August 20th, 2011 → 12:37 pm @

CT or CAT Scans, MRI Scans and PET Scans.

Cancer defeated. Go to: custserve@cancerdefeated.com.

This article came to my notice and I thought you would like to read some of it, as these dangerous scans are being used at an alarming rate and increasing daily.

In the USA, 3 million CAT scans were performed in 1980 and now the figure has increased to 70 million per year.

People are not aware of the dangers of these radiation devices and are still thinking that an X-ray is alright, but when you see the tables below, you will realise that the CT scans and PET scans, are many times more dangerous that X-rays.

In fact some people think that CT scans are less dangerous than X-rays. They are very ill-informed and maybe it is what they have been told by their doctor, I don’t know.

Radiation from CT scans are hundreds of times higher than X-rays and the doctors don’t tell you that.

You get 4 times more radiation from a CT scan than originally thought.

An abdominal CT scan, exposes you to the same radiation amounts as 500 X-rays.

Yes, CT scans have virtually eliminated millions of exploratory surgeries and have allowed doctors to make critical diagnoses, but at the same time, they are widely overused and even abused. Whole body CT scans, sometimes performed on healthy people “for peace of mind”, are equal to 900 chest X-rays

Diagnostic procedure Typical Effective dose (m Sv)¹ Number of chest X-rays (PA film for equivalent effective dose² Time period for Equivalent Effective dose from natural background radiation³
Chest X-ray 0.02 1 2.4 days
Skull X-ray 0.07 4 8.5 days
Lumbar spine 1.3 65 158 days
IV Urogram 2.5 125 304 days
Upper GI exam. 3 150 1.0 year
Barium enema 7 350 2.3 years
CT scan (head) 2 100 243 days
CT scan (abdomen) 10 500 3.3 years
1. Effective dose in mili-sieverts (mSv)
2. Assumes an average “effective dose” from chest X-ray of 0.02 mSv
3. Assumes an annual average “effective dose” from natural background radiation of 3 mSv in the USA

Source: European Commission, Radiation Protection Report 118, “Referral guidelines for imaging”

Directorate General for the environment of the European Commission; 2000


1. What alternatives can I use, that don’t involve radiation, like ultrasound, MRI or digital photographics in dentistry.

  1. Is the test really necessary. (Remember doctors fear malpractice)
  2. What difference will it make in my case, if the result of the test is positive?
  3. Is the facility accredited by the college of Radiology? Will the test use the lowest level of radiation for adequate imaging?
  4. Will the scan be limited to the affected area ONLY and will the nearby areas be shielded?

These following tests should never be used, as they emit too much radiation:

  1. Heart scans
  2. CT scans
  3. Whole body scans
  4. Pet scans
  5. Virtual colonoscopies.

Remember what I said in my book “Victory over dis…eases”,:

It is your body!

You are in charge!

You employ the doctor for a fee!

You make the decisions!

Say NO if you feel you don’t want a scan done, because of the radiation effects on your healthy tissues.


Discuss these issues with your doctor and take a witness with you, because of your emotional state in cases where there is a serious problem. Don’t be forced into anything you do not want. They will often try to scare you into doing these tests, but check the alternatives.

Referrals to other types of diagnostic services are very often a money making business in medicine.



Comments are closed.