X-Rays May Kill You

Recent published research suggests that 50% to 75% of all Cancers and Heart Disease are caused by medical X-Rays. Shall I say that again? The research claims that more than half of all Cancers and Heart Disease are caused by medical X-Rays.

I’m quoting from research work done by John W Gofman MD PhD.

I’m not suggesting what you should do about X-Rays, go and make your own mind up. I know what I’m going to do from now on, seriously reduce the number of X-Rays and question what the dosage is, why it’s necessary, and seek alternatives where possible.

Go look for yourself and make your own mind up. The overview research is http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RMP/execsumm.html

This gives an overview of the full publication. What John Gofman has done is look at the deaths in the USA from the 1940s up to the 1990s and compared them with the number of Physicians per 100,000 people and the changing rates. What he’s found is that the more Physicians there are in the population, the higher the death rate. This means that doctors are killing you! Further investigation by Gofman has found a strong correlation between Cancer and medical X-Rays, and Heart Disease and medical X-Rays.

A group has been set up on the Internet to make patients aware of the rights have and should be asking of the medical establishment

http://www.x-raysandhealth.org/

A more simplified view of John Gofman and his work is in this link http://www.sfms.org/sfm/sfm301g.htm

There are other views and research to show the opposite to Gofman’s view, that low dose radiation is safe, but no one yet had managed to refute John Gofman’s research, that I’m aware of. For an overview and balance of current thinking and research on radiation go have a look at http://whyfiles.org/020radiation/index.html

I know who I think has got it right. If you’re interested in reading more about John Gofman and his life story which seems to be at the leading edge of science since the 1930s then read the Oral History John Gofman gave about his life work to the US Department of Energy for an investigation into Human Radiation Experiments.

http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/histories/0457/0457toc.html

Don’t panic yet. According to John Gofman, it’s about co-factors. No one thing will usually set off disease, it’s usually a combination of factors such as X-Rays, Smoking, Diet, Genes, but remove any one of these co-factors and the rate of disease is significantly reduced. The human body has a miraculous ability to resist and self-repair. X-Rays are only a “co-factor” in causing Cancer and Heart Disease. What is a co-factor? Well, when you look at the cause of disease there are normally several factors in play which when combined may cause disease. From this research X-Rays feature as a co-factor on more than half of all Cancers and Heart Diseases.

Go ask a doctor or a dentist about the risks from X-Rays and without exception they all say “minimal” now ask them to quantify minimal, and they don’t have a clue. Ask them to explain how radiation works and how the body deals with it, (or doesn’t deal with it) and again there’s very limited knowledge. Ask them to give a death rate from the use of X-Rays and they can’t. Is it 1 in a million, is it 1 in a thousand, is it 1 in a hundred? They don’t know.

I think this is a conspiracy of ignorance. In my view the medical world is turning a blind eye to the threat. Why? Because the threat doesn’t materialise until later in life 5,10,20,30 years later. By that time, they’re seen to have done their job, they’ve treated the immediate problem, and they’re long gone by then, and also any cancers and heart disease can’t be traced or proven back to them.

Check with your radiologist about dosage level and measurement, make them be careful with limiting the dosage, and keep a check of the dosages you accumulate in a year. Let’s face it, on average most of us have a one to a few X-Rays per year.

If you go and search for X-Rays and risk on the Internet, then you get many generalised stuff about “minimal” risk and comparisons with background radiation (the radiation we all receive from the natural environment), but this is very different from medical X-Rays. Background radiation is a very low rate in comparison hitting all of your body, a medical X-Ray is a concentrated amount hitting a specific part of your body. Background radiation (radiation from the environment, the sun and outer space) is hitting us all the time and humans have evolved to deal with this. We also have naturally occurring radioactive minerals in our body all the time which doesn’t seem to affect us. Looking at Gofman’s research I would question if X-Rays behave like background radiation. I’m with him on this one.

Should you stop all X-Rays? Not necessarily. It’s depends on being knowledgeable and weighing up the relative risks. I’ll give you an example I’m going through in my own life which explains why I’ve written this and I feel it’s my duty to at least make you aware of the risks even if you don’t agree. Go and find out for yourself.

We have just had a new baby girl born on 24^th September 2001. Georgia. Before she was born she had dilated kidneys on her ultrasound, at 24 and 35 weeks. This means she’s retaining too much fluid in her kidneys. When she was born she was put on antibiotics in case her urine was backing up to her kidneys and to protect her against Urinary Tract Infections (UTI). The paediatrician ordered another Ultrasound to check her kidneys and an MCU (Micturating Cystourethogram). What’s an MCU? We were wondering as well, until we were at the hospital for the test. A catheter is inserted up Georgia and Iodine is pumped into her bladder, she is then X-Rayed using fluoroscopy which is on-going X-Rays over 10-20 mins to see if urine is backing-up (refluxing) to her kidneys. We refused to have the MCU until we knew the outcome of the Ultrasound, which shows her kidneys are no longer dilated. So why is the paediatrician insisting on an MCU. Because, babies with dilated kidneys before they are born have a higher risk of Urinary Tract Infections and Kidney problems than normal. This is all fine but what I want to know now is what are the risks and chances of UTI and Kidney Damage versus the risks of the MCU test with Iodine and X-Rays. He can’t tell me. All he says is the risks from X-Rays are minimal and we should proceed with the test.

And that is where we currently stand. We’re trying to assess the risks of and from Urinary Tract Infection versus the risk from the X-Rays. I don’t believe most doctors know or appreciate relative risk, and I suspect that many are burying their heads in the sand and not facing up to the risks from X-Rays because the risk is generally unknown and long term.

Should you have an X-Ray? It depends on the situation and what type of X-Ray it is. X-Rays are an important part of medicine. If I suspected my daughter had broken her leg, of course I’d have it X-Rayed, but I’m not prepared to accept any more the unquestioned authority of the doctor especially when I suspect they don’t know all the facts and they haven’t bothered to find out. They quote the conventional thinking from each other. What if that thinking is wrong?

We laugh and scoff at some of the medical practises and other beliefs of previous decades and centuries, what are we doing now that we’ll laugh and scoff at in 10 years time and beyond.

Don’t take my word for it, go and find out for yourself on the Internet. Do your own research on the Internet and make your own mind up.