Sorry guys, but mammograms DO cause breast cancer.
Hi eric578, apart from the fact that a person with no cancer diagnosis before the mammogram gets a cancer diagnosis after, do you have ANY evidence from a reputable science source to support your stance? Apologies if this is a poe.?
Is this the woman who took her kid to a chiropracter and they told her there was nothing wrong?
Eric - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Yes it is, Matt. And Eric, are you serious?
Mammograms use x-rays. X-rays cause cancer. While the benefit to risk ratio is extremely high, it is technically true that mammograms cause cancer.
By that logic pretty much anything causes cancer...?
It does according to The Daily Mail
According to the UK National Radiological Protection Board (2001), each mammogram raises lifetime cancer risk by between one in 10,000 and one in 100, 000. While that is very small, it is not zero. There is no 'safe' dose of radiation.
If 40%-80% of people who had an Xray did develop Breast Cancer i wouls agree with you, but they dont
when you travel on a plane you receive 30 times the normal background radiation... it raises your risk of cancer by radiation 30 times. but 30 times zilch is still zilch.
An initially plausible assumption, however, eric578, you assert mammograms CAUSE cancer, which is a major leap from X-rays may cause spontaneous tumour generation and growth in healthy tissue. Please adjust your position to reflect reality, rather than what appears to be paranoid extrapolation of a simplistic understanding of ionising radiation and cancer. Thanks in advance.
Between 1/10,000 and 1/100,000? That's not just small. It's so miniscule as to be irrelevant. I think you're arguing for the sake of it.
A cross country flight causes a dose of about 0.03 sV. A mammogram causes 3-5 sV. Thus a mammogram is two orders of magnitude more intense than one cross-country flight.
A flight takes orders of magnitude longer.
If a woman received 20 mammograms in her life, her cancer risk would increase by 0.2-0.02%. In 175 million women in the United States, that's 35,000 new cancers. Not negligible.
Pie new - it is the meme that should change its terminology. It could very legitimately make fun of her for denying that mammograms save lives, for instance. It is, however, technically true that mammograms cause cancer.
That's true, but the above meme doesn't say 'denies that mammograms save lives' or 'doesn't think cancer screening is worthwhile'. The statement it attributes to her is, strictly speaking, true.
I am not debating the meme eric578, but am holding you to task re your initial assertion that mammograms CAUSE cancer. I'm pleased that you now adjusted your position to "they pose a theoretical risk." Thanks?
There's a world of difference between saying "X causes Y" and "X may increase risk of Y". You have stated both in this thread, so which is it?
Have I? It is very well established in the literature that x-rays cause cancer. The risk is quite real. The fact that it's outweighed by the benefits, or small in comparison to other things, does not make it less real.
Actually I was responding to 'opposed to the measured risk of not getting checked' I'm not even sure what 'theoretical risk' even means here, since mammograms and the X rays involved are not theoretical.
eric578, can you provide any papers that prove mammograms CAUSE cancer? Or are you limited to papers which indicate that the ionising radiation used, in the doses specified, might cause an increased probability of a cancer developing? The latter is a THEORETICAL risk, as opposed to a measured risk based upon actual measured changes in a sample population which is then extrapolated the a broader population.
No, I can't, because such data would be impossible to tease out. Whatever cancers were actually caused by mammograms would be drowned in all the extra cancers that mammograms pick up. The only way to show how many cancers are actually caused would be to compare it to a noncarcinogenic screening method of EXACTLY the same efficacy. No such method exists, so this is an impossible standard of evidence. If you use 'theoretical' to mean 'hasn't been shown specifically to result from this specific intervention,' then yes, it's 'theoretical', but it's also a totally meaningless distinction, since that standard of evidence is not attainable. In the words of the American Cancer Society, "Most scientists an regulatory agencies agree that even small doses of gamma and x-radiation increase cancer risk... There is not threshold below which this kind of radiation is thought to be safe."
So, "going outdoors causes cancer " is a legitimate claim? I'd like to see you post that one up;-)
No, but "sun exposure causes cancer" is an absolutely true claim.
So, "Going outdoors causes cancer " Bear in mind that there's plenty of accidental radiation shielding in buildings?
'going outdoors during the day'? Yes. My brother has a hole in his head if you doubt that.
"Going outdoors in the day time causes cancer " Cool
I wonder what the probability of developing cancer is in comparison with getting a.mammogram? "Going outdoors is xxxx times more dangerous than getting a mammogram, from the point of view of getting cancer."
Quibbling over magnitudes: the predictable last redoubt of people who are wrong.
LOL I think you did that earlier in this thread?
Ah, here you go: " A cross country flight causes a dose of about 0.03 sV. A mammogram causes 3-5 sV. Thus a mammogram is two orders of magnitude more intense than one cross-country flight."
'Mammograms cause cancer' 'No they don't' 'Yes, they do.' 'Well, uh... Not that often!!' Powerful argument, that.
Aaaaand, you are wrong about the importance of orders of magnitude. Either you lack an understanding of how powers work, or you are being obtuse. I think you are smart enough for the latter. Not a bad poe eric578.
Man, you really like to tell other people what they think.
LOL Just quoting your work?
Right, I'm off snorkeling in the Mediterranean, or sunbathing, or both. Take care? Pie
It's a fair characterization, really. You couldn't keep up your 'theoretical' hair-splitting, so you resorted to comparing it with something that seems innocuous, like that changes the facts.
Oh good, thank you, I was waiting for the inevitable 'I'm off cause I'm sooo much better than this debate.'
Hang on - an increased risk of, say, 0.2% is a percentage of the lifetime risk - not of the number of cancers out there.
So, if a woman has, say, a 12.5% chance of developing breast cancer in her lifetime, the 20 mammograms increased her risk by 0.2% of 12.5% - I call that pretty negligible.
The idea that mammograms increase susceptibility to cancer is slightly true, but you get more damaging radiation exposure every day by walking outside. That's like blaming a sugar wafer for your diabetes when all you eat is candy and mcdonalds and drink soda every day. Cancer isn't caused by a single mutation, it's caused by multiple mutations. Thus the possibility of getting cancer from such a low level of radiation in such a small period of time is improbable. You can't compare genetic susceptibility rates with this.
Actually that was derived from a statement of 'lifetime additional cancer risk per exam' - One new cancer in ten to a hundred thousand exposures.
OK, but the range you gave - 0.2 - 0.02 - isn't very accurate. And, over here, women whose mammograms are negative get only seven of them (aged 50 - 64).
How do you figure it 'isn't very accurate'?
eric578, torturing numbers that are not significant statistically and even less so clinically to come up with a distorted meaning and support special pleading for woo is not appreciated here, especially when it is a distortion that is very dangerous when taken literally to people's health. you have made your point as meaningless as it is to the big picture. now you need to drop it if you don't want us to drop you.
Using the same logic, vaccination kills, so dont vaccinate. The OP refers to the fact that this person claims mammograms cause cancer with the intention of convincing scientifically illiterate people to not get them to screen for breast cancer.
eric has left the building kids and i haven't even had coffee yet so i am NOT amused. i strongly suggest that anyone else who wants to fuck with me and the page today wait until i do because this shit will end even less well for you if i am not caffeinated. ty and carry on.
Thanks, Rita. I was gobsmacked that he thought he had a point at all (and that a range of 0.2 - 0.02 was 'accurate')!
yw hon, i'm just sorry i missed this clown until now. that's what i get for sleeping late, lol
Someone get this lady some coffee!
I'd say this was a good enough reason for me to to leave the "argument "; particularly as our erstwhile educator had tied himself in knots before using a strawman, crapping on the chessboard and flying off?
haha, knowing you well enough Rita my first thought at your first comment was "uh-oh, she's not had coffee yet?"
Eric is (or at least was at one point) a member of a pro-vax group where he regularly shits on posts for stupid reasons. For example last week he started yelling at someone for posting a flu shot selfie and called it "narcissism".
I'd like to remind everyone that I'm not related to him. ?
I find it ironic that he accused Pie New of hair splitting.
I love it