Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 167 posts

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#91

Post by [deleted] »

canttestthis wrote: post #78
beloch wrote: post #74

CT Scan doses vary wildly depending on the type of X-ray (chest, head, limb, etc.), the size of the person, and a lot of other things. The bigger the cross-section of the thing you put in a scanner, the greater the exposure. CT machines themselves also vary considerably. Newer machines are often more sensitive and employ better imaging software, so they can do their job while delivering a much smaller dose. Anyone wh…

I don't know much about medicine and radiation, but is intensity a factor? Could getting x amount of radiation in 60 seconds be a bigger danger than the same amount of radiation spread out over days or months?

[deleted]

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#93

Post by throwaway_yy2Di »

dnautics wrote: post #15

Big elephant in the room: Pre-test ban atmospheric nuclear tests. Of course, there's nothing anyone can do about it. The somatic damage period is probably more or less over, but we are transitioning through the genetic damage period.

Squeaky mouse in the room: the actual numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

Natural background: 2.40 mSv/year (world average)

Atmospheric testing: "peak of 0.11 mSv in 1963"

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#94

Post by jeffdavis »

beloch wrote: post #87
canttestthis wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know much about medicine and radiation, but is intensity a factor? Could getting x amount of radiation in 60 seconds be a bigger danger than the same amount of radiation spread out over days or months?

I'm not a doctor, but the way I understand it cumulative exposure is what really matters. Ionizing radiation, such as X-Rays, tends to pass through matter with less interaction than lower energy EMR, such as light. Obviously, there is some interaction or it wouldn't be good for imaging! When ionizing radiation is absorbed it (as the name suggests) ionizes an atom by knocking an electron free. That ion will then proba…

But your body constantly repairs, too, right? So maybe it's able to repair a few errors, but gets quickly overwhelmed during a CT scan?

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#95

Post by beloch »

pbreit wrote: post #82
beloch wrote: post #74

CT Scan doses vary wildly depending on the type of X-ray (chest, head, limb, etc.), the size of the person, and a lot of other things. The bigger the cross-section of the thing you put in a scanner, the greater the exposure. CT machines themselves also vary considerably. Newer machines are often more sensitive and employ better imaging software, so they can do their job while delivering a much smaller dose. Anyone wh…

Basically the first two pages I found after Googling for about a minute: The average annual cosmic radiation dose for flight personnel was 2.19 mSv (ie, less than one CT scan) http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflig... Flight attendants 2x-5x higher cancer rates http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20031021/flight-crew...

A lot of CT scans are well under 2 mSv. A lot more than you would expect from reading the worst-case estimates, as I mentioned above.

The increase in cancer rates is interesting though, although if the main cause was radiation you wouldn't expect a few specific types to increase significantly and not others.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#96

Post by tlrobinson »

nostromo wrote: post #4

This goes beyond the medical field. ProPublica did a story about how X-rays are becoming more common in law-enforcement and border security as well. http://www.propublica.org/article/drive-by-scanning-official...

Is there a relatively inexpensive portable Geiger counter or something that can measure this type of radiation?

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#97

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #90
slacka wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone now in Hong Kong about to fly back home to SF, I have always tried to schedule my flights so that I minimize my exposure to day time radiation. I guess I'm in the minority, but it's something to consider when taking international flights.

Some claim that wifi and cell phone emissions bouncing around in the cabin are also cause for concern. I've no idea if it's true, but I can imagine that inside an aluminum tube 150 wifi cards trying to connect might have some biological effect.

I don't know why this was down voted; while in an elevator one is not supposed to use a cell phone, because of this effect. At least in the elevator at work there is a sign that says so.

http://microwavenews.com/news-center/using-cell-phone-elevat...

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#98

Post by aptwebapps »

jeffdavis wrote: post #94
beloch wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a doctor, but the way I understand it cumulative exposure is what really matters. Ionizing radiation, such as X-Rays, tends to pass through matter with less interaction than lower energy EMR, such as light. Obviously, there is some interaction or it wouldn't be good for imaging! When ionizing radiation is absorbed it (as the name suggests) ionizes an atom by knocking an electron free. That ion will then proba…

But your body constantly repairs, too, right? So maybe it's able to repair a few errors, but gets quickly overwhelmed during a CT scan?

Your body repairs tissue tears and damaged cells as well as fighting off infections and things but I don't believe it is well-equipped to deal with damaged genes. I could be totally wrong, though.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#99

Post by dannypgh »

beloch wrote: post #95
pbreit wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically the first two pages I found after Googling for about a minute: The average annual cosmic radiation dose for flight personnel was 2.19 mSv (ie, less than one CT scan) http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflig... Flight attendants 2x-5x higher cancer rates http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20031021/flight-crew...

A lot of CT scans are well under 2 mSv. A lot more than you would expect from reading the worst-case estimates, as I mentioned above. The increase in cancer rates is interesting though, although if the main cause was radiation you wouldn't expect a few specific types to increase significantly and not others.

"although if the main cause was radiation you wouldn't expect a few specific types to increase significantly and not others."

How do you figure? I don't think all of the causes of cancers are well understood. But, I know that cervical cancer is highly correlated with HPV, skin cancer is highly correlated with sun exposure, stomach cancer is highly correlated with H. Pylori, and lung cancer is highly correlated with tobacco smoking. And, for that matter, that cancers seem to have wildly different occurrence rates to begin with.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#100

Post by 97s »

mbreese wrote: post #69
97s wrote: post #25

I am a surviving AML patient, relapsed once and had a stim cell donor. I have had over 50-60 CT scans and I have one or two a month to monitor my lungs for fluids. This article makes me chuckle cause who knows what it's doing to me, but without the CT scans to spot pneumonia and other infections in my lungs I would probably have died already.

Congrats on surviving AML. I have a few oncologist friends. I think that their point of view is that once you go to see them, getting a CT or 50 is the least of your problems. So, if they even think there is something wrong, you're getting a CT. The risk of having a problem now is much worse than the remote risk of something else going wrong in the future. If you survive this bout, who cares about the extra radiation…

That's exactly how I feel. CT sure sign me up. Ive had so much chemo therapy and radiation xrays and scans that I am sure my lifespan is shortened a lot. However I am alive 6 more years than I should have been, and I have a son and a wife that I would have never experienced.
Post reply on HN