confusedcyclist
Veteran
Benefit of having the scans always outweigh the risks of not and missing something serious, otherwise your clinician wouldn't recommend it.
Are CT Scans Safe
- Thread starter The Jogger
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
ColinJ
Puzzle game procrastinator!
- Location
- Todmorden - Yorks/Lancs border
Thalidomide?
ColinJ
Puzzle game procrastinator!
- Location
- Todmorden - Yorks/Lancs border
I was just making the point that clinicians are human and do make mistakes, so it pays to at least question what they are doing.
My late mum's GP decided to double the dose of some of her medication. She collapsed within hours and ended up spending 3 months in hospital. When told about that he said, "Oh, perhaps I should have halved the dose"!
vickster
Legendary Member
I think it was more the Pharma companies who were less than open about potential side effects (or they may not have known)
Why most drugs are used with extreme caution in pregnant women, pharma companies now won't risk trials in pregnant cohorts. And testing drugs in children is another dangerous area and mostly done only in pure paediatric indications
Why most drugs are used with extreme caution in pregnant women, pharma companies now won't risk trials in pregnant cohorts. And testing drugs in children is another dangerous area and mostly done only in pure paediatric indications
confusedcyclist
Veteran
I work in clinical research and there are whole swathes of people employed to ensure exposure to radiation is minimised as there are risks associated with excessive exposure. That's because ionising radiation doesn't play nice with your DNA. The problem occurs when it knocks out the sections of your DNA which help prevent cancers, i.e. destroy or impair genes responsible for cell repair, validation genetic sequences, controls on cell division, cell growth, voluntary cell death and so on. As you slowly stack these up you have the workings of an unstable and immortal cell which may lead to invasive cancers. This is why continuous exposure to toxic air pollution, alcohol, smoking, processed foods and all things yucky eventually lead to cancers. Yet this needs to happen to dozens of genes, all within the same cell before any cancers can emerge, even then there's a chance the immune system will fight it off before it becomes a problem.
But as I said, the act of doing nothing is often worse in the long run. Lets say I wouldn't want to have a CT scan daily, but 3-5 a year would still be a negligible dose. The chart on page 1 does a good guide of summing it up.
CT scans have been used for two decades so the risks and rewards are well understood. Thalidomide at the time was not, ask Vickster rightly pointed out, lessons we learnt in the 50s and we now have tighter controls on medications, particularly for those in use prior to licensing. Exposure to radiation sounds like a scary concept, but we are being barraged by the stuff on a daily basis and baring standing in a nuclear reactor, our evolutionary past enables us to cope remarkably well with the exposures we face on a typical day.
Unless you spend your life standing inside the Fukushima reactor, this one time you have a CT scan might be the fabled straw that breaks the camels back, but most likely it is not. So, given that information I hope you can make a slightly more informed decision on whether the risk is worth it.
But as I said, the act of doing nothing is often worse in the long run. Lets say I wouldn't want to have a CT scan daily, but 3-5 a year would still be a negligible dose. The chart on page 1 does a good guide of summing it up.
CT scans have been used for two decades so the risks and rewards are well understood. Thalidomide at the time was not, ask Vickster rightly pointed out, lessons we learnt in the 50s and we now have tighter controls on medications, particularly for those in use prior to licensing. Exposure to radiation sounds like a scary concept, but we are being barraged by the stuff on a daily basis and baring standing in a nuclear reactor, our evolutionary past enables us to cope remarkably well with the exposures we face on a typical day.
Unless you spend your life standing inside the Fukushima reactor, this one time you have a CT scan might be the fabled straw that breaks the camels back, but most likely it is not. So, given that information I hope you can make a slightly more informed decision on whether the risk is worth it.
Last edited:
confusedcyclist
Veteran
This sounds like a case of clinical negligence, but obviously I don't have the specific details. Sadly people react to drugs differently and you will never be able to eliminate all the risks, but the cost of inaction? Probably worse.I was just making the point that clinicians are human and do make mistakes, so it pays to at least question what they are doing.
My late mum's GP decided to double the dose of some of her medication. She collapsed within hours and ended up spending 3 months in hospital. When told about that he said, "Oh, perhaps I should have halved the dose"!
