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

151–160 of 167 posts

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#151

Post by Sssnake »

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…

This is a good example of how hn is suffering from the real slashdot effect lately. That is, people posting authoritative sounding but completely wrong information and getting upvoted for it.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#152

Post by alexvr »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #103
hbar wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.

Radio and microwaves can still have biological effects, including cancer risk. Animal experiments prove this.

So I need to power off my iPhone before I put it in my pocket?

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#153

Post by ScotterC »

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...

Interestingly enough, flight attendants wear a lot of dry-cleaned clothes which has been directly correlated to breast cancer.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20100209/dry-cleaning-chemi...

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#154

Post by sliverstorm »

DanBC wrote: post #135
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.

How do you travel to the airport, and did you factor in the risks of traveling at that different time? Reducing a tiny risk in exchange for increasing an already large risk feels sub-optimal to me.

Statistically traveling at night is risky (due to drunks), but I prefer interstate travel at night. The road is empty.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#155

Post by DanBC »

yen223 wrote: post #138
DanBC wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can make and receive phone calls in lifts. It was weird the first few times. I'm in the UK if that makes any difference.

Could you make and receive phone calls in every lift you were in?

I'm no Gluse but I've never had problems with lists, even those clad in steel in the middle of dense buildings with lots of steel bars in.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#156

Post by moeffju »

hawkharris wrote: post #84
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…

While your comment as a whole is thoughtful and well written, I'm surprised to hear you say, "Medical imaging is not done very often..." Medical imaging is commonly overused, and its overuse is recognized as being one of the leading causes of certain types of cancer. For example, the original story explains... "In a 2011 report sponsored by Susan G. Komen, the Institute of Medicine concluded that radiation from medic…

This varies a lot by country. Neither MRI nor CT are commonly used in Germany, for example, unless there is a clear medical necessity.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#157

Post by namlem »

refurb wrote: post #2

I have no doubt that patients are getting exposed to more radiation via imaging than they need to. However, every decision in medicine is (or should be) a risk-vs-benefit analysis. Cancer is not the only thing you can die from. If you suffer a head injury and end up in the ER and get a CT scan, you may increase your long-term risk of cancer, but you are also drastically reducing the risk of dying from a brain hemorrh…

Except an MRI scan is just as good, but doesn't expose you to radiation. The problem is CT scans are slightly cheaper, so the insurance companies won't pay for an MRI.

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#158

Post by fredgrott »

Actually at least in the USA there are geographic portions of the USA where radon gases via what the house foundation was built on are more of a threat than tracked medical imaging as obviously if the house is not tested than we have no way of determining whether radon gas is a threat.

EPA map of radon gas zones, Zone 3 is the high risk level: http://www.epa.gov/radon/pdfs/zonemapcolor.pdf

and no sarcastic comments about it also being the bible belt please..:)

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#159

Post by [deleted] »

yeukhon wrote: post #35

Let's simplify this. Industrial waste is everywhere. Old buildings are built with cancerous materials and we are expose to all kinds of radiations and air pollutions. We eat junk food, we don't exercise much. Kids are playing with toys painted with lethal chemical substances. Second-hand smoking is always present. We eat overfried food and we also sleep late. So the story is clear and doesn't require some heavy scien…

[deleted]

Re: We Are Giving Ourselves Cancer

#160

Post by smalldaddy »

The article misses a very important point.

People are living longer because of better heart care (lower death rates at a given age from heart disease). All else being equal, this means people are living longer, which in turn means they are at increased risk of getting cancer.

The CT scan impact is small in comparison with this fact.

Post reply on HN