NATURAL DOCTOR. YOU COULD ALSO CHECK WITH A "HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL".

A Green Road is posting information on this website plus associated links and may be providing 'unlicensed' (non-medical) healing arts and/or pastoral consulting services. Unless licensed by an individual state, A Green Road is acting as a 'traditional' natural health expert, naturopath, herbalist, and/or homeopath in those states that allow this, such as California and Nevada. This information is available worldwide. Posters are not licensed by the State of California, Nevada or any other state or country that prohibits practice by traditional health consultants as a medical ND; 'Naturopathic Doctor' or as a Medical Doctor - MD
at