In a message dated 4/2/2003 8:48:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The paper does not indicate that X-rays should not be used, she said. "If > you are having a spinal X-ray it is for an important reason. You must > weigh the risk of the damage against the outcome of the X-ray." Well in fact there are very few indications for standard spinal radiographs except in some instances of trauma. Spine radiographs are insensitive to detection of common degenerative causes of neck pain. They show degeneration but we all get that as we age. The critical information is the effect of degeneration on contents of the spinal canal, the spinal cord and nerve roots. Neoplasms of the spinal cord are never detected and boney tumors typically metastases) cannot be seen until there is marked bone destruction. Even in trauma where they have some use abnormailities detected on plain films must be further evaluated with CT or MR. > > Sykes noted that the researchers administered the radiation at a much > higher rate than would be given in a standard X-ray. As a comparison, the > background radiation an average person would receive over a year would be > about 2 milligrays (mGy) - a unit of measurement for absorbed radiation. > "In the experiment, the [cell] culture was being exposed to > 1 mGy over a > few minutes," she said. One of the problems I see with this data is that macroscopic effects of radiation have been looked at very carefully and with exception of a few controversial studies that used statistics in a unconventional way there have been no studies that show that low dose radiation is a problem. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
