Think X-Rays Are Safe? Ha Ha
| Author |
Message |
|
BMC2
#1 / 14
|
 Think X-Rays Are Safe? Ha Ha Before you flame, Please go to: http://www.***.com/
by John Goffman, MD, PhD (in Nuclear and Physical Chemistry) Prof Emeritus at
Cal State berkeley, and at Cal Med School, SF. VERY CREDENTIALED!!
X-Ray exposure causes 50% of all cancers in Women, 74% of all Cancers in men.
X- Ray exposure causes 78% CHD in Women, 63% in Men.
http://www.***.com/
but of course, like mercury fillings and fluoride, there is no problem here!!
|
| Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:21:36 GMT |
|
 |
|
pudg
#2 / 14
|
Think X-Rays Are Safe? Ha Ha Did you know just sitting there staring at your 19 inch monitor, You are getting radiation continuously RED color is especially bad about generating radiation.(requires more power) Please sit to the side of your monitor, and do not walk within 3 feet of the face
of the monitor.
The radiation covers approx a 90 degree arc.
Best wishes
Pudge
BTW, this is not a problem with the newer "flat screen" monitors.
Quote:
> Before you flame, Please go to: > http://www.x-raysandhealth.org/
> by John Goffman, MD, PhD (in Nuclear and Physical Chemistry) Prof Emeritus at
> Cal State berkeley, and at Cal Med School, SF. VERY CREDENTIALED!!
> X-Ray exposure causes 50% of all cancers in Women, 74% of all Cancers in men.
> X- Ray exposure causes 78% CHD in Women, 63% in Men.
> http://www.ratical.org/radiation/REHW693.html
> but of course, like mercury fillings and fluoride, there is no problem here!!
|
| Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:43:10 GMT |
|
|
|
Steven Bornfel
#3 / 14
|
Think X-Rays Are Safe? Ha Ha Oh, good. Another anonymous poster saying we're bad guys. I'm guessing Goffman has some patented method of reducing radiation exposure. If he has, he should present it up front, so it can be evaluated. There is a long history of trying to reduce occupational and diagnostic exposure in dentistry and medicine. If Goffman has something useful to sell, I'd like to hear about it. Most dentists I know are very responsible about x-ray use. Another thing. It is not possible that x-ray exposures cause the stated percentages of cancer in men and women. Much of the data dealing with increased cancer risk from radiation exposure comes from extrapolation of data from the survivors of atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. None of the data suggest anywhere near that risk. In fact, the data I've seen suggest no increased risk of death from leukemia (often used as a proxy for increased cancer death risk) in dentists. Steve
Quote:
> Before you flame, Please go to: > http://www.x-raysandhealth.org/
> by John Goffman, MD, PhD (in Nuclear and Physical Chemistry) Prof Emeritus at
> Cal State berkeley, and at Cal Med School, SF. VERY CREDENTIALED!!
> X-Ray exposure causes 50% of all cancers in Women, 74% of all Cancers in men.
> X- Ray exposure causes 78% CHD in Women, 63% in Men.
> http://www.ratical.org/radiation/REHW693.html
> but of course, like mercury fillings and fluoride, there is no problem here!!
|
| Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:33:05 GMT |
|
|
|
Steven Fawk
#4 / 14
|
Think X-Rays Are Safe? Ha Ha And all this time, I thought tobacco had a hand in it.
SWF DDS
Quote:
> Before you flame, Please go to:
> http://www.x-raysandhealth.org/
> by John Goffman, MD, PhD (in Nuclear and Physical Chemistry) Prof Emeritus at
> Cal State berkeley, and at Cal Med School, SF. VERY CREDENTIALED!!
> X-Ray exposure causes 50% of all cancers in Women, 74% of all Cancers in men.
> X- Ray exposure causes 78% CHD in Women, 63% in Men.
> http://www.ratical.org/radiation/REHW693.html
> but of course, like mercury fillings and fluoride, there is no problem here!!
|
| Tue, 07 Oct 2003 22:06:25 GMT |
|
|
|
OMFS Associate
#5 / 14
|
Think X-Rays Are Safe? Ha Ha Me too Steve but I think it is actually the interaction of tobacco, mercury vapor and Xrays that are 99.99% of all problems. They remaining .01% are failed TMJ implants. Dave
Quote:
> And all this time, I thought tobacco had a hand in it. > SWF DDS
> > Before you flame, Please go to:
> > http://www.x-raysandhealth.org/
> > by John Goffman, MD, PhD (in Nuclear and Physical Chemistry) Prof Emeritus at
> > Cal State berkeley, and at Cal Med School, SF. VERY CREDENTIALED!!
> > X-Ray exposure causes 50% of all cancers in Women, 74% of all Cancers in men.
> > X- Ray exposure causes 78% CHD in Women, 63% in Men.
> > http://www.ratical.org/radiation/REHW693.html
> > but of course, like mercury fillings and fluoride, there is no problem here!!
-- ________________ HTTP://WWW.DEOMFS.COM
|
| Tue, 07 Oct 2003 22:16:57 GMT |
|
|
|
Vaughn Simo
#6 / 14
|
Think X-Rays Are Safe? Ha Ha OK, I read it. Just one of thousands of perhaps well-meaning web pages out there. I agree with you on a couple of points. 1) There is no such thing as a "safe" dose of radiation. It is a matter of
risk vs. benefit and you must make that decision for yourself. The less
dose, the better.
2) Some dentists that I have spoken to do not have a real good handle on
radiation health physics. That is; they could not tell me what the dose was
from their machine and they had no idea how that compared with other medical
x-rays. They just tell you that it is "small".
If you want to duck the radiation dose from your dentist, either tell
him/her that you would rather risk an undiagnosed cavity, or find a dentist
that uses one of the new low-dose digital machines. I have done the first
for years, allowing perhaps one full series every five years. I have also
looked at my chiropractor's ancient machine and said "no thanks". I think
that this is warranted in my particular case because I was a nuclear worker
in my early years.
Scientific research is found in peer-reviewed professional journals, not in
hack web pages. Do some better library work and then come back and talk.
If you use a real name, that will help also. There are so many causes of
cancer; natural, artificial, chemical, biological, that the figures you cite
could are not believable.
Vaughn
Quote: > Before you flame, Please go to: > http://www.x-raysandhealth.org/
> by John Goffman, MD, PhD (in Nuclear and Physical Chemistry) Prof Emeritus
at
> Cal State berkeley, and at Cal Med School, SF. VERY CREDENTIALED!!
> X-Ray exposure causes 50% of all cancers in Women, 74% of all Cancers in
men.
> X- Ray exposure causes 78% CHD in Women, 63% in Men.
> http://www.ratical.org/radiation/REHW693.html
> but of course, like mercury fillings and fluoride, there is no problem
here!!
|
| Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:48:45 GMT |
|
|
|
Steven Fawk
#7 / 14
|
Think X-Rays Are Safe? Ha Ha You write better come-backs than I do! LOL,
SWF DDS
Quote:
> Me too Steve but I think it is actually the interaction of tobacco, mercury vapor
> and Xrays that are 99.99% of all problems. They remaining .01% are failed TMJ
> implants.
> Dave
> > And all this time, I thought tobacco had a hand in it.
> > SWF DDS
|
| Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:58:44 GMT |
|
|
|
Futurene
#8 / 14
|
Think X-Rays Are Safe? Ha Ha Steve; I dont think he was saying DDS's are bad, like MD's they are well meaning. But
institutional education is not questioned by students, just taken as de-facto.
nevertheless, there are vested interests behind these institutions.
Read up on chemotherapy by Ralph Moss, for a good example. Perhaps a few books
on evolutionary psychology and deception/lying for a good primer on human
nature. Put 2 & 2 together
|
| Thu, 09 Oct 2003 10:54:51 GMT |
|
|
|
Steven Fawk
#9 / 14
|
Think X-Rays Are Safe? Ha Ha My comment was not directed to imply that all X-rays are perfectly safe and should be used at frequent intervals. It simply was to point out that zeroing in on X-rays as a cause for cancer is a little silly *if* you ignore the more frequent causes. Some dentists take X-rays at every check-up for every patient. When the
patient is at low risk for perio and decay, this is an attempt to get a
little more money out of the patient and insurance company.
Even with "regular" X-rays, there are fast films which reduce the
radiation and the frequency of use is very important.
SWF DDS
Quote: > Steve;
> I dont think he was saying DDS's are bad, like MD's they are well meaning. But
> institutional education is not questioned by students, just taken as de-facto.
> nevertheless, there are vested interests behind these institutions.
> Read up on chemotherapy by Ralph Moss, for a good example. Perhaps a few books
> on evolutionary psychology and deception/lying for a good primer on human
> nature. Put 2 & 2 together
|
| Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:04:55 GMT |
|
|
|
James Margari
#10 / 14
|
Think X-Rays Are Safe? Ha Ha At a radiation safety seminar a number of years back, a radiation biologist gave us a breakdown of our radiation exposure (here at altitude, 4000ft). After totalling all of the natural radiation sources like radon gas, radioactive minerals and cosmic radiation, diagnostic radiation comprised a whopping 0.1% of a persons yearly load. But, since 99.9% of the sources can't conspire against you nor provide cash
awards in court proceedings, they couldn't possibly be a significant part of
the problem.
Jim Margarit, DDS
ps. Any other dentists out there have smokers for patients that refuse xrays
and fluoride because of the "excessive" health risks?
Quote: > Me too Steve but I think it is actually the interaction of tobacco, mercury vapor > and Xrays that are 99.99% of all problems. They remaining .01% are failed TMJ > implants. > Dave
> > And all this time, I thought tobacco had a hand in it.
> > SWF DDS
> > > Before you flame, Please go to:
> > > http://www.x-raysandhealth.org/
|
| Sat, 11 Oct 2003 09:21:30 GMT |
|
|
|
Steven Fawk
#11 / 14
|
Think X-Rays Are Safe? Ha Ha Quote: > But, since 99.9% of the sources can't conspire against you nor provide cash > awards in court proceedings, they couldn't possibly be a significant part of > the problem. > Jim Margarit, DDS
> ps. Any other dentists out there have smokers for patients that refuse xrays
> and fluoride because of the "excessive" health risks?
And worry about amalgam! ;-)
SWF DDS
|
| Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:36:36 GMT |
|
|
|
BMC2
#12 / 14
|
Think X-Rays Are Safe? Ha Ha Steve; I dont mean to challenge you, but dont you think an MD with a PhD in nuclear
chemistry, who has spent considerable time in research (w/data NOT based on
1940 and 50's atomic testing but on more recent cancer incidence/physician
density data) is a little more qualified in saying x-rays are as dangerous,
than a DDS with very little expertise in the field saying this is 'silly'?
|
| Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:42:17 GMT |
|
|
|
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DD
#13 / 14
|
Think X-Rays Are Safe? Ha Ha Perhaps you quoted some statistics out of context. What I heard was that most cancer is caused by x-rays. Even accepting that (dubious) nugget, what is the cancer risk from medical x-rays (diagnostic and therapeutic)? All diagnostic x-rays? Dental x-rays? BTW, what is CHD? Steve
Quote:
> Steve; > I dont mean to challenge you, but dont you think an MD with a PhD in nuclear
> chemistry, who has spent considerable time in research (w/data NOT based on
> 1940 and 50's atomic testing but on more recent cancer incidence/physician
> density data) is a little more qualified in saying x-rays are as dangerous,
> than a DDS with very little expertise in the field saying this is 'silly'?
-- Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 http://www.dentaltwins.com
|
| Mon, 13 Oct 2003 03:27:09 GMT |
|
|
|
Steven Fawk
#14 / 14
|
Think X-Rays Are Safe? Ha Ha Hey, challenge all you want. It's a free internet.
All that I'm saying is that *if* those quotes are correct as printed,
they are illogical considering the low levels of radiation incurred over
a lifetime for medical/dental reasons *compared* to all of the other
sources of radiation that everyone is already exposed to.
Also, it is quite obvious that smoking is a *major* cancer contributor.
Throw in {*filter*} and a few other unsafe habits and I don't think you can
possibly have 50-63% of any cancer left over for radiation to be the
primary cause.
JMHO,
SWF DDS
Quote:
> Steve;
> I dont mean to challenge you, but dont you think an MD with a PhD in nuclear
> chemistry, who has spent considerable time in research (w/data NOT based on
> 1940 and 50's atomic testing but on more recent cancer incidence/physician
> density data) is a little more qualified in saying x-rays are as dangerous,
> than a DDS with very little expertise in the field saying this is 'silly'?
|
| Mon, 13 Oct 2003 05:21:23 GMT |
|
| |
|
