ccml Sunday's Case - 4 days Later

• Previous message: ccml Sunday's Case - 4 days Later
• Next message: ccml Sunday's Case - 4 days Later
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Whenever I disagree with Dr Mattox I tend to wait out the feeling and
the urge usually passes. However the 1/2000 leukemia rate for CT scan
seems to me to be flawed on it's face. CT scanning started in the early
80's and by mid 80's was common. We now have 20-25  year follow up and
the rates of leukemia overall are falling except in the youg pediatric
age group (
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12712476
). Unless you postulate that the lag time b/w expsure and result has not
yet  been reached (reasonable ?) I find it hard to believe that the
exposure risk is that high. That is not to say that the risk is
non-existant, however.

William J. Bromberg
Savannah Surgical Group
912 350-7412

>>> <KMATTOX at aol.com> 01/28/07 9:31 PM >>>
 
In a message dated 1/28/2007 8:29:34 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
msouter at u.washington.edu writes:

Do you have a reference for this  assertion - given that we do
virtually 
daily CT's on our head injuries and  subarachnoid hemorrhages (not to
mention the 
angiographies..), I'm interested  in the veracity of this statistic


Do a Google scan on Radiation complications of CT and you will markedly
 
reduce your use of CT scanning unless it is for a specific purpose
 
k
--
trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://www.trauma.org/traumalist.html

• Previous message: ccml Sunday's Case - 4 days Later
• Next message: ccml Sunday's Case - 4 days Later
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]