If radiation is bad, why are radiating ourselves? What is a better alternative, other than the touch exam?
I'm asking this again for those who missed it..will choose two best answers.
2006-10-24 07:20:25 · 6 answers · asked by daisy 4 in Health ➔ Women's Health
Duh..nonamefor..yes, I know that and did you know that it wrecks havoc on the body, the results aren't 100% and there are alternatives to treating cancer that are healthier?
2006-10-24 09:03:48 · update #1
I'll let that blow your mind for a little bit.
2006-10-24 09:07:23 · update #2
Mammography uses both lower energy x-rays and low levels of radiation (when compared to normal x-ray machines). It also only lasts a few minutes so your exposure is minimised.
In addition to that, you're only likely to be having one if you (and you're doctor!) have already detected a problem by a look&feel examination or you go for regular (once a year) screenings (e.g. if you're over 40 and have an increased risk).
If you're under 35 an ultrasound (same as used to scan a foetus and perfectly harmless!) is done instead. The reason being, the breast tissue is too dense for anything to be detected at that age.
So, if you're under 35, you're regular exams should only consist of a self-exam > the doctors examination > an ultrasound scan > biopsy (if anything is found).
...and if you're over 40, I think you have a lot more to lose by not having scans and missing out on a possible early detection!
2006-10-24 10:05:26 · answer #1 · answered by Nereid 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We have mammograms for the same reason that we have any x-ray: the potential benefit of catching a disease outweighs the risk involved in being x-rayed. This is a topic debated by many, and the reason that most women under 35 are not recommended to get screening mammograms is because the risk of breast cancer is not greater than the risk involved with radiation exposure.
Imaging techniques such as PET scans and MRIs are also used on the breast, and there is ongoing research to find out if there are tests that can use blood, urine, or needle aspirations to detect cancer markers.
2006-10-24 14:34:28 · answer #2 · answered by MissA 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The chances of getting breast cancer are vastly greater than the risk from the minimal amount of radiation used. Some people answering seem to think that doctors think only of their wallets. This isn't so. Most doctors are concerned for their patients' welfare and health.
2006-10-25 06:27:08 · answer #3 · answered by doctor 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know they also use radiation to treat cancer... Ill let that blow your mind for a bit.
2006-10-24 14:54:06 · answer #4 · answered by nonameforme 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wow. I can't believe you are serious....? The amount of radiation is so minimal and when compared to the benefits of being tested....there is no reason why you shouldn't have a mammogram.
AND ANYONE who agrees with the poster.....well.....when you get cancer and it could have been detected sooner.....sorry about your bad luck and choice.
It detected both mine and my sister's breast cancer early enough so that we could be treated successfully.
2006-10-24 14:25:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i totally agree. don't know what else to say that you haven't. i think a lot of medical procedures precticed in the u.s. cause more harm than good. but that's not the point in the u.s. the point is for the big guys to make big bucks. it doesn't matter what little guys get squished, as long as the bottom line is met.
2006-10-24 14:24:54 · answer #6 · answered by onlylove41 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋