Comments on: New study connects CT scans with elevated cancer risk in children http://boingboing.net/2012/06/07/new-study-connects-ct-scans-wi.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Mon, 20 May 2013 08:55:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: drawthug http://boingboing.net/2012/06/07/new-study-connects-ct-scans-wi.html#comment-1445749 drawthug Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:24:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=165418#comment-1445749 Here's a perspective from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. In particular, it notes that older CT technology had doses "2 to 5 times higher than doses currently used on typical CT equipment." It also mentions some previous comments (3x a very low risk is still a low risk & it is assumed that doctors ordered a scan for something that was a high risk). It also discusses some recommended congressional actions... http://www.aapm.org/publicgeneral/CTScansImportantDiagnosticTool.asp Here’s a perspective from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. In particular, it notes that older CT technology had doses “2 to 5 times higher than doses currently used on typical CT equipment.” It also mentions some previous comments (3x a very low risk is still a low risk & it is assumed that doctors ordered a scan for something that was a high risk). It also discusses some recommended congressional actions…

http://www.aapm.org/publicgeneral/CTScansImportantDiagnosticTool.asp

]]> By: ssam http://boingboing.net/2012/06/07/new-study-connects-ct-scans-wi.html#comment-1445457 ssam Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:31:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=165418#comment-1445457 Good to see some numbers, rather than just models based on linear no threshold. tricky numbers to crunch, because presumably all the children had some cause to be CT scanned in the first place. It would be interesting to compare to risks such as parents that smoke/drink, other medical procedures, or just general life risks. In the UK  (population ~62million) traffic kills 5000 people per year through polution, and 2000 in accidents, so roughly the same magnitude of risk as in this study. Good to see some numbers, rather than just models based on linear no threshold. tricky numbers to crunch, because presumably all the children had some cause to be CT scanned in the first place.

It would be interesting to compare to risks such as parents that smoke/drink, other medical procedures, or just general life risks. In the UK  (population ~62million) traffic kills 5000 people per year through polution, and 2000 in accidents, so roughly the same magnitude of risk as in this study.

]]> By: dioptase http://boingboing.net/2012/06/07/new-study-connects-ct-scans-wi.html#comment-1445343 dioptase Fri, 08 Jun 2012 06:39:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=165418#comment-1445343 The evidence was strong enough that many hospitals stopped CTing kids at least 5 years ago. The evidence was strong enough that many hospitals stopped CTing kids at least 5 years ago.

]]> By: Aaron Gilliland http://boingboing.net/2012/06/07/new-study-connects-ct-scans-wi.html#comment-1445139 Aaron Gilliland Fri, 08 Jun 2012 01:59:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=165418#comment-1445139 This isn't "time to start eating each other's brains" level news.  It's important, but just keep this in mind: 1) The base rates are very low, so a doubling or tripling of cases is still a small number of people.   2) This is a retrospective, not a controlled study.   3) "There is no safe dose" does not imply "There is no acceptable risk". This isn’t “time to start eating each other’s brains” level news.  It’s important, but just keep this in mind:

1) The base rates are very low, so a doubling or tripling of cases is still a small number of people.  

2) This is a retrospective, not a controlled study.  

3) “There is no safe dose” does not imply “There is no acceptable risk”.

]]> By: CaptainPedge http://boingboing.net/2012/06/07/new-study-connects-ct-scans-wi.html#comment-1444889 CaptainPedge Thu, 07 Jun 2012 22:04:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=165418#comment-1444889 Also quantification of radiation doses delivered and relationship of those doses to risk of cancer. The guy who did this study was on my local news tonight as it was carried out at Newcastle University. Here's a link to a couple of videos http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2012-06-07/newcastle-university-increased-cancer-risk-from-ct-scans-to-children-and-young-adults/ (not sure about international viewers, should work in UK) Also quantification of radiation doses delivered and relationship of those doses to risk of cancer. The guy who did this study was on my local news tonight as it was carried out at Newcastle University. Here’s a link to a couple of videos http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2012-06-07/newcastle-university-increased-cancer-risk-from-ct-scans-to-children-and-young-adults/ (not sure about international viewers, should work in UK)

]]> By: Xeni Jardin http://boingboing.net/2012/06/07/new-study-connects-ct-scans-wi.html#comment-1444867 Xeni Jardin Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:52:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=165418#comment-1444867 Largest study yet on the topic, is basically the news here. Largest study yet on the topic, is basically the news here.

]]> By: jgs http://boingboing.net/2012/06/07/new-study-connects-ct-scans-wi.html#comment-1444847 jgs Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:37:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=165418#comment-1444847 Was this not already known? It was certainly my layman's understanding.  (Also I hear from the expert epidemiologists who staff the airport checkpoints that there is an exception to the 'no safe dose' rule for airport scanners. They're perfectly safe.) Was this not already known? It was certainly my layman’s understanding. 

(Also I hear from the expert epidemiologists who staff the airport checkpoints that there is an exception to the ‘no safe dose’ rule for airport scanners. They’re perfectly safe.)

]]>