Steph wrote:
> "clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3kr914-37j.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
> > Steph wrote:
> >> "J" <ercent@anon.inv> wrote...
> >>> Excerpts
> >>> Early screening could reduce lung cancer deaths
> >>
> >> What they fail to mention is the significant annual dose of radiation
> >> this
> >> would entail.
Actually, the study DOES mention the dosage, just not in :
"Participants received a low-dose spiral CT scan of the chest at
baseline."
which is 1.3-1.6 mSv (about the same as a mammogram or a lumbar-spine
shot).
Since it's in line with a mammogram, which are often recommended
annually, and is prescribed (well, theoretically as per the study)
annually only for patients at elevated or high-risk, then the effects
would be similar.
See the FDA link or
http://www.impactscan.org/slides/imp...etry/img6.html
or any other CT Dosimetry links (but keep in mind that the low-dose CT
scans are not the same as full body scans. But if you've done a barium
ingestion series as a diagnostic, then you've gotten the full body CT
equivilant.
> > How does that compare with annual chest X-rays? I bought the marketing
> > hype
> > from years ago about how little exposure a CT scan gave a body.
> > --
> > "...by March 2000, President Clinton informed Congress he could no longer
> > certify that 'North Korea is not seeking to develop or acquire the
> > capability
> > to enrich uranium.'"
> > <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/northkorea/nuclear.html>
>
> A CT is equivalent to between 200 and 500 chest xrays...........
> http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.html
But the (low-dose ct) scan from the study is equivilant to about 65 or
so chest-xrays, or about six months walking in a park with sun-screen,
or one month walking in Utah, Colorado or Arizona (rocky, mountainous
areas are that much more radiologically emissive).
And a full body CT scan is the equivilant of spending nearly an entire
year walking in a park, or 7 months working in a large office building.
Contrast that with finding out you've got stage-1 cancer of the lungs.
In which case, if you have it and don't get treatment, then the study
demonstrated that all 8 people diagnosed with stage-1 who didn't get
treatment died within five years of the diagnosis. That's about 100%.
Of course, there are other diagnostic procedures, like waiting for
actual symptoms which means the person is about to die (effectively) --
because he's probably been treated for things like asthma, bronchitis,
the flu, given decongestants, expectorants wasting months before a
chest-xray or CT scan is finally ordered. Most people are without
symptoms in stage 1 so they won't see a doctor and the doctor won't
look for it in 100% of the cases. Stage 2 still has people in the low
0 through 2% of people seeking treatment because it's still mostly
asymptomatic. Most people notice something after the cancer has gotten
to late stage 3 or early stage 4 where / when it has already
metastasised.
Once you've noticed something, then in all likelihood, even with
treatment, you've got a 60% chance of living from three to fifteen
months.
Look at the symptoms : coughing, chest-pain, wheezing, shortness of
breath. Ok, if you've got some, but not all, then it's probably gonna
get written off as allergies, bronchitis, or asthma. Add one to the
stage of lung cancer by the time the patient returns, if they are still
alive. Add the little bits of infrequent bloody sputum to the entire
list of symptoms, and you've got possible strain, or pneumonia so
you've raised the shot at an x-ray to 25% max which is about the only
way you'll get the slightest chance of a correct diagnosis.
You might, if you are a male of a certain age-group or build, qualify
for a cardiac work-up or at least an ekg/ecg...
Other symptoms are loss of apetite, fatigue which kind of go together
as a symptom, so that'd be classified as the flu, or viral, maybe a
bug. If you mention weakness, chills, swallowing problems and show
swollen glands, then with enough prodding you'll get a five day sack of
pills and sent home. Add another stage if you haven't already.
Any other of the popular symptoms basically mean you've got brain or
bone or spinal involvement and are a walking corpse.
Of course, you might disagree, so I'm including actual links to a
oncological sites :
http://www.oncolink.com/experts/arti...&ss=99&id=1698 http://www.oncologychannel.com/lungc...iagnosis.shtml 
Screening & treatment for lung cancer less expensive than late-stagecancer treatment 
Linear Mode
