Should You Get a Mammogram?

[Guest guest]

http://drbenkim.com/mammogram-radiation-dangers.htm

Q. I am scheduled for a mammogram in a few weeks. My GP and I are in

disagreement over mammograms - she feels that I definitely need to have one

whereas I try to avoid radiation as much as possible.

I know there are other methods of breast screening out there but none are

available within this vicinity and come at a large cost when they are available.

I do self examinations regularly and my GP does an annual breast manipulation

and has found nothing of alarm.

Am I being paranoid about radiation and are my fears of creating other issues

(possibly caused by radiation) legitimate and/or well-founded?

Who knows - maybe it will 'surface' (sooner than later) that mammograms ARE one

of the causes of breast cancer. Even my Naturopath feels I should have a

mammogram.

Needless to say, Dr. Kim, at the moment I am feeling pressured into having one.

Any advice and/or thoughts on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

S., Canada

***

A. It's been more than a couple of years since I last wrote about mammograms and

the effects of ionizing radiation on human health, so while I empathize with

's angst, I welcome the opportunity to re-visit this topic and highlight

the latest relevant findings that have been generated in peer-reviewed medical

literature.

To me, 's question boils down to this: Do the benefits of mammograms

outweigh their potential harmful effects?

Let's answer this systematically.

What are the benefits of having a mammogram?

Clearly, the chief benefit is potential detection of a malignant mass. I write

potential detection because we know that in some cases, mammograms miss

malignant masses. Some studies indicate that close to a third of malignant

masses in women between the ages of 40 and 49 are missed with routine

mammograms.

I'm also mindful in writing " detection " rather than " early detection " because it

typically takes several years for a mass to become large enough to detect via a

mammogram; finding cancer with a mammogram cannot be considered an effective

screening measure to make an " early diagnosis. "

What are the potential harmful effects of mammograms?

A routine mammogram screening typically involves shooting four x-rays, two per

breast. This amounts to more than 150 times the amount of radiation that is used

for a single chest x-ray.

According to Dr. Gofman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology

at the University of California in Berkeley, here's what we can clearly state

about x-rays:

For decades, the scientific community has known that x-rays cause a variety of

mutations.

X-rays are known to cause instability in our genetic material, which is usually

the central characteristic of most aggressive cancers.

There is no risk-free dose of x-rays. Even the weakest doses of x-rays can cause

cellular damage that cannot be repaired.

There is strong epidemiological evidence to support the contention that x-rays

can contribute to the development of every type of human cancer.

There is strong evidence to support the contention that x-rays are a significant

cause of ischemic heart disease.

This is not to say that you should never have an x-ray; this is to say that

getting exposed to ionizing radiation comes with real risks, and these risks

should be considered before consenting to any procedure that leads to exposure.

So in terms of ionizing radiation, what's the price that your body pays for a

routine mammogram?

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration mandates that no more

than 300 millirems (a unit used to measure doses of radiation that are absorbed

by the body) of radiation can be delivered per film during a mammogram.

Given that routine mammograms typically involve taking four films, two per

breast, this amounts to up to 1200 millirems per mammogram.

According to the physics department at the University of Richmond in Virginia,

the average American is exposed to approximately 360 millirems of radiation each

year - this exposure comes from the sun and other natural elements, as well as

from man-made devices.

To provide some perspective on everyday events that can add up to 360 millirems

of radiation over the course of a year, here is more data from the University of

Richmond:

Experience/Event

Units of Radiation Absorbed (millirems)

Plane trip from New York to Los Angeles

5

Chest x-ray

8

Dental x-ray

10

Series of x-rays for head and neck

20

CT scan (head and body)

1100

Full body therapeutic thyroid treatment

7000

Average annual dose per person per year

360

So each time you receive a mammogram that involves four shots, you may be

exposed to about the same amount of ionizing radiation that you're exposed to

over the course of about three years and four months. This is assuming that the

maximum allowable dosage is used, but even if less is used, it should be clear

that the amount of ionizing radiation that is involved with mammograms is

significant.

Some highly respected physicians and scientists like Dr. Epstein have

comprehensively analyzed this and other available data, and contend that every

1000 millirems of exposure increases a person's risk of developing some types of

breast cancer by 1 percent.

I'm not sure how accurate anyone can be about these numbers, but there is

credible evidence to suggest that going for a mammogram every year over decades

can significantly increase your risk of developing breast cancer.

Even those who support going for annual mammograms acknowledge that the overall

net benefit is itty bitty at best; the numbers indicate that two thousand women

have to be screened for ten years for just one woman to experience benefit to

her lifespan.

One of the most comprehensive studies of routine mammograms conducted on women

aged 40 to 49 found that:

Women who went for annual mammograms developed breast cancer at a clip that was

22% higher than that of women who relied just on self breast exams.

Women who went for annual mammograms had twice as many cases of metastatic

cancer compared to the group that did not receive mammograms.

But let's step back a bit from epidemiological data and put our focus on you.

We know that if you get a mammogram, you're not preventing anything. You're

screening for abnormal masses.

If the medical professional who performs and interprets your mammogram deems you

to have an abnormal mass, you're likely to receive a biopsy. And if your biopsy

reveals a malignant mass, chances are good that your physician will refer you to

an oncologist who will prescribe treatment, most likely a mix of surgical

excision, chemotherapy, and perhaps a course of radiation.

The point is, when medical professionals and studies talk about mammograms

saving lives, this has nothing to do with you preventing or overcoming cancer.

You are 100% unique in genetic composition, life history, and current life

circumstances, and most importantly, your chances of developing and overcoming

breast cancer have very little to do with survival rates that are calculated for

entire populations.

All of the factors that determine your chances of developing and overcoming any

type of cancer are not accounted for when a physician tells you that getting a

mammogram can help save your life. These factors include what you eat, how you

eat, your exposure to toxins, your living and work environments, the states of

your closest relationships, and how fulfilled you feel.

With all of this in mind, it should be clear that experiencing significant

stress over the decision to receive or decline a mammogram is in and of itself a

contributing cause of every health challenge that we know of. Stress contributes

to the development of disease, including all types of cancer; never forget that

your body and health cannot be compartmentalized; every aspect of your life has

some impact on the health of every cell in your body.

Having a physician whom you respect strongly recommend a mammogram doesn't make

things easy, that's for sure. At the end of the day, I remind myself that no one

carries more responsibility for my health than me.

I know my health and life better than anyone.

I know when I need more rest than I'm getting.

I know when I need to eat more of certain foods and less of others.

I know when there is friction in an important relationship in my life, and I

know that transcending both pride and a desire for the other party to apologize

is a good path to erasing friction that hurts my health.

I know when I have a guilty conscience and need to step up and do the right

thing.

I know that I can use all of my awareness and autonomy to screen my health on my

own with each passing day. Making the adjustments mentioned above as needed is

the best program of disease prevention that I know of, and I put my confidence

in this approach above all conventional measures that come with significant

risk.

Put another way, the best line of screening for dis-ease is your own set of

observations of how you feel physically and emotionally. And the best line of

preventing dis-ease involves living in a way that optimally supports your innate

self-healing mechanisms.

There's no question that some conventional medical tests provide immense value

in assessing our health and helping us make decisions on how to approach various

health challenges. The key is to make use of the least harmful tests available,

and only when deemed truly necessary by our best instincts.

With regard to specific medical screening procedures for breast cancer, I feel

that for the vast majority of women, regular self examinations coupled with a

manual exam by one's physician on an annual basis is an effective approach that

is virtually risk-free.

When a person's medical history and/or a finding with a manual examination

indicate that it's prudent to investigate further, I feel that diagnostic

ultrasound and even magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be used before

mammograms, though the cost of magnetic resonance imaging is significant.

Thermography is also a good option in some cases, though like all other

screening measures, it cannot detect every type of growth.

But again, I feel that it's best to depend less on medical tests and more on how

we feel day to day to stay on top of our health, and of course, to live as

healthfully as possible. Why wait for a health crisis to prompt us into doing

what we know we should every day?

===============================

Muhammad Ahmad Al-Masry

64, Muhammad Korayem Street,

Gomrok, andria, Egypt

Tel: 0020-03-4800555

Fax: 0020-03-3082667

Web: massrii@...

massrii@...

[Guest guest]

And there's also Thermography .Less invasive and said to be accurate.

www.breastthermography.com

S

I have wondered this myself, but since i have a problem or tendancy toward

fibrocystic breast, i have done a couple. I was due to have a re-screen

last year and i missed it despite having symptoms.

however....

Skipping all the way down to Muhammad's answer, and confirming.

When i did get my last mamo, they ended up having to do the ultrasound to

confirm or clarify " something suspicious " . In the end they were just a few

little cysts that the radiologist (a woman and breast specialist) said

frequently come an go among many women.

Ultimately it seems to me, they should just do the Ultrasound rather than

1) exposing us to the radiation

2) Killing our B**bs for the sake of the diagnosis, which in my opinion

squishing the heck out of them like that, even if it is just once a year,

seems extreme.

So... if you are doing the self exams (which i dont - stupid i know) and you

have a yearly exam and they see nothing but you still want confirmation - i

would say have an Ultrasound and see what that shows, before resorting to

radiation?

syl

--- In health , Muhammad Masry <massrii@...>

wrote:

>

>

> http://drbenkim.com/mammogram-radiation-dangers.htm

>

> Q. I am scheduled for a mammogram in a few weeks. My GP and I are in

> disagreement over mammograms - she feels that I definitely need to have

> one whereas I try to avoid radiation as much as possible.

>

> I know there are other methods of breast screening out there but none are

> available within this vicinity and come at a large cost when they are

> available.

>

> I do self examinations regularly and my GP does an annual breast

> manipulation and has found nothing of alarm.

>

> Am I being paranoid about radiation and are my fears of creating other

> issues (possibly caused by radiation) legitimate and/or well-founded?

>

> Who knows - maybe it will 'surface' (sooner than later) that mammograms

> ARE one of the causes of breast cancer. Even my Naturopath feels I should

> have a mammogram.

>

> Needless to say, Dr. Kim, at the moment I am feeling pressured into having

> one.

>

> Any advice and/or thoughts on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

>

> S., Canada

>

> ***

>

> A. It's been more than a couple of years since I last wrote about

> mammograms and the effects of ionizing radiation on human health, so while

> I empathize with 's angst, I welcome the opportunity to re-visit this

> topic and highlight the latest relevant findings that have been generated

> in peer-reviewed medical literature.

>

> To me, 's question boils down to this: Do the benefits of mammograms

> outweigh their potential harmful effects?

>

> Let's answer this systematically.

>

> What are the benefits of having a mammogram?

>

> Clearly, the chief benefit is potential detection of a malignant mass. I

> write potential detection because we know that in some cases, mammograms

> miss malignant masses. Some studies indicate that close to a third of

> malignant masses in women between the ages of 40 and 49 are missed with

> routine mammograms.

>

> I'm also mindful in writing " detection " rather than " early detection "

> because it typically takes several years for a mass to become large enough

> to detect via a mammogram; finding cancer with a mammogram cannot be

> considered an effective screening measure to make an " early diagnosis. "

>

> What are the potential harmful effects of mammograms?

>

> A routine mammogram screening typically involves shooting four x-rays, two

> per breast. This amounts to more than 150 times the amount of radiation

> that is used for a single chest x-ray.

>

> According to Dr. Gofman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell

> Biology at the University of California in Berkeley, here's what we can

> clearly state about x-rays:

>

> For decades, the scientific community has known that x-rays cause a

> variety of mutations.

>

> X-rays are known to cause instability in our genetic material, which is

> usually the central characteristic of most aggressive cancers.

>

> There is no risk-free dose of x-rays. Even the weakest doses of x-rays can

> cause cellular damage that cannot be repaired.

>

> There is strong epidemiological evidence to support the contention that

> x-rays can contribute to the development of every type of human cancer.

>

> There is strong evidence to support the contention that x-rays are a

> significant cause of ischemic heart disease.

>

> This is not to say that you should never have an x-ray; this is to say

> that getting exposed to ionizing radiation comes with real risks, and

> these risks should be considered before consenting to any procedure that

> leads to exposure.

>

> So in terms of ionizing radiation, what's the price that your body pays

> for a routine mammogram?

>

> In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration mandates that no

> more than 300 millirems (a unit used to measure doses of radiation that

> are absorbed by the body) of radiation can be delivered per film during a

> mammogram.

>

> Given that routine mammograms typically involve taking four films, two per

> breast, this amounts to up to 1200 millirems per mammogram.

>

> According to the physics department at the University of Richmond in

> Virginia, the average American is exposed to approximately 360 millirems

> of radiation each year - this exposure comes from the sun and other

> natural elements, as well as from man-made devices.

>

> To provide some perspective on everyday events that can add up to 360

> millirems of radiation over the course of a year, here is more data from

> the University of Richmond:

>

> Experience/Event

> Units of Radiation Absorbed (millirems)

> Plane trip from New York to Los Angeles

> 5

> Chest x-ray

> 8

> Dental x-ray

> 10

> Series of x-rays for head and neck

> 20

> CT scan (head and body)

> 1100

> Full body therapeutic thyroid treatment

> 7000

> Average annual dose per person per year

> 360

> So each time you receive a mammogram that involves four shots, you may be

> exposed to about the same amount of ionizing radiation that you're exposed

> to over the course of about three years and four months. This is assuming

> that the maximum allowable dosage is used, but even if less is used, it

> should be clear that the amount of ionizing radiation that is involved

> with mammograms is significant.

>

> Some highly respected physicians and scientists like Dr. Epstein

> have comprehensively analyzed this and other available data, and contend

> that every 1000 millirems of exposure increases a person's risk of

> developing some types of breast cancer by 1 percent.

>

> I'm not sure how accurate anyone can be about these numbers, but there is

> credible evidence to suggest that going for a mammogram every year over

> decades can significantly increase your risk of developing breast cancer.

>

> Even those who support going for annual mammograms acknowledge that the

> overall net benefit is itty bitty at best; the numbers indicate that two

> thousand women have to be screened for ten years for just one woman to

> experience benefit to her lifespan.

>

> One of the most comprehensive studies of routine mammograms conducted on

> women aged 40 to 49 found that:

>

> Women who went for annual mammograms developed breast cancer at a clip

> that was 22% higher than that of women who relied just on self breast

> exams.

>

> Women who went for annual mammograms had twice as many cases of metastatic

> cancer compared to the group that did not receive mammograms.

>

> But let's step back a bit from epidemiological data and put our focus on

> you.

>

> We know that if you get a mammogram, you're not preventing anything.

> You're screening for abnormal masses.

>

> If the medical professional who performs and interprets your mammogram

> deems you to have an abnormal mass, you're likely to receive a biopsy. And

> if your biopsy reveals a malignant mass, chances are good that your

> physician will refer you to an oncologist who will prescribe treatment,

> most likely a mix of surgical excision, chemotherapy, and perhaps a course

> of radiation.

>

> The point is, when medical professionals and studies talk about mammograms

> saving lives, this has nothing to do with you preventing or overcoming

> cancer.

>

> You are 100% unique in genetic composition, life history, and current life

> circumstances, and most importantly, your chances of developing and

> overcoming breast cancer have very little to do with survival rates that

> are calculated for entire populations.

>

> All of the factors that determine your chances of developing and

> overcoming any type of cancer are not accounted for when a physician tells

> you that getting a mammogram can help save your life. These factors

> include what you eat, how you eat, your exposure to toxins, your living

> and work environments, the states of your closest relationships, and how

> fulfilled you feel.

>

> With all of this in mind, it should be clear that experiencing significant

> stress over the decision to receive or decline a mammogram is in and of

> itself a contributing cause of every health challenge that we know of.

> Stress contributes to the development of disease, including all types of

> cancer; never forget that your body and health cannot be

> compartmentalized; every aspect of your life has some impact on the health

> of every cell in your body.

>

> Having a physician whom you respect strongly recommend a mammogram doesn't

> make things easy, that's for sure. At the end of the day, I remind myself

> that no one carries more responsibility for my health than me.

>

> I know my health and life better than anyone.

>

> I know when I need more rest than I'm getting.

>

> I know when I need to eat more of certain foods and less of others.

>

> I know when there is friction in an important relationship in my life, and

> I know that transcending both pride and a desire for the other party to

> apologize is a good path to erasing friction that hurts my health.

>

> I know when I have a guilty conscience and need to step up and do the

> right thing.

>

> I know that I can use all of my awareness and autonomy to screen my health

> on my own with each passing day. Making the adjustments mentioned above as

> needed is the best program of disease prevention that I know of, and I put

> my confidence in this approach above all conventional measures that come

> with significant risk.

>

> Put another way, the best line of screening for dis-ease is your own set

> of observations of how you feel physically and emotionally. And the best

> line of preventing dis-ease involves living in a way that optimally

> supports your innate self-healing mechanisms.

>

> There's no question that some conventional medical tests provide immense

> value in assessing our health and helping us make decisions on how to

> approach various health challenges. The key is to make use of the least

> harmful tests available, and only when deemed truly necessary by our best

> instincts.

>

> With regard to specific medical screening procedures for breast cancer, I

> feel that for the vast majority of women, regular self examinations

> coupled with a manual exam by one's physician on an annual basis is an

> effective approach that is virtually risk-free.

>

> When a person's medical history and/or a finding with a manual examination

> indicate that it's prudent to investigate further, I feel that diagnostic

> ultrasound and even magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be used before

> mammograms, though the cost of magnetic resonance imaging is significant.

> Thermography is also a good option in some cases, though like all other

> screening measures, it cannot detect every type of growth.

>

> But again, I feel that it's best to depend less on medical tests and more

> on how we feel day to day to stay on top of our health, and of course, to

> live as healthfully as possible. Why wait for a health crisis to prompt us

> into doing what we know we should every day?

> ===============================

> Muhammad Ahmad Al-Masry

> 64, Muhammad Korayem Street,

> Gomrok, andria, Egypt

> Tel: 0020-03-4800555

> Fax: 0020-03-3082667

> Web: massrii@...

> massrii@...

>

------------------------------------