Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.independent.co.uk/health-and-wellbeing/mri-scan-injection-oxalic-acid-b2732737.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawJqgtVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHsnxScux-bytPLWcDl7uR5_Es_oQqJFCS3qGd0M3i9rMq55QHQVrLFA9vR4B_aem_0EVSOigVeoYyxEhenMNViQ

That is about MRI and not CT scan.

Correct. Someone posted that MRI’s are safer but the contrast used with MRI’s causes some people a lifetime of problems.

Those are mostly used in CT not MRIs.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. CT’s use ionizing contrast and MRI’s these days (especially for head things, breast things, and pelvic organ things) are given with the contrast gadolinium, a toxic heavy metal that doesn’t fully leave the body and can cause long term issues. Some people become incapacitated after just one dose, others after several doses as it builds up.

Anonymous wrote:MRI or nothing. That is ridiculous to do a CT scan for congestion.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F yes this would worry me!

OMG shut up.

CT scans are safe.

Define "safe"? There is no "safe" level of ionizing radiation. Every bit you are exposed to harms you a little more.

This is not true. Radiation is in our everyday environment. If you wear a dosimeter inside a building and walk outside, it will start ticking from the radiation from sunlight. We have evolved to live with radiation. Environmental regulators decided that, unlike any other substance known to man, the curve for damage from radiation was "linear no threshold" (meaning there is no dose that is harmless) based upon zero scientific evidence. How do I know this? I talked to one of the guys who wrote the regs. They had no evidence of harm from radiation at lower doses, so they just drew a straight line to zero. Every other substance known to man has a threshold beneath which there is no harm, and he agreed that is the case with radiation. If no level of radiation were safe, people who live in Colorado would have a higher incidence of cancer, not a lower one. This is just used to scare people. If you really believe this, then never fly in an airplane or live at altitude (or go inside any building in DC made of granite, which are literally radioactive).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also- remember that cancer patients, those with autoimmune issues like Crohns, those with head injuries, etc., are scanned frequently- sometimes yearly .

… which increases their cancer risk.

This. Some get secondary cancers like someone I know. It'd all about weighing risks.

How could you know the CT scan was the cause of the cancer?

Seriously. Particularly when a huge % of cancer patients have radiation therapy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F yes this would worry me!

OMG shut up.

CT scans are safe.

Define "safe"? There is no "safe" level of ionizing radiation. Every bit you are exposed to harms you a little more.

Meant to add this chart showing comparisons.



The URL if picture isn't large enough to read. https://infobeautiful4.s3.amazonaws.com/2011/03/2552_IIB_Radiation-Chart_Feb19.png

There are many similar charts online to make comparisons. Of medical procedures, CT's are one of the most radioactive due to the tracers such as Barium dyes they use.

Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F yes this would worry me!

OMG shut up.

CT scans are safe.

Define "safe"? There is no "safe" level of ionizing radiation. Every bit you are exposed to harms you a little more.

Meant to add this chart showing comparisons.



The URL if picture isn't large enough to read. https://infobeautiful4.s3.amazonaws.com/2011/03/2552_IIB_Radiation-Chart_Feb19.png

There are many similar charts online to make comparisons. Of medical procedures, CT's are one of the most radioactive due to the tracers such as Barium dyes they use.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.independent.co.uk/health-and-wellbeing/mri-scan-injection-oxalic-acid-b2732737.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawJqgtVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHsnxScux-bytPLWcDl7uR5_Es_oQqJFCS3qGd0M3i9rMq55QHQVrLFA9vR4B_aem_0EVSOigVeoYyxEhenMNViQ

That is about MRI and not CT scan.

Correct. Someone posted that MRI’s are safer but the contrast used with MRI’s causes some people a lifetime of problems.

Those are mostly used in CT not MRIs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F yes this would worry me!

OMG shut up.

CT scans are safe.

Define "safe"? There is no "safe" level of ionizing radiation. Every bit you are exposed to harms you a little more.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F yes this would worry me!

OMG shut up.

CT scans are safe.

Define "safe"? There is no "safe" level of ionizing radiation. Every bit you are exposed to harms you a little more.

Some CT scans for sinuses (with allergists or ENTs) are lower radiation.

OP if you don't get the scan come back in 5 years and tell us how kid did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“CT scans use ionizing radiation, which can potentially increase the risk of cancer, especially with multiple or high-dose scans. Contrast dye used in some CT scans can also have side effects, including kidney issues or allergic reactions. While the radiation dose from a typical CT scan is considered low, the cumulative effect over time and in certain populations, like children, is a concern.”

I’d only do a CT scan for my child if absolutely life or limb saving

How could you possibly know if it was one of these, with your layperson "expertise"? You can tell by your gut if it's allergies or rhabdomyosarcoma?

You can't tell either because you named a rare disease with entirely different symptoms aside from one. So by that logic we should all get MRIs and CT Scans of everything all the time because it could be a rare disease based on one symptom.

No, that’s why I listen to the recommendations of the doctor who did med school and residency and has more knowledge than me about when proceeding with a CT is worth the risks. Because if I ignored the expert and something was missed that needed to be found, I would never, ever forgive myself. Your comfort level may vary.

Doctors order unnecessary tests all the time. Party to cover them, partly to improve patient satisfaction that their doctor is “doing something” about their concern. No, I would absolutely not get a CT for a stuffy nose in a teenager. If the ENT couldnt see much bc her sinus were inflamed, she likely has an infection or allergies. Wait until those clear and look again. But she likely is having “breathing issues” due to the inflammation, nothing else. I highly doubt the ENT thinks it is imperative she gets this CT. He is just suggesting since he doesn’t see anything.

+1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“CT scans use ionizing radiation, which can potentially increase the risk of cancer, especially with multiple or high-dose scans. Contrast dye used in some CT scans can also have side effects, including kidney issues or allergic reactions. While the radiation dose from a typical CT scan is considered low, the cumulative effect over time and in certain populations, like children, is a concern.”

I’d only do a CT scan for my child if absolutely life or limb saving

How could you possibly know if it was one of these, with your layperson "expertise"? You can tell by your gut if it's allergies or rhabdomyosarcoma?

You can't tell either because you named a rare disease with entirely different symptoms aside from one. So by that logic we should all get MRIs and CT Scans of everything all the time because it could be a rare disease based on one symptom.

No, that’s why I listen to the recommendations of the doctor who did med school and residency and has more knowledge than me about when proceeding with a CT is worth the risks. Because if I ignored the expert and something was missed that needed to be found, I would never, ever forgive myself. Your comfort level may vary.

Doctors order unnecessary tests all the time. Party to cover them, partly to improve patient satisfaction that their doctor is “doing something” about their concern. No, I would absolutely not get a CT for a stuffy nose in a teenager. If the ENT couldnt see much bc her sinus were inflamed, she likely has an infection or allergies. Wait until those clear and look again. But she likely is having “breathing issues” due to the inflammation, nothing else. I highly doubt the ENT thinks it is imperative she gets this CT. He is just suggesting since he doesn’t see anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“CT scans use ionizing radiation, which can potentially increase the risk of cancer, especially with multiple or high-dose scans. Contrast dye used in some CT scans can also have side effects, including kidney issues or allergic reactions. While the radiation dose from a typical CT scan is considered low, the cumulative effect over time and in certain populations, like children, is a concern.”

I’d only do a CT scan for my child if absolutely life or limb saving

How could you possibly know if it was one of these, with your layperson "expertise"? You can tell by your gut if it's allergies or rhabdomyosarcoma?

You can't tell either because you named a rare disease with entirely different symptoms aside from one. So by that logic we should all get MRIs and CT Scans of everything all the time because it could be a rare disease based on one symptom.

No, that’s why I listen to the recommendations of the doctor who did med school and residency and has more knowledge than me about when proceeding with a CT is worth the risks. Because if I ignored the expert and something was missed that needed to be found, I would never, ever forgive myself. Your comfort level may vary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“CT scans use ionizing radiation, which can potentially increase the risk of cancer, especially with multiple or high-dose scans. Contrast dye used in some CT scans can also have side effects, including kidney issues or allergic reactions. While the radiation dose from a typical CT scan is considered low, the cumulative effect over time and in certain populations, like children, is a concern.”

I’d only do a CT scan for my child if absolutely life or limb saving

How could you possibly know if it was one of these, with your layperson "expertise"? You can tell by your gut if it's allergies or rhabdomyosarcoma?

You can't tell either because you named a rare disease with entirely different symptoms aside from one. So by that logic we should all get MRIs and CT Scans of everything all the time because it could be a rare disease based on one symptom.