3 ms·
Indeed. I would also like to see that British study that claims a link between CTs and leukemia – I smell selection bias. It is however true that a CT does impl
by latk 13y ago
Indeed. I would also like to see that British study that claims a link between CTs and leukemia – I smell selection bias. It is however true that a CT does imply a significant radiation dose.
This article is especially frustrating in that the authors seem to be doctors in the appropriate fields. I assume they just went too far in dumbing down the matter, which together with their source-less references to a dazzling amount of numbers and studies ends up obscuring their main point: A culture of using the “best” medical tool available instead of the “appropriate” tool can have adverse health effects, and has to stop.
All in all, there is a reason this article was filed under Opinions, not Science.
- throwaway_yy2Di 13y agoMust be this: http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2012/CTpediatricLancet http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2012/CTpediatri... http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2960815-0/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67... Note the large difference in presentation. NCI: "...a small increased risk of leukemia and brain tumors..." "...The researchers emphasize... the benefits of clinically appropriate CT scans should outweigh future cancer risks" NY Times: "...three times more likely to develop leukemia and brain cancer" "...distressingly little evidence of better health outcomes" It's some sort of golden rule of sensationalism: if the risk is minuscule, report it as a large multiplier over a tiny baseline. (Or possibly, an absolute incidence count out of a gigantically large population. NYT, thoughtfully, did both).