Faith & Trust by Valerie Cheers Brown

This book is for those who despair that there is no other way.

Always remember that no matter what, there is an unexpected path to almost everything and you just have to believe it and claim it as yours! – Valerie Cheers Brown

Have you heard parents say, “I am so glad that my baby has ten fingers and ten toes?” Well, while these are great and important things which we can see with the eye making a baby normal, things we cannot see are and may be just as important if not more not normal like disease, which was caused by and passed down to the baby from exposures  which the mother has unknowingly harmed the child as kid, adult and most importantly carry to their senior years!

This book will touch upon different types of exposures to pregnant women which was passed down to the unborn child and they then had diseases which in some cases, would worsen as the child aged.  There are many ways of exposing an unborn child’s well-being where possible damage to their health could go all the way into adulthood and/or senior age (which to me is when you should be living your life to the fullest).

This book will discuss some from the past and the present harmful exposures which are still not being taken seriously when a mother is pregnant.

It is time for society to take it more seriously when a mother is carrying how important what she is exposed to can cause adult life issues to unborn children.

A pregnant mother must self-educate herself of the importance of what she can and cannot expose her unborn child to as well.

Disability Nation

Woman Who Knew Too Much

I was born in 1953 when many women who were pregnant and were being X-rayed, therefore, producing babies which were born with high doses of radiation passed along to them causing degenerative diseased babies.

While researching and reading the book “The Woman Who Knew Too Much” by Dr. Alice Stewart, I found out quite a lot which was not only alarming but found to be true, being a child who was born in the 1950’s and exposed to high dose of radiation was more susceptible of being born with a degenerative disease., which by Dr. Alice Stewart ‘

According to Gayle Greene (author) 1943 who wrote, “The woman who knew too much : Alice Stewart and the secrets of radiation” Review by Choice Review, “Claiming radiation to be “unsafe at any dose, Alice Stewart, MD epidemiologist, found exposure to low-level radiation far more serious than most scientists do.”

What Are Degenerative Diseases?

According to ‘Organic Facts’ – “Degenerative diseases are some of the most debilitating and painful parts of life. Basically, it is a disease characterized by a gradual worsening of a condition, including increased tissue damage, organ malfunction, and general poor health.”

“This can be caused by normal wear and tear on the body, lifestyle habits, exercise, or eating problems that exacerbate an underlying condition. These degenerative diseases can be cured through traditional medicines, but many of the diseases also have no established cure, so home remedies are often the best option for taking care of these conditions.”

“Some of the most common degenerative diseases are cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease,multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, atherosclerosis,diabetes, Osteoporosis, and rheumatoid arthritis.”

“Many of these are terrible afflictions that affect millions of people around the world. Without proper medical care or coverage, they can severely impact the quality of life of those affected, and many of these diseases are inevitably fatal. The best way to reduce the associated symptoms and even keep the degeneration at bay is to use home remedies.

Not Backing Down To A Challenge of Life

Being a person which is often misunderstood, I can only imagine what this incredible woman Alice Stewart must have gone through, yet, she did not back down and lived to be in her nineties too to tell the truth as she knew it and wrote about it, researched it, travelled and worked with others, and did many documented writings which perhaps were a real threat to society back then in the early 1900’s!

When you have been chosen to do God’s work and I do call her work a God calling, because it took great courage and even being a woman took even more courage in the early 1900’s!

Why were, why are and why am things being kept secrets when people should know especially when it comes to protecting an unborn child from radiation?

Why are so many people right now in 2016 suffering with degenerative diseases not even aware of why or how they got this disease?

If you did not know then, well you will know now, right?

This incredible woman, Alice Stewart has been shared by Gayle Greene in 1943, and now I am sharing with you in 2016 just how important her message was for many; to even right now today, especially for those who were born the 1950’s.

Dr. Alice Stewart Had Courage To Tell The Truth

Summary of “The woman who knew too much : Alice Stewart and the secrets of radiation” by Gayle Green 1943

Dr. Alice Stewart is a British disease epidemiologist specialist who changed the idea of radiation danger. Conceived in 1906, she is an extraordinary researcher with more than 400 peers checked on papers to her name and somebody who has taken bold and compelling stands on open issues.

However her disputable work lies at the focal point of a political tempest thus has just moderately as of late got critical consideration. For over forty years, Stewart has cautioned that low-dosage radiation is more perilous than has been recognized. While instructing at Oxford in the 1950s she started research that prompted the disclosure that fetal x-beams twofold the kid’s danger of creating growth. Thus, specialists no more x-beam pregnant ladies.

After two decades – when she was in her seventies- – she again amazed the exploratory world with a study demonstrating that the U.S. atomic weapons industry is around twenty times more hazardous than wellbeing directions license.

The discovering put her at the focal point of the universal contention over radiation hazard. As of late, she has ended up one of a modest bunch of autonomous researchers whose work is a lodestone to the counter atomic development.

In 1990, the New York Times called her “maybe the Energy Department’s most compelling and dreaded exploratory pundit. The Woman Who Knew Too Much follows Dr. Stewart’s life and vocation from her initial adolescence in Sheffield to her restorative instruction at Cambridge to her exploration positions at Oxford and the University of Birmingham.

The book joins a developing number of accounts of spearheading ladies researchers, for example, Barbara McClintock, Rosalind Franklin and Lise Meitner and will locate an extensive variety of grateful researchers, incorporating those intrigued by the historical backdrop of science and innovation and of the historical backdrop of ladies in science and solution.

Activists and approach creators will likewise discover the account of Alice Stewart convincing researching. Gayle Greene is Professor of Women’s Studies and Literature, Scripps College. She is the writer of Changing the Story: Feminist Fiction and the Tradition; Doris Lessing: The Poetics of Change and coeditor of Making a Difference: Feminist Literary Criticism Visit http://www.alicestewart.org for determinations from the book, photographs, and surveys.

The depiction of “The Woman Who Knew Too Much” Alice Stewart and the Secrets of Radiation, Gayle Greene, Foreword by Helen Caldicott, the life story of the epidemiologist who discovered the harmful effects of fetal X-rays and other radiation exposure.

This memoir enlightens the life and accomplishments of the striking lady researcher who upset the idea of radiation danger.

In the 1950s Alice, Stewart started research that prompted her revelation that fetal X beams twofold a baby’s danger of creating a tumor. After two decades—when she was in her seventies—she again amazed the experimental world with a study demonstrating that the U.S. atomic weapons industry is around twenty times more unsafe than security controls license. This discovering put her at the focal point of the worldwide debate over radiation hazard. In 1990, the New York Times called Stewart “maybe the Energy Department’s most compelling and dreaded exploratory faultfinder.”

 

When is Exposure to Radiation Considered High Risk?

According to the CDC Centers for Disease Control Prevention:

High-Risk Groups

  • Although anyone exposed to radiation may experience health effects, a developing fetus is the most vulnerable to the effects of radiation exposure.
  • Infants, children, the elderly, pregnant women, and people with compromised immune systems are more vulnerable to health effects from radiation exposure than healthy adults.
  • It is important for everyone, especially these groups to follow protective action instructions and to seek medical attention after a radiation emergency as soon as it is safe to do so.

Pregnancy

Pregnancy illustrationPregnant women should follow the same protective action instructions as everyone else.

If pregnant women are advised to visit a community reception center (CRC) they should let CRC staff know about their pregnancy so that they can receive additional attention.

Contact your doctor for additional information. Your doctor can help you understand more about the risks of radiation exposure to you and to your developing baby.

Nursing Mothers

  • In a radiation emergency, it is possible for nursing mothers who are near the affected area to be exposed to radiation or to become internally contaminated with radioactive material.
    • Radioactive materials can be passed to babies through breast milk of mothers with internal contamination.
  • If possible, nursing mothers should consider temporarily stopping breastfeeding and switch to either breast milk (that was pumped and stored before the exposure) or formula, until they can be seen by a health care professional.
    • Formula containers and feeding supplies should be cleaned with a damp cloth or clean towel before use. Put the used cloth or towel in a plastic bag or other sealable container and place the bag in an out-of-the-way place, away from other people and pets.
    • If no other source of food is available, continue to breastfeed. Wash the nipple and breast thoroughly with soap and warm water before nursing.
  • If nursing mothers are advised to visit a CRC, they should let CRC staff know so that they can receive appropriate attention.
  • For additional questions or concerns, contact your healthcare provider.

Important Note For Women 

If you are pregnant (or if you are thinking about getting pregnant) and you have questions about how radiation exposure could affect you or your pregnancy, you should talk with your doctor.

Your doctor can help you better understand the risks of radiation exposure to you and to your developing baby.

X-Rays in Utero

In spite of the fact that the X-beam industry and its therapeutic advocates accentuate that the measurements from symptomatic radiation are little, impressive confirmation has surfaced showing that the wellbeing impacts can decimate, especially to the unborn fetus.[24]

Truth be told, one of the world’s first and greatest radiation studies was led in the mid-1950s to the impacts of X beams on unborn kids, and it has importantly affected all verbal confrontation over safe radiation exposures since.

The study started in 1955, when David Hewitt, an analyst at England’s Oxford University, saw that in a former couple of years there had been more than a 50 percent expansion in the quantity of British youngsters biting the dust of leukemia. His preparatory insights persuaded Dr. Alice Stewart of Oxford’s Department of Preventative Medicine to scan on purpose. Prepared as a pediatrician and disease transmission specialist, Stewart started jumbling Britain, influencing neighborhood wellbeing authorities to meet the moms of each of the 1,694 youngsters who kicked the bucket of malignancy the past two years. An equivalent number of solid moms and youngsters were utilized as controls.

As the meetings amassed, a reason for the abundance growths rose. Stewart and Hewitt filtered through the information and found that twice the same number of malignancy passings happened before the age of ten among kids whose moms had gotten a progression of pelvic X beams while pregnant.[25] “It was very unintentionally that we caught the radiation story,” Stewart told us.[26]

The “mischance” was not generally welcomed by either the medicinal group or the atomic business. an X-beam photo of a baby in utero had been secured as ahead of schedule as February of 1896- – two months after Roentgen’s revelation – and it had gotten to be normal practice to utilize X beams to recognize various births or strange conditions in the uterus, and to illuminate the diagrams of the mother’s pelvis to help in delivery.[27] Hewitt’s and Stewart’s discoveries risked those practices and tossed into uncertainty the whole establishment of the wellbeing models for radiation. Such dosages from X beams were accepted to be sheltered. At the time their study was issued, it was, by and large, trusted that the “edge” underneath which radiation introduction was sheltered was about ten rads. The new discoveries showed that a solitary rad of X-beam measurements to a baby in utero could prompt a higher shot of youth leukemia.[28]

Dr. Stewart soon wound up under a flood of feedback. She lost her staff and her financing for the Oxford study. However, she proceeded with in any case. In 1958, with an extended information base, she reasoned that a baby uncovered in the initial three months of advancement was ten times more prone to create tumor than an unexposed hatchling. The danger expanded with the quantity of exposures, even a solitary X beam was found to contribute. Stewart likewise found that X beams to a lady who was not pregnant could likewise prompt harm in future posterity. Ladies convey their eggs from birth, and Stewart found the X beams would be especially destructive in the event that they influenced the moms’ ovaries.[29]

In 1962 Stewart’s troubled study got intense affirmation from Dr. Brian MacMahon of the Harvard School of Public Health. An investigation of 700,000 youngsters conceived somewhere around 1947 and 1964 was led in thirty-seven noteworthy maternity healing centers in the Northeast. MacMahon looked at the offspring of seventy thousand moms who had gotten pelvic X beams amid pregnancy with the offspring of moms who had not been X-rayed. He found that malignancy mortality was 40 percent higher among the youngsters with X-rayed mothers.[30] It was a shocking affirmation of Stewart’s discoveries, a significant defining moment in the radiation contention, and made basically certain the conclusion that the human hatchling was much more helpless against unsuccessful labor, deformities, and tumor from X beams than anybody had already trusted conceivable. In 1963 MacMahon told a Joint Committee on Atomic Energy hearing on bomb aftermath in southern Utah that “we should consider genuinely the likelihood of tumor generation by low dosages of radiation, for example, experienced in x beam finding and even fallout.”[31]

However two decades after Stewart initially distributed her discoveries, and fourteen years after MacMahon affirmed them, little had been done to caution the general population. A 1976 phone overview by the New York Public Interest Research Group demonstrated that ladies of childbearing age who experienced X-beam examinations were regularly not inquired as to whether they were pregnant.[32] At 1980 hearings for radiation casualties, held in Washington, Dr. Karl Z. Morgan recalled how he and others had “battled for a considerable length of time to pass a suggestion . . . that ladies in the childbearing age ought not to be given x beams in the pelvic and stomach area with the exception of amid crisis circumstances and aside from amid the ten-day interim after the start of the feminine cycle.” The disappointment of the X-beam industry to go along was, he said, “one of the most concerning issues in decreasing the hurtful impacts of radiation.”[33]

In 1970, the most recent year in which the central government examined X-beam records on a national scale, it found that 23 percent of the 3.5 million pregnant ladies in the United States were presented to therapeutic X beams – around eight hundred thousand ladies. In 9 percent of these cases- – including more than seventy thousand people – the embryo was presented to the X-beam shaft. After five years an investigation of sixty-eight thousand single conveyances in sixteen healing facilities amid 1969 and 1970 evaluated that pelvic X beams were given in 6.9 percent of the cases. Current appraisals show that pelvic X beams are still given in around 6 percent of all live births in the United States, however, a few offices regulate them at a far higher rate.[34]

Tragically the act of X-raying pregnant ladies as of now has had substantial impacts. In January of 1957 Emma Rita Mihal, an Ohio housewife went to an obstetrician and let him know she was pregnant. “In any case, she recollects that, “he demanded that I was not pregnant” and afterward requested month-long radiation medications for endometritis, an irritation of the coating of the womb. A couple of weeks after the finish of the treatment Mrs. Mihal came back to the obstetrician. The specialist, she said, “took the stethoscope and he tuned in, and after that . . . he swung to me and said, `Mrs. Mihal, you are pregnant.’ . . . It was the exact opposite thing that man ever let me know.” Worried about what the radiation treatment may have done to her unborn youngster, Mihal went to her radiologist. “He took me by the shoulder and he said, `I need you to go home, your child will be fine.'” But when Kathleen Mihal was conceived on September 19, 1957, she appeared on the scene with the undersized leader of a microcephalic. Radiation smolders scarred her back.

Mihal reviewed that her specialists “never let me know I shouldn’t have another kid. I became pregnant once more, and here again, my other kid is extraordinarily harmed, in light of the fact that she has hereditary harms. She was wiped out from the day she was born.”[35]

In spite of the fact that the Mihals’ story was an amazing one, it and different cases eventually couldn’t be disregarded. Extra studies have now connected X-beam measurements to ladies even before pregnancy with critical ascents among posterity in Down’s disorder and deadly disease before the age of fifteen.[36] Finally, in April of 1980, the Bureau of Radiological Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists dispatched a monstrous state-funded training program cautioning of the harming impacts of radiation (and in addition certain medications) on pregnancies.[37] The purchaser instruction project is a piece of BRH’s nonpersonnel spending plan, which was cut in the financial year 1981 from $6.3 million to $6.1 million. Projections for FY 1982 at the season of this written work put that financial plan at $5.9 million.[38]

Why So Many X-Rays?

Advocates of nuclear force and weaponry have for some time been worried that signs that little measurements of X beams might be hurtful would think about gravely the suitability of nuclear reactors and the security of bomb testing. Dr. Stewart’s underlying study, for instance, was the principal major epidemiological sign that low-level aftermath could be much more perilous than the right now acknowledged breaking points. Truth be told, even as late as 1979, amid the mischance at Three Mile Island, atomic defenders were contending that introduction levels from the plant were equivalent to a solitary X beam, and subsequently protected. Be that as it may, Dr. Stewart’s study, and a large group of others had demonstrated that even a solitary X beam could effectively affect a newborn child in utero and other defenseless individuals from the group. As Dr. Allan Reiskin, teacher of radiology at the University of Connecticut, told a congressional subcommittee in the wake of the mishap, “these examinations are unseemly in light of the fact that they neglect to perceive drastically distinctive conveyance of radiation energies, diverse measurement rates, distinctive sorts of radiation, and distinctive sorts of populace that are irradiated.”[55]

Another explanation behind an abundance of X beams might be that they add to the salary of specialists and therapeutic organizations. X-beam gear is excessive and as the best in class rapidly changes, more established yet usable models get to be out of date. Specialists who put a great many dollars in X-beam machines may well be slanted to utilize them more than completely important trying to recover their speculation. Maybe the innovation most helpless against this sort of money related thought is the new “mechanized pivotal tomography checking” machine- – the CT scanner. This gadget was presented in 1973 and can perform exact examinations of the cerebrum and, all the more as of late, the entire body. It contains an X-beam tube and an electronic indicator arranged on a roundabout track. While pivoting, the scanner can take a large number of radiographs in almost no time and make a PC prepared cross-area perspective of the patient’s body on a video screen. A visual cut can be taken by anyone part.[56]

The CT scanner can be immensely helpful – furthermore tremendously costly, costing up to $1 million to purchase and $500,000 every year to keep up. A body sweep can cost $250 (CT radiation treatment can keep running as high as $36,000 per quiet) and by the mid-1980s, more than two million Americans were experiencing CT examinations each year.[57] Unfortunately, the radiation measurements are not immaterial, extending as high as forty-five hundred millirems for some scans.[58]

The inquiry should unavoidably emerge concerning whether the machines once purchased may be abused for money-related reasons. That inquiry has likewise emerged in the field of dental X beams. The normal skin measurement per dental X-beam film is around 910 millirems, about triple the entire body dosage from foundation radiation. Despite the fact that the measurements deep down is much lower- – four millirems- – a full mouth arrangement can include sixteen or more individual X-beam movies and can convey a considerable dosage of radiation to the mouth.[59] A 1976 phone review of five hundred New York dental practitioners by the New York Public Interest Research Group found that 89 percent of them normally incorporated a full arrangement of full-mouth X beams amid a patient’s first visit to the workplace. Almost a large portion of the dental specialists rehashed X beams of the mouth at any rate once a year.[60] According to radiological wellbeing master James L. Walker, numerous dental specialists “feel that the dental x-beam is a minor, little presentation and it’s not so much a hazard.”[61]

Shockingly, large portions of the professionals directing dental X beams are no preferred prepared over those working in specialists’ workplaces. What’s more, however, lead “kiddie aprons” have been as of late acquainted with secure patients in a few dental specialists’ workplaces, touchy organs, for example, the thyroid, salivary organs, dynamic bone marrow, and lymphatics are as yet being uncovered. Disperse radiation may likewise influence different parts of the body, including the gonads, an especially imperative issue among children.[62]

Specialists at the 1981 National Council on Health Care Technology Conference on Dental Radiology concurred that dental practitioners depend on a lot of X beams. Gathering members reasoned that X beams ought to be managed just when clinically demonstrated, i.e., after the patient’s mouth has been outwardly analyzed and there have all the earmarks of being a distinct requirement for more information.[63]

Another type of exploratory X beam under investigation is the utilization of mid-section X beams to discover tumors and tuberculosis. As right on time as 1965 the Public Health Service required a conclusion to routine mid-section X beams as a method for recognizing tuberculosis. PHS contended that tuberculosis was on the decrease and that 95 percent of the general population with dynamic TB had been recognized without X-beam screening. PHS additionally discovered that mid-section X-beam units- – huge numbers of which were portable, moving around in vans- – delivered more elevated amounts of the introduction than other radiological gear, and that a substantial fragment of the populace was getting superfluous measures of radiation with little return. Regardless X-raying of youngsters with versatile units proceeded with basically unabated until 1972, when the PHS again required a conclusion to the practice, this time in conjunction with the American College of Radiology and the American College of Chest Physicians.[64]

Mid-section X beams remain a piece of numerous normal wellbeing physicals and screening programs went for discovering the heart and breathing illnesses. Genuine inquiries have been raised by the Medical College of Pennsylvania about their adequacy in advancing the early treatment of lung cancer.[65] But in 1977 thirty-seven million mid-section X beams were performed in healing facilities the nation over. In February of 1978 President Jimmy Carter endorsed an order prescribing, in addition to other things, that normal X-beam screening of patients who demonstrated no specific manifestations ought to be stopped, with the exception of in particular circumstances of high illness hazard due to social or monetary factors.[66]

In April of 1979, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals declared that it no more required or suggested a routine lab or X-beam examination upon admission to the doctor’s facility. In February of 1981, as a feature of the Reagan diminishments in household uses, the central government spared four million dollars and maybe various lives by dispensing with its system of routine mid-section X beams for somewhere in the range of 160,000 government representatives in thirty-seven agencies.[67]

In any case, X beams keep on being endorsed and shot all over America in what Irwin Bross has depicted as a “careless” fashion.[68] Ironically, one of the central givers to this continuous presentation is the American protection program. Medicinal misbehavior risk differs from state to state. Various insurance agencies require an X beam before they will repay a patient for treatment. The Social Security Act requires an X beam to be submitted as verification of requirement for chiropractic treatment.[69]

Maybe the most exceedingly awful issue dwells in the restorative negligence laws. These differ from state to state, however by and large they are a solid impetus to specialists to give various X beams far in the overabundance of genuine therapeutic need, in the trusts of setting up a record with which to protect themselves in the event of a claim. This “guarded medication” can be conveyed to extremes. Dr. John McClenahan, a Pennsylvania radiologist, portrays the disorder in this manner: ” If a tennis player endures elbow torment after a truck scratched the bumper of his auto, a radiologist will be approached to take pictures of the elbow, as well as of a shoulder . . . a lower arm, a neck, midsection and, after the looseness of the bowels following as the consequence of anxiety forced by the mishap, of the patient’s whole gastro-intestinal tract.”[70] Though radiologists and specialists may discover such treatment over the top, few would hazard losing a costly claim by declining to utilize it. A 1973 study by the Federal Commission on Medical Malpractice found that more than a large portion of the specialists surveyed confessed to taking part in some type of cautious medication, and after four years an American Medical Association survey discovered 75 percent of the specialists reached were requesting additional X beams to shield themselves from lawsuits.[71]

 Mammography and Other Problems

Shockingly, kids in utero have not been the main ones to experience the ill effects of the abuse of X-beam innovation. One noteworthy system of X-beam analysis – mammography, went for finding breast tumor in ladies – has likewise brought about calamity. Bosom malignancy is the main source of death among American ladies between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Evidently X beams have added to the issue as opposed to fathoming it.[39]

A X beam of the bosom can uncover tumors in their initial stages, consequently, can have advantageous results. But since the bosom is very radiation-touchy, the mammogram itself can bring about tumor. The peril can be uplifted by the subject’s hereditary cosmetics, previous kind bosom malady, simulated menopause, heftiness, and hormonal lopsided characteristics. Unexpectedly, on the grounds that the bosom tissue of more youthful ladies is denser than that of more seasoned ladies, identification of their malignancy through mammography is more troublesome, if not unthinkable, by and large.

Using X beams to identify bosom malignancy picked up belief in the 1930s. By the 1960s mammography was in like manner use, and a study started in 1963 by the Health Insurance Plan of New York (HIP) reasoned that mammography could decrease death rates among women.[40] In 1973 the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute cosponsored the foundation of the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Projects (BCDDP). Twenty-seven tasks were set up with the objective of analyzing a quarter million ladies. The undertaking program included direction in bosom self-examinations, an underlying clinical history, and a physical examination which incorporated a thermogram (which utilizes an infrared camera to study body temperatures) and a mammogram X beam. The whole program was rehashed every year for a long time, with a five-year perception period in the wake of screening. By 1976 around eighteen hundred instances of bosom growth had been detected.[41]

In any case, the project tackled the air of a trend. In 1974, after Betty Ford and Happy Rockefeller endured mastectomies, the enthusiasm for strategies for anticipating bosom growth took off. Rose Kushner, official chief of the Maryland-based Breast Cancer Advisory Center, observed that “ladies everywhere throughout the nation were immersed with data about this life-sparing machine, and sitting tight records for mammograms were regularly months long. Overlooked from this surge of media scope, be that as it may, was the off camera strife among researchers about the potential threat of presenting solid bosoms to a known cancer-causing agent: x ray.”[42]

In January of 1975 Dr. John C. Bailar III distributed an article in the Annals of Internal Medicine cautioning that the Health Insurance Plan study, which had provoked such a great amount of confidence in mammography, had not actually showed any expansion in survival rates among the ladies under fifty who had been given the X rays.[43] Drs. Irwin Bross and Leslie Blumenson of Buffalo’s Roswell Park Memorial Laboratory soon evaluated that in view of dose levels, twice the greatest number of passings as cures could come about because of mammographic screenings.[44] By mid 1977 Bross had turned into a blunt faultfinder of the project, calling it a “tragic slip-up” that would “create the most exceedingly awful . . . pestilence of tumor in restorative history.” At a meeting supported by the National Cancer Institute, Bross charged the American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology of subjecting a quarter million American ladies to X-beam measurements comparable “to death warrants with a 15-year delay in the execution.”[45] Dr. Rosalie Bertell, a mathematician and a specialist in radiation and the reasons for disease, later clarified that an essential arithmetical mistake had been made in the configuration of the mammography program, which may well have brought about genuine wellbeing impacts to early members in the project. Some progressions were made after the blunder was called attention to, she said, yet had the system proceeded as initially arranged, it may have created up to twelve bosom malignancies for each one it grabbed. “A great deal of this I fault on the atomic foundation,” she said, “which has made a special effort to persuade everyone that low level radiation is no risk. The atomic physicist gives disease hazard every year, though wellbeing experts give regenerative lifetime (30 year) or lifetime (70 year) hazard. A doctor utilizing a physicist’s evaluations and not taking note of the time allotment distinction will belittle the danger.” The medicinal calling, she said, was additionally tolerating the expression of the weapons business about the extent of the danger every year, regardless of the fact that remedied for more time ranges, giving atomic physicists a chance to figure out what dosages of radiation were sheltered, and what were most certainly not. In this manner, she charged, “the specialists have resigned obligation in this area.”[46]

The therapeutic foundation step by step reacted to the feedback. In August of 1976 the National Cancer Institute set interval rules for X beams at the screening focuses, cautioning that “we can’t suggest the normal utilization of mammography in screening [women without self evident symptoms] ages 35 to 50.”[47] In 1977 the central government prescribed that ladies underneath the age of fifty be X-rayed just in the event that they or an individual from their close family had a background marked by bosom malignancy. The American Cancer Society has recommended that ladies under thirty-five be given mammographies just if there is clear proof of a requirement for it.[48]

Regardless the contention proceeded. Leonard Solon, executive of New York City’s Bureau of Radiation Control, stressed in 1976 that lacking preparing was prompting flawed organization of mammograms.[49] In 1977 the BRH found that around 35 percent of the mammograms being taken had specialized issues influencing their usability.[50] Bross cautioned that “the flighty or inept utilization of x beam” couldn’t be halted if wellbeing offices sat tight for the medicinal calling to give the word. “In the event that one million ladies each get 1,000 millirem of x beams, somewhere around 50 and 200 can be relied upon to create bosom malignancy accordingly,” he said. “The danger for radiation-impelled bosom disease is higher than for all other radiation-incited growths, including thyroid, lung, leukemia, and bone tumors.”[51]

In spite of the fact that newborn children in utero and ladies have demonstrated amazingly delicate to X beams, the issue is not limited to them. In the mid 1960s one of the biggest radiation-related populace concentrates ever done was started at Johns Hopkins University. Known as the Tri-State Leukemia Survey, the study secured somewhere in the range of six million subjects in New York, Maryland, and Minnesota who had experienced indicative X beams. By 1972 aftereffects of an examination by Dr. Bross and Nachimuthu Natarajan demonstrated that kids with unending ailments were additionally at unique danger from low levels of X beam. The concentrate likewise loaned urgent affirmation to the issue of in utero X beams, demonstrating that offspring of moms X-rayed amid pregnancy endured 1.5 times the leukemia rate as offspring of moms not X-rayed. In certain chose sub-classes of youngsters, uncovered gatherings are 5 or even 25 times as liable to create leukemia just like the general population.[52] Dr. Rosalie Bertell, in inspecting the information, included that “youthful grown-ups with asthmas, extreme hypersensitivities, coronary illness, diabetes, joint inflammation et cetera, were around 12 times as defenseless to radiation-related leukemia as were solid grown-ups.” She quantified the equality in actuality of X beam and common maturing. In spite of the fact that the maturing speeding up had been perceived as radiation-related, the impact had gone unmeasured. Nor had there been a full representing what X beams may do to the quality pool. “I think we have to confront up not just to the long haul impacts on the person of introduction to radiation,” she cautioned, “however on the long haul impacts to the species.”[53]

In May 1977 the straightforward Bross coauthored an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, censuring specialists for abundance tumors and expanded dangers of hereditary harm on account of abuse of X beams. Inside weeks he was advised that government subsidizing for his work on the Tri-State Survey was being ended. The National Cancer Institute, which upheld the overview for 10 years, put two of Bross’ best-known rivals on its survey board of trustees. Said Bross: “We turned into the latest casualties of an example of control and suppression that has been going ahead in the United States since the time that the chaos over aftermath from weapons.”[54]

The Use and Misuse of Medical X Rays

Amid 1979 congressional hearings on restorative and dental X beams, Congressman Albert Gore (D-Tenn.) took his young girl to a healing center crisis room after she had breathed in some pad stuffing. She was experiencing difficulty relaxing. Reviewed Gore: “The primary thing the specialist said is, `Let’s have a X beam.'” Gore inquired as to whether the pad stuffing would appear on the X beam. The specialist said it would not. Gut then inquired as to why a X beam was important. The specialist said it is great to have as a base against which to think about future X beams on the off chance that some pneumonia created. Carnage chose not to permit the X beam to be taken.[1]

Violence’s activity was an uncommon one. In 1979- – the year of the mishap at Three Mile Island- – the American populace got more than 270 million individual X rays.[2] They constituted the biggest single wellspring of human-made outer radiation dosages to the American open. In 1980 some $6.7 billion was spent on radiology hardware, protection, and personnel;[3] around 300,000 individuals are right now utilized working restorative and dental X-beam equipment.[4] Yet the dosages regulated by this industry were not really irrelevant. Now and again they may have hurt instead of helped their patients.

There is no doubt that X beams can perform hugely critical medicinal administrations, and that their utilization has made a limitless commitment to human wellbeing. Surgical treatment; treatment of bone cracks; area of different growths, inner illnesses, and distortions – all have gotten to be conceivable with the utilization of X beams, and all have brought about the lightening of agony and the sparing of lives on a mass scale. Accordingly, X-beam conclusion has legitimately assumed its position as an essential and vital piece of restorative treatment all through the world.

The issues emerge when the innovation is abused and its risks are not completely welcomed by the restorative calling or people in general. Each marker now indicates new notices that alert is exhorted, and that there are those- – especially pregnant ladies and their unborn youngsters – who have as of now experienced the abuse of this medicinal wonder.

The Dawn of the X Ray

X beams were found unintentionally on November 23, 1895, by the German physicist Wilhelm Roentgen. Roentgen was working in an obscured room, attempting to figure out if as of late found cathode beams could go through a glass vacuum tube. “All of a sudden, around a yard from the tube,” related Dr. Otto Glasser, Roentgen’s biographer, “there was a feeble light that gleamed on a little seat he knew was found close-by. It was just as a beam of light or a weak sparkle from the affectation curl had been reflected by a mirror.”

Not trusting this conceivable, Roentgen rehashed the procedure, and another weak light showed up, this time looking “like a weak green cloud.” Excited, Roentgen soon found the fluorescence was brought about by the beams striking a synthetically treated screen. After broad examinations he verified that the beams had a short wavelength that gave them uncommon entering power, empowering them to go through different substances- – including human tissue. Human bones, he discovered, cast a denser shadow than encompassing delicate tissues- – a property that would shape the premise for the worldwide therapeutic X-beam industry.[5]

Roentgen distributed his first article on the marvel in late December 1895. By February of 1896 American physicists were utilizing X beams as a part of clinical prescription. One patient- – a young man named Eddie McCarthy- – had a broken lower arm X-rayed. A youthful New Yorker named Tolson Cunningham had a slug expelled from his leg after it was situated with a forty-five-minute X-beam introduction. Before long University of Pennsylvania educator Henry W. Cattell wrote in Science that “the complex uses to which Roentgen’s disclosure might be connected in drug are obvious to the point that it is even now faulty whether a specialist would be ethically supported in playing out a specific class of operations without first having seen envisioned by these beams the field of his work- – a guide, in a manner of speaking, of the obscure nation he is to investigate.”

Inside months X beams were utilized to discover a slug in the mind of a twelve-year-old tyke, a disjoined seepage tube in a lung, and to photo a broken hip joint. Before the end of 1896 a Chicago electrical designer named Wolfram C. Fuchs had performed more than fourteen hundred X-beam examinations, and specialists were consistently alluding their patients to “experts” with the straightforward, primitive machines they had purchased or manufactured themselves.[6]

Of course, the early X-beam pioneers had small, comprehension of the potential risks of radiation. They infrequently tried to shield their patients or themselves from overexposure. Machine administrators frequently tried their gear by putting their hands- – on numerous occasions – in the shaft. With fluctuating force proportions and errant bars, specialists, patients, machine administrators, and onlookers alike were uncovered. The X beams could even enter dividers and illuminate individuals in other rooms.[7]

Also, the symptoms were not long in surfacing. In 1896 Dr. D. W. Gage of McCook, Nebraska, writing in New York’s Medical Record, noted instances of male pattern baldness, blushed skin, skin sloughing off, and sores. “I wish to propose that more be comprehended with respect to the activity of the x beams before the general expert receives them in his everyday work,” Gage warned.[8]

As the innovation was refined and the hardware turned out to be all the more capable, progressively genuine harm started to surface. Low maintenance machine demonstrator named H. D. Birds of prey was compelled to leave his place of employment after just four days since his hands started to blush and swell. The skin on his knuckles broke down from overexposure, fingernail development stopped, and the hair on uncovered skin fell out.[9] Hawks’ issues were minor contrasted and those of Clarence Madison Dally, a glassblower at Thomas Edison’s Menlo Park research facility and the main American X-beam laborer known not been executed by X-beam presentation. Hesitate as often as possible tried the yield of radiation tubes by putting his hands straightforwardly in the shaft. Despite the fact that he was extremely copied in 1896, Dally proceeded with X-beam labor for two more years. In 1902 his right arm was cut off at the shoulder to capture the spread of skin malignancy; after two years his left arm was excised for the same reason. Tarry kicked the bucket that October, inciting Edison to cease radiation research in his lab. By the 1930s such a variety of individuals had succumbed to the abuse of X beams that a whole book (qualified American Martyrs for Science Through the Roentgen Rays) was distributed by Dr. Percy Brown, a Boston radiologist who himself kicked the bucket of tumor in 1950.[10]

As the interest for X beams extended, so did the quantity of individuals working the machines. Radiology developed from a claim to fame of just a couple of hundred specialists in 1913 to a blossoming calling with more than fifteen thousand individuals in 1981- – about 6 percent of the country’s doctors. To wind up guaranteed radiologists, specialists by and large finish a three-year residency taking after their medicinal school preparing and temporary job. A one-year association in a claim to fame may likewise be taken. They should then pass a national examination before practicing.[11] As a tip top gathering of therapeutic specialists with radiation preparing, they raised the utilization of indicative X beams to the status of a powerful medicinal forte.

Shockingly the soundness of radiologists declined significantly with the development of their exchange. In 1946 a factual investigation of tribute in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Helmuth Ulrich found the leukemia rate among radiologists to be eight times that of other doctors.[12] In 1956 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) bolstered those discoveries in a report that reasoned that radiologists lived 5.2 years not exactly other doctors.[13] In 1963 a study by Dr. E. B. Lewis found a critical overabundance of passings from leukemia, various myeloma, and aplastic frailty among radiologists, and after two years two Johns Hopkins specialists found a 70 percent abundance of cardiovascular ailment and certain diseases among radiologists instead of the all inclusive community, and a 730 percent ascend in leukemia deaths.[14] In 1981 Dr. Genevieve Matanowski, who is coordinating the continuation of the Johns Hopkins study, composed that there is extra confirmation that radiologists likewise endure an expanded danger of getting different myeloma, and an expanded possibility of death from strokes and heart disease.[15]

Furthermore, however, they have turned into the human guinea pigs of the X-beam industry, radiologists tragically are by all account not the only individuals regulating X beams. Truth be told numerous medicinal experts get their M.D. testaments and go ahead to utilize X-beam machines widely in their practices without even simple preparing in radiology. Dr. Herbert Abrams, teacher of radiology at the Harvard Medical School, has cautioned that the issue “can be followed to restorative schools, where very frequently one finds excessively couple of radiologists on the personnel, too little backing of the division, too little time in the educational modules and excessively few radiology clerkships.” The outcome, he cautions, “might be a graduating class with restricted learning of what radiology can do.”[16] Indeed, Dr. Karl Z. Morgan, author of the calling of radiation wellbeing material science, has expressed: “In the event that you solicit numerous from these specialists what is a roentgen or a rad, they are not in any case ready to give you the definition.”[17] Surveys have appeared, truth be told, that nonradiologists who gave their own particular X-beam administration’s requested twice the same number of X beams as those specialists who alluded patients to prepared radiologists master in the field, with a more finish comprehension of the innovation and its dangers.[18]

What’s more, if specialists are to a great extent uninformed of the potential wellbeing impacts of the X-beam machines in their workplaces, frequently the about 150,000 individuals who really work them comprehend the perils even less. Starting 1981 not exactly 33% of the states in the U.S. required permitting of X-beam machine administrators, and even those projects are in no way, shape or form uniform. The vast majority of the permitting just relates to full-time X-beam gear administrators and does not cover individuals who work the machines low maintenance. Just California, of all the fifty states, requires that all X-beam machine administrators be uniquely trained.[19]

In the mean time most by far of the general population overseeing X beams may not so much realize what they are doing. Congressman Bob Eckhardt, administrator of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, discovered it “especially exasperating, if not by and large startling . . . that in numerous states any individual can stroll off the lanes and work machines which are fit for delivering extraordinary mischief upon those presented to them.”[20] Daniel Donohue, president of the American Society of Radiologic Technologists, has reverberated the opinion. In the wake of helping with a preparation program, he found that numerous forthcoming X-beam machine administrators “were advised never to change the controls of the hardware, yet to expand the season of presentation when they X-rayed a bigger patient. Numerous were advised to probe their patient and to attempt diverse methods . . . to figure out how to utilize the gear.” Some, Donohue included, had been told, “not to restrict the light emission in the range of interest.” The strategy of constraining tissue uncovered is presently seen as an essential wellbeing rehearse in therapeutic radiology.

Donohue found the experience profoundly exasperating. “The majority of these administrators – which included attendants, therapeutic partners, secretaries, receptionists- – who were utilized and anticipated that would perform radiological examinations as an aspect of their responsibilities necessities were not gave radiation checking gadgets to decide their aggregated measurement, and were unconscious that a potential danger existed for either themselves or their patients.”[21]

Herbert Abrams has added his opinion that improper focusing and shielding may be widespread among untrained X-ray operators.[22] And a nationwide evaluation by the Bureau of Radiological Health (BRH) has borne out that fear. In 1975 the BRH found that 63 percent of the noncredentialed operators tested failed to properly restrict the X-ray beam to the size of the film for a given examination and thus unnecessarily overexposed the patient. Forty percent of the credentialed technologists taking that same test failed. In some cases, exposure levels varied from patient to patient by a factor of two thousand.[23]

In August 1981, under intense pressure from portions of the radiation health community, Congress passed a law requiring the states to establish federally approved programs for the training and licensing of radiological technologists. The programs are to be in place by 1985.

DES History

Diethylstilbestrol (DES) is a manufactured type of the female hormone estrogen. It was endorsed to pregnant ladies somewhere around 1940 and 1971 to avert unnatural birth cycle, untimely work, and related confusions of pregnancy (1).Oct 6, 2011

Diethylstilbestrol (DES) is an estrogen that was initially fabricated in a research center in 1938, so it is known as a “manufactured estrogen.” During 1938-1971, U.S. doctors recommended DES to pregnant ladies to anticipate premature deliveries and dodge other pregnancy issues. Thus, an expected 5-10 million pregnant ladies and the kids conceived of these pregnancies were presented to DES. Doctors endorsed DES to pregnant ladies on the hypothesis that unsuccessful labors and untimely births happened on the grounds that some pregnant ladies did not create enough estrogen normally. At the time, doctors thought DES was protected and would forestall unsuccessful labors and pre-term (early) births.

In 1953, distributed examination demonstrated that DES did not avoid unsuccessful labors or untimely births. Be that as it may, DES kept on being endorsed until 1971. In that year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Drug Bulletin encouraging doctors to quit endorsing DES to pregnant ladies. The FDA cautioning depended on a study distributed in 1971 that distinguished DES as a reason for an uncommon vaginal malignancy in young ladies and young ladies who had been presented to DES before birth (in the womb).

The news that DES could be hurtful prompted a national push to discover ladies endorsed DES while pregnant and inform them of the potential DES-related wellbeing issues. Doctors checked on patients’ therapeutic records and informed ladies who had been recommended DES. As a consequence of this exertion, numerous ladies were made mindful of the DES wellbeing hazard known around then, known as clear cell adenocarcinoma (CCA), an uncommon vaginal tumor. Ladies were urged to have their DES-uncovered little girls screened frequently by a gynecologist in light of the fact that CCA was found in young ladies as youthful as 8 years of age.

Ladies reached amid the 1970s, alongside their kids, shaped the center of extensive study assembles that analysts call “accomplices.” Researchers considered the soundness of these DES-uncovered partners for over 20 years. Quite a bit of what is thought about DES-related wellbeing dangers is the aftereffect of these long haul ponders. For more data on these companion concentrates on, snap here.

In spite of prior endeavors to recognize DES-uncovered ladies and men, numerous persons presented to DES were not found. These persons may not understand that they were presented to DES. Sadly, no therapeutic test, (for example, blood, pee, or skin investigation) can distinguish DES introduction. Be that as it may, to evaluate whether you may have been presented to DES and to realize what you can do about DES, allude to the Interactive DES Self-Assessment Guide, and What You Can Do About DES.

All DES-uncovered persons are at an expanded danger for building up some wellbeing issues when contrasted and persons who were not presented to DES. The majority of the wellbeing issues identified with DES introduction likewise can happen in persons who were not presented to DES. CDC’s DES redesign gives data on DES-related wellbeing impacts.

Numerous organizations made DES and comparable manufactured medications. In 1976, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) distributed a rundown of the most normally utilized names and spellings for DES and comparative medications.

DES Type – Drugs That May Have been Prescribed to Pregnant Women (Source: NCI, Exposure in utero to diethylstilbestrol and related synthetic hormones, JAMA (Sept. 6, 1976) – Vol. 236 No. 10, pp. 1107-1109).

Nonsteroidal Estrogens:
Benzestrol

Chlorotrianisene

Comestrol

Cyren A

Cyren B

Delvinal

DES

DesPlex

Dibestil

Diestryl

Dienestrol

Dienoestrol

Diethylsteilbestrol dipalmitate

Diethylstilbestrol diphosphate

Diethylstilbestrol dipropionate

Diethylstilbenediol

Digestil

Domestrol

Estilben

Estrobene

Estrobene DP

Estrosyn

Fonatol

Gynben

Gyneben

Hexestrol

Hexoestrol

Hi-Bestrol

Menocrin

Meprane

Mestilbol

Microest

Methallenestrol

Mikarol

Mikarol forti

Milestrol

Monomestrol

Neo-Oestranol I

Neo-Oestranol II

Nulabort

Oestrogenine

Oestromenin

Oestromon

Orestol

Pabestrol D

Palestrol

Restrol

Stil-Rol

Stilbal

Stilbestrol

Stilbestronate

Stilbetin

Stilbinol

Stilboestroform

Silboestrol

Stilboestrol DP

Stilestrate

Stilpalmitate

Stilphostrol

Stilronate

Stilrone

Stils

Synestrin

Synestrol

Synthosestrin

Tace

Vallestril

Willestrol

Nonsteroidal Estrogen-Androgren Combination:
Amperone

Di-Erone

Estan

Metystil

Teserene

Tylandril

Tylostereone

Nonesteroidal Estrogen-Progesterone Combination:
Progravidium

Vaginal Cream Suppositories with Nonsterioidal Estrogens:
AVC Cream w/ Dienestrol

Dieestrol Cream

 

 

 

 

 

DES  bibliography: 

Overview
Much has been written about the health risks of DES exposure and other topics related to DES. To help you find more information about a specific topic or study, a list of published research and other sources of DES is included below. The list is organized by main topic. This section of CDC’s DES Update includes a bibliography organized by the following topics.

 

The woman who knew too much: Alice Stewart and the secrets of radiation Gayle Greene – University of Michigan Press – 1999

(c) Copyright Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

http://emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/prenatal.asp

39. J. D. Boice, “Risk of Breast Cancer Following Low-Dose Radiation Exposure,” Radiology 131 (June 1979): 589-597; G. W. Beebe, et al., “Studies of the Mortality of A-bomb Survivors, Report 6, Mortality and Radiation Dose, 1950-1974,” Radiation Research 75 (July 1978): 138-201; F. A. Mettler, “Breast Neoplasms in Women Treated with X-rays for Acute Postpartum Mastitis,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 43 (October 1969): 803-811.

40. S. Shapiro, et al., Changes in Five-year Breast Cancer Mortality in a Breast Cancer Screening Program, presented at the Seventh National Cancer Conference (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1973), pp. 663-678.

41. Winifred F. Malone, “National Cancer Institute Guidelines for Mammography,” presented at Ninth National Conference on Radiation Control, Seattle, Washington, June 19-23, 1977, p. 51.

42. 1979 X-ray Hearings, p. 115.

43. John C. Bailar, “Mammography, A Contrary View,” Annals of Internal Medicine 84 (1976): 77-84.

44. I. D. Bross and Leslie Blumenson, “Screening Random Asymptomatic Women Under 50 by Annual Mammographies: Does it Make Sense?” Journal of Surgical Oncology 8, No. 5 (1976): 437-445.

45. I. D. Bross, “Written Statement Submitted for the NIH/NCI Consensus Development Meeting on Breast Cancer Screening, September 14-16, 1977, at the Invitation of Dr. Donald Frederickson,” p. 1.

46. Citizens’ Hearings, p. 85.

47. Diane Fink, “Letter of Screening Guidelines to Breast Cancer Center Directors,” August 1976.

48. “Modification #1, Operational Memorandum #6,” Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project, National Cancer Institute, May 5, 1977.

During a 1977 lecture Dr. Richard G. Lester of the University of Texas Department of Radiology discussed the statistical limitations of the screening program. There is a sharp increase in the incidence of breast cancer among women between the ages of forty to forty-five. The BCDDP program established the screening program at age thirty-five because proponents “believed, despite the fact that it was more recognized that the HIP Study showed no improvement in survivorship under the age of 50, that techniques had improved enough so that such an improvement would be demonstrated.”

In October 1975 the National Cancer Institute initiated three committees to review the use of X-ray mammography for women under age fifty. One group, headed by Dr. Lester Breslow of UCLA, was to estimate the benefits of adding mammography to history and physical examination in the HIP breast-cancer screening project. The Breslow report, presented in July 1976, recommended that routine mammographic screening in women less than fifty years of age be discontinued; the amount of radiation in mammography for women in all ages be standardized at the lowest level possible for diagnostic quality; and additional randomized clinical trials involving women under fifty be carried out to more clearly define the value of mammography in relation to other means of detecting breast cancer.

A second group, under the direction of Dr. Louis Thomas, a NCI pathologist, reviewed the pathology data from the HIP survey. The third group, under Dr. Arthur Upton, was asked to lead a group evaluating the relation between the benefit and risk of mammographic screening for the detection of breast cancer. The Upton report found that although the risk of a mammogram increasing an individual’s risks of developing breast cancer was small, the total risk to a large population of healthy women was not justified.

49. Leonard Solon, “The Options: New York City Mammography Regulations,” presented at the Eighth National Conference on Radiation Control, Springfield, Illinois, May 2-7, 1976, p. 241; M. J. Homer, “Mammography Training in Diagnostic Radiology Residency Programs,” Radiology 135, No. 2 (May 1980): 529-531.

In a letter to the American Journal of Roentgenology (“National Conference on Breast Cancer: Adequacy of Mammography Training,” 133, No. 1 [July 1979]: 161) Dr. Marc J. Homer of the New England Medical Center Hospital stated: “Not too long ago I prepared for my oral boards in radiology. Though subjects as esoteric as congenital hypophosphatemia and the Mounier-Kuhn syndrome were covered . . . I was never required to learn mammography. Though last year I saw more breast cancers on my viewbox than all the colon, stomach, and kidney cancers combined, I never had to interpret a single mammogram as a resident . . . Anything less than a resident learning the technical and interpretative aspects of mammography is inadequate and will only serve to keep mammography as a `second class radiology examination.'”

50. Ronald G. Jans and Thomas R. Ohlhaber, “Breast Exposure: Nationwide Trends–Progress to Date,” presented at Ninth Annual National Conference on Radiation Control, Seattle, WA, June 19-23, 1977, p. 222.

51. Bross, “Written Statement,” p. 2.

52. I. D. Bross and N. Natarajan, “Leukemia from Low Level Radiation: Identification of Susceptible Children,” New England Journal of Medicine 287 (1972): 107-110; S. Graham, et al. “Methodological Problems and Design of the Tri-State Leukemia Survey,” Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 107: 557-69 (1963).

53. Citizens’ Hearings, p. 83; R. Bertell, “Radiation Exposure and Human Species Survival,” Environmental Health Review, June 1981, pp. 43-52.

54. I. D. Bross and N. Natarajan, “Genetic Damage from Diagnostic Radiation,” Journal of the American Medical Association 237 (May 30, 1977): 2399; and U.S. Congress, House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, Hearings on Effect of Radiation on Human Health, January-February 1978 (Vol. I): p. 995.

55. 1979 X-ray Hearings, p. 10.

56. K. Z. Morgan, “The Need for Radiation Protection,” Radiologic Technology 44, No. 6 (1973): 385-395; OTA, Policy Implications of the Computerized Tomography (CT) Scanner (Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology Assessment, August 1978), pp. 15-20.

57. Michael Goldstein, “CT Benefits and Cost in Therapy,” Journal of the American Medical Association 244, No. 12 (September 19, 1980).

58. OTA, Policy Implications, p. 39.

59. DHEW, Population Exposure to X rays U.S. 1970 (FDA) Publication 73-8047 (Washington, D.C.: Food and Drug Administration, November 1973), Appendix III; ICRP, Protection of the Patient in X-ray Diagnosis, Publication No. 16 (New York: Pergamon Press, 1970).

60. Deborah Van Brunt, Consumer Perspectives.

61. Susan Lockamy, “X-Rays: Many Tidewater Dentists’ Machines Exceed FDA Levels,” Virginian-Pilot, August 20, 1979.

62. S. Julian Gibb, “Radiation Risks in Dental Practice,” prepared for the Council on Dental Materials, Instruments, and Equipment, American Dental Association, p. 12; Panati and Hudson, Silent Intruder.

63. Washington Star, July 2, 1981; National Council on Health Care Technology, Conference on Dental Radiology, Arlington, Virginia, June 29-July 1, 1981.

64. Valerie Britain, “Mass Chest X Rays Are on the Way Out,” FDA Consumer, February 1973.

65. W. Weiss, et al., “The Philadelphia Pulmonary Neoplasm Research Project, Thwarting Factors in Periodic Lung Cancer,” American Review of Respiratory Diseases 3, No. 30 (March 1975): 389-397.

66: Federal Register, February 1, 1978, pp. 4377-4380. Recommendation #3 of “Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal Agencies for Diagnostic X Rays”: “Routine or screening examinations in which no prior clinical evaluation of the patient is made, should not be performed unless exception has been made for specified groups of people on the basis of a careful consideration of the magnitude and medical benefit of the diagnostic yield, radiation risk, and economic and social factors. Examples of examinations that would not be routinely performed unless such exception is made are: a) chest and lower back x-ray examinations in routine physical examinations or as a routine requirement for employment; b) tuberculosis screening by chest radiography; c) chest x rays for routine hospital admission of patients under age 20 or lateral chest x rays for patients under age 40 unless a clinical indication of chest disease exists; d) chest radiography in routine prenatal care; e) mammography examinations of women under age 50 who neither exhibit symptoms nor have a personal or strong family history of breast cancer.”

67. “X’ing Out Unneeded X Rays,” FDA Consumer, April 1981, p. 19.

68. I. D. Bross, “An Action Program to Protect the Public Against the Mindless Use of Diagnostic Radiation and Other Technology,” June 17, 1977.

69. 1979 X-ray Hearings, p. 162; U.S. Congress, House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Report on Unnecessary Exposure to Radiation from Medical and Dental X-rays, Committee Print 96-52, August 1980, pp. 3-7.

70. John McClenahan, “A Radiologist’s View of the Efficient Use of Diagnostic Radiation,” presented at the Seventh Annual National Conference on Radiation Control, Springfield, Massachusetts, April 27-May 2, 1975, p. 72.

71. Medical Economics, September 30, 1974, p. 75; “Fear of Lawsuits Boosts MD Bills,” Buffalo Courier, March 29, 1977.

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s