Anonymous
02/15/2014 21:36
Subject: Medical Body Scans
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:CT scans are not radio waves - they are X-rays on steroids.
+1
I would never get one just for the hell of it.
One CT scan is like a thousand chest x-rays.
Wifi 'radiation' is not ionizing like x-rays, so probably benign. I'm sure some health effect will come to life but we live with car accidents and other perils of modern life.
Anonymous
02/15/2014 21:33
Subject: Medical Body Scans
Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure wifi cancer will kill more of us than radiation from diagnostic scans.
+1
This is after our fingers fall off from iPhone finger syndrome.
Anonymous
02/15/2014 21:29
Subject: Medical Body Scans
Anonymous wrote:CT scans are not radio waves - they are X-rays on steroids.
+1
I would never get one just for the hell of it.
Anonymous
02/15/2014 20:45
Subject: Medical Body Scans
CT scans are not radio waves - they are X-rays on steroids.
Anonymous
02/15/2014 20:38
Subject: Medical Body Scans
Anonymous wrote:Um, now that we have wifi everywhere (our homes, work, stores), hasn't it occurred to you that we are surrounded by radiation 24/7????? Your phone, iPad, etc? Worrisome.
Huh? We have been bombarded with UHF, VHF, AM, FM and many, many other radio waves for decades. WIFI just uses a different spectrum. I'd be more worried about microwaves.
Anonymous
02/15/2014 20:32
Subject: Medical Body Scans
Um, now that we have wifi everywhere (our homes, work, stores), hasn't it occurred to you that we are surrounded by radiation 24/7????? Your phone, iPad, etc? Worrisome.
Anonymous
02/15/2014 20:28
Subject: Medical Body Scans
Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure wifi cancer will kill more of us than radiation from diagnostic scans.
????
Anonymous
02/15/2014 20:27
Subject: Medical Body Scans
Anonymous wrote:Sounds odd that other diagnostics didn't confirm a benign cyst. CT scans and coronary calcium scans have come a long way and should've picked that up after the body scan. Strange, very strange.Anonymous wrote:Not me, but a close friend, about age 65 at the time. Found something on his lung - very alarming, as he'd been a heavy smoker for many years.
So, more tests and finally surgery, opening rib cage.
It was nothing. Some sort of "benign cyst." So, he'd put himself in a very risky situation for naught.
Read up on the current controversy on mammograms - same problem. When you screen a healthy population, you may well get more false positives than true positives (depending on the incidence of the particular conditions), leading to costly and dangerous procedures.
Of course if you're the one who happens on a "true positive" you win big. Another friend found an aortic aneurysm via an insurance physical. He was young, mid 40's I think.
So, you pays your money and you takes your choice . . .
PP here. I may have details wrong, but the gist of it is accurate. And I'm not an MD, but the patient was. This was maybe 5 years ago.
Anonymous
02/15/2014 20:07
Subject: Medical Body Scans
I'm pretty sure wifi cancer will kill more of us than radiation from diagnostic scans.
Anonymous
02/15/2014 20:06
Subject: Medical Body Scans
Anonymous wrote:By 2030, 2% of all cancers will be caused by medical radiation. Don't get the scan.
One scan is not much of an increased risk.
Anonymous
02/15/2014 20:01
Subject: Medical Body Scans
By 2030, 2% of all cancers will be caused by medical radiation. Don't get the scan.
Anonymous
02/15/2014 17:44
Subject: Medical Body Scans
PP here. I meant lung scan (v/q).Anonymous wrote:Sounds odd that other diagnostics didn't confirm a benign cyst. CT scans and coronary calcium scans have come a long way and should've picked that up after the body scan. Strange, very strange.Anonymous wrote:Not me, but a close friend, about age 65 at the time. Found something on his lung - very alarming, as he'd been a heavy smoker for many years.
So, more tests and finally surgery, opening rib cage.
It was nothing. Some sort of "benign cyst." So, he'd put himself in a very risky situation for naught.
Read up on the current controversy on mammograms - same problem. When you screen a healthy population, you may well get more false positives than true positives (depending on the incidence of the particular conditions), leading to costly and dangerous procedures.
Of course if you're the one who happens on a "true positive" you win big. Another friend found an aortic aneurysm via an insurance physical. He was young, mid 40's I think.
So, you pays your money and you takes your choice . . .
Anonymous
02/15/2014 17:43
Subject: Medical Body Scans
Sounds odd that other diagnostics didn't confirm a benign cyst. CT scans and coronary calcium scans have come a long way and should've picked that up after the body scan. Strange, very strange.Anonymous wrote:Not me, but a close friend, about age 65 at the time. Found something on his lung - very alarming, as he'd been a heavy smoker for many years.
So, more tests and finally surgery, opening rib cage.
It was nothing. Some sort of "benign cyst." So, he'd put himself in a very risky situation for naught.
Read up on the current controversy on mammograms - same problem. When you screen a healthy population, you may well get more false positives than true positives (depending on the incidence of the particular conditions), leading to costly and dangerous procedures.
Of course if you're the one who happens on a "true positive" you win big. Another friend found an aortic aneurysm via an insurance physical. He was young, mid 40's I think.
So, you pays your money and you takes your choice . . .
Anonymous
02/15/2014 17:35
Subject: Medical Body Scans
Not me, but a close friend, about age 65 at the time. Found something on his lung - very alarming, as he'd been a heavy smoker for many years.
So, more tests and finally surgery, opening rib cage.
It was nothing. Some sort of "benign cyst." So, he'd put himself in a very risky situation for naught.
Read up on the current controversy on mammograms - same problem. When you screen a healthy population, you may well get more false positives than true positives (depending on the incidence of the particular conditions), leading to costly and dangerous procedures.
Of course if you're the one who happens on a "true positive" you win big. Another friend found an aortic aneurysm via an insurance physical. He was young, mid 40's I think.
So, you pays your money and you takes your choice . . .
So, more tests and finally surgery, opening rib cage.
It was nothing. Some sort of "benign cyst." So, he'd put himself in a very risky situation for naught.
Read up on the current controversy on mammograms - same problem. When you screen a healthy population, you may well get more false positives than true positives (depending on the incidence of the particular conditions), leading to costly and dangerous procedures.
Of course if you're the one who happens on a "true positive" you win big. Another friend found an aortic aneurysm via an insurance physical. He was young, mid 40's I think.
So, you pays your money and you takes your choice . . .
Anonymous
02/15/2014 17:25
Subject: Medical Body Scans
Has anyone 45+ had a body scan done? Though they're a bit pricey ($750-$1000) and insurance doesn't usually cover, I think it might be a good investment if I can waylay any physical problems. Would love to hear from someone that has ACTUALLY had one done.