Dental X-rays linked to brain tumors

Dental X-rays linked to brain tumors
By Agence France-Presse
Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:46 EDT -- The Raw Story

Makes sense, since x-rays Are dangerous !!

A study was conducted by Yale University School of Medicine

And the story notes that dental x-rays have lower radiation levels today than years ago.

People who get regular dental X-rays are more likely to suffer a common type of brain tumor, US researchers said on Tuesday, suggesting that yearly exams may not be best for most patients.

The study in the US journal Cancer showed people diagnosed with meningioma who reported having a yearly bitewing exam were 1.4 times to 1.9 times as likely as a healthy control group to have developed such tumors.

A bitewing exam involves an X-ray film being held in place by a tab between the teeth.

TSA employees beware !!

I have been saying this for quite some time but most people don't want to believe it.

At the dentist's they will usually say things like "we are checking for cancer" with "routine x-rays" without having any reason to do the x-rays other than to 1) make $ for the x-ray and 2) cause more cancer.

The ADA suggestions clearly state that X-rays should only be used in extreme cases after a professional dentist examines it manually first. They totally ignore that and just hit you up with the x-ray first thing in most places these days.

Also 90% + of dentists will refuse you flat out if you do not get an x-ray first, just for a check up. I would know I have struggled to get a dentist that observes ADA suggested protocol.

Why do you think the Cancer Foundations have been "uniting" with the dental groups in order to push more x-rays?

I promise you that if they keep exposing these kids you WILL eventually find cancer. Every additional exposure increases the risk. "We're looking for cancer, derp". They are CAUSING IT.

And that crap about "less radiation than older models" is way out of context. Many dental offices use new technologies like the orthopantomogram, which actually exposes you to a ton of radiation in various locations of your body.

It's a panoramic x-ray, that means it takes a long exposure and pans from ear to ear frying your whole head.

I found a document from the EU where they stated right out, that the thing exposes your thyroids to 300+ uSv in one shot, and it exposes the head to over 500 uSv, but wouldn't specify how much over 500 uSv.
Your eyes get exposed obviously...

I have also seen these dental offices with the damn machine out in the hallway with it backwards, exposing everyone in the hallway to every single x-ray beam. Holy cow it's frightening when you realize they are being exposed routinely in there countless times a day...

And the fact these dental offices are packed full of kids half the time. Yikes!
Cancer rates are going to be astronomical in twenty years.

500 uSv isn't a "low dose", when all at once within a few seconds like that. It's dangerous.
That's an entire month's exposure to background radiation on top of your already natural background radiation dosage.

I'll see if I can't find that EU document about that one device listing it's dangers, it should be simple enough to find.

Lead fillings, mercury, flouride AND xrays
gotta get me some of that.

I'll be too stpid to get cancer.

Here I have the document that backs up my claims.

Radiation Protection document

This is an official document from the European Commission.

Open it, type in 'find' " Orthopantomogram ".

This is called an orthopantomogram. This technique needs a relatively "long" exposure, about 5 seconds; during this time, the patient has to keep quite, so this radiography can be realised in children aged of 4 years or more. The relative proximity of the eyes and of the neck provides some irradiation to the lens and to the thyroid.

The following level of delivered doses can be considered: - For an A-P view of the hand and wrist on Plain X-ray: 0.15 mGy. - For an orthopantomogram, the delivered dose to the on the neck 0.56 mGy, thyroid gland 0.053 mGy (9).

What? This "new lower radiation device" has over 4x the radiation output that the "plain x-ray" they are comparing it with.

To appreciate the level of the dose of irradiation, we could compare them with other situations. For example a plain X-ray of the hand and wrist gives an irradiation that is comparable with 15 days in mountain at 2000 meters of altitude.An orthopantomogram is responsible of a delivered dose equivalent to one month of mountain stay at the same altitude.

An entire month of radiation dose from a tall mountain in 5 seconds.
They treat this like a toy it's unacceptable and unprofessional.

These are dangerous devices meant to save lives when there was no alternative method of treatment or diagnosing a problem.

Instead they pass x-rays out like candy, taking photos of everyone just cause.
It's a complete travesty.

I also had a dental aid tell me "It's not radiation, it's digital!"

They knew about that twenty years ago. Why did it take so long to get proved. I suppose since insurance costs are getting so high they finally figured they would restudy it and release it now. It usually makes small non cancerous tumors. It's not like it just started causing tumors, it's always caused tumors.

After looking over the document again and doing the math (it's been a long time since I looked into this last so forgive the mistakes), I have a few simple corrections.

The document reveals that the neck receives a dose of roughly 560 uSv, and the thyroid 53 uSv.
It does not mention how much the eyes are exposed to, yet it mention they are irradiated in the earlier paragraph. So this is a red flag.

Also it fails to mention the amount of dose you receive in your cranial cavity and around the spinal column. There are a lot of important tissues in these areas so I want to know why all the minute details are left out.

reply to post by xuenchen


You brought up the TSA which implies X-ray scanners being used for "security purposes".
This is also extremely absurd, especially since they are bathing the entire body in the beam.

Can you imagine a society with over 80-90% cancer rate for the populace? I can, and I'm telling you it's right around the corner.

Right now they claim that it's a 40% or so rate, but that was before the new big x-ray extravaganza we are having these last few years. This is going to bump that % up big time.

More sources for the OP article:

Wash Post

ABC

Reuters

Etc.

Oh and this is very important for women to know that mammograms are essentially breast x-rays.

You should know that it is a hard scientific fact that every time you get a mammogram to screen for breast cancer that you are increasing your risk of breast cancer. Kinda self defeating right? Get enough checks, eventually you will find it.

Sigh....

reply to post by xuenchen


Considering the shift from analog to digital x rays in the past few years, I'm not really convinced that the current exposure levels are as troublesome as claimed.

Either way, how do you propose your dentist detect cavities if not via radiograph?

It's common knowledge that X-rays in any form increase your chances of cancer. It's not some giant secret. It's common knowledge.

Furthermore:

1.4 times to 1.9 times as likely as a healthy control group

That's a pretty small increase in your chances of getting cancer.

Originally posted by ~Vixen~
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Considering the shift from analog to digital x rays in the past few years, I'm not really convinced that the current exposure levels are as troublesome as claimed.

Either way, how do you propose your dentist detect cavities if not via radiograph?

This is kind of ridiculous, what kind of propaganda are they feeding everyone?

X-rays are always x-rays, the difference between "analogue and digital" is the method of conducting the procedure and the equipment used. Namely computer equipment.

Read this:

Key differences analogue vs digital x-ray

Basically digital means it uses computers, has higher resolution imaging than analogue, can transfer images across communication mediums, easily make copies, etc.

One major advantage of digital is that it doesn't require bulky film to develop, and thus does not require all of the chemicals (less waste product).

The X-ray beam itself isn't really any safer than the X-rays that emanated from the older machines, you have to make sure you limit exposure/dosage.

As you can see in the European Commission document I linked on page 1 it reveals that some of these "new safer devices" are actually putting out far more radiation than other models that are claimed to be more dangerous.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by ~Vixen~
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Considering the shift from analog to digital x rays in the past few years, I'm not really convinced that the current exposure levels are as troublesome as claimed.

Either way, how do you propose your dentist detect cavities if not via radiograph?

This is kind of ridiculous, what kind of propaganda are they feeding everyone?

X-rays are always x-rays, the difference between "analogue and digital" is the method of conducting the procedure and the equipment used. Namely computer equipment.

Read this:

Key differences analogue vs digital x-ray

Basically digital means it uses computers, has higher resolution imaging than analogue, can transfer images across communication mediums, easily make copies, etc.

One major advantage of digital is that it doesn't require bulky film to develop, and thus does not require all of the chemicals (less waste product).

The X-ray beam itself isn't really any safer than the X-rays that emanated from the older machines, you have to make sure you limit exposure/dosage.

As you can see in the European Commission document I linked on page 1 it reveals that some of these "new safer devices" are actually putting out far more radiation than other models that are claimed to be more dangerous.

Digital radiographs require much lower dosages of radiation. If memory serves me correctly, I believe that analog xrays expose you to approximately 20 times the cumulative radiation that digital does.

My numbers could be off though, since I haven't dealt with intraoral radiographs since divorcing my first husband. (who is a dentist)

*** Mine is solely the opinion of a non-licensed former dental field employee, and should not be construed as professional advice in my capacity as a licensed medical doctor ***

Wikipedia on Digital Radiography

From the first paragraph: "Also less radiation can be used to produce an image of similar contrast to conventional radiography."

********
The radiograph type you refer to as a Orthopantomogram, more commonly referred to in dental circles as a panograph, is a specialized type of exposure, and certainly not something that you receive (or should receive) on your annual dental visits. Because it does require that the camera head circle the patients head, it does expose the patient to higher radiation levels, but nothing on the scale that I would consider alarming, much less scandalous.

The xrays that are taken on your annual visits, in which they put a sensor in your mouth and snap a 1 second shot of an oral quadrant is a bite wing. If several are taken to encompass the entire oral cavity, it's referred to as an FMX or full mouth xray. If taken digitally, the exposure levels are fairly insignificant.

If you're that concerned about it, talk to your dentist. Unless there is cause for concern, they usually won't require a pano anyway.

reply to post by ~Vixen~


You are just repeating the misinformation you were fed.

You keep saying that it gives less radiation, but you provide no documents with specific values, but I DID provide an official document from the European Commission confirming that you were LIED TO.

It compared the old plain x-ray exposure of .15 mGy with the pan exposure of over .56 mGy.

So which number is bigger?? .56 or .15? You tell me.

You were totally lied to by those who you thought were trustworthy and knew what they were talking about. They are either liars or they are incompetent, that is the harsh reality you must face.

And you know damn well that 95% + of all dental offices in the USA REQUIRE x-rays before you even see or speak with any dentist, and the secretaries are trained to keep customers in a line and to go through the system. You cannot just demand to speak with a dentist, it doesn't work like that. You have to get x-rays first, that's common practice now everywhere I have been. Not one single place out of 100+ locations I checked will allow you to get checked before the x-ray.

They are x-raying little kids every day all the time.
Guess who is gonna have cancer in their heads in 40 years?

This is absolutely unacceptable. It's mass-murder actually.

Originally posted by Ghost375
It's common knowledge that X-rays in any form increase your chances of cancer. It's not some giant secret. It's common knowledge.

Furthermore:

1.4 times to 1.9 times as likely as a healthy control group

That's a pretty small increase in your chances of getting cancer.

Are you kidding me? Pretty small?

Ok let's play Russian Roulette, and instead of one bullet in the chambers, let's put 2 in there.

That's what it's like. It's adding an additional bullet to your gun, doubling your chances of losing the game.

Originally posted by ~Vixen~

The radiograph type you refer to as a Orthopantomogram, more commonly referred to in dental circles as a panograph, is a specialized type of exposure, and certainly not something that you receive (or should receive) on your annual dental visits. Because it does require that the camera head circle the patients head, it does expose the patient to higher radiation levels, but nothing on the scale that I would consider alarming, much less scandalous.

Referred to as Orthopantomogram by scientists who invented and designed it.

You go on claiming you shouldn't always be exposed to this type of crap but in reality the industry is already implementing it wide-scale.

You then admit that it IS more radiation, but cancer isn't a big deal don't worry right?

They are giving cancer to children in the millions. And people blow it off? It's technically involuntary mass-manslaughter due to negligence.

You cannot prevent cancer by exposing people to low-level ionizing radiation. This is illogical, does not compute.
Ionizing radiation causes cancer.

The worst part about this is, that all of the big Cancer Foundations and the Medical Equipment Industry is totally involved in the cover up of this factual reality. They are giving people cancer to increase the need for their existences, to increase their wealth and influence, etc.

This is one of the biggest conspiracies of all time because it affects vast sections of society, by giving each and every one of us incredible risks for cancer development (which are much higher than had we not been exposed to these things in the first place).

You know what else causes serious health complications? Tooth decay left untreated. It can even lead to heart problems.

Ain't that a bitch.

Me, I'll suck up the odd x ray once or twice a year and worry instead about every other chemical I'm exposed to each and every single day.

Originally posted by camus154
You know what else causes serious health complications? Tooth decay left untreated. It can even lead to heart problems.

Ain't that a bitch.

Me, I'll suck up the odd x ray once or twice a year and worry instead about every other chemical I'm exposed to each and every single day.

Thankfully they invented the tooth brush and tooth pastes.
Oh and that floss stuff is a nifty invention as well.

I am thankful as well that these inventions do not emit ionizing radiation in any dangerous manner.

Oh and guess what else? People pulled teeth just fine throughout history without x-rays. In fact it would be 1000x easier now with the specific equipment designed to latch onto teeth and remove them quickly and with very little pain (in many cases).

Also I clearly stated that X-rays are supposed to be for Life Threatening situations only. Also older folks that are near the end of their natural life span have very little risk in developing cancer in 40 years since they will have died of old age.

Children should almost never be exposed to X-ray technology because they are still developing biologically and the chance of them getting cancer is astronomical compared to adults biologically. Cells that divide faster (kids) have more chances to develop mutations etc.

X-rays are suppose to be a last resort technology that is there to resolve the most complicated of internal injuries or problems. Not as a free - for - all photo extravaganza for everyone's kids twice a year.

Go suck up your x-rays dude. But when you have brain tumors and need a saw blade to cut open your skull to remove it, don't complain to me.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Go suck up your x-rays dude. But when you have brain tumors and need a saw blade to cut open your skull to remove it, don't complain to me.

Boy, you're just all in a tizzy over dental x-rays, aren't you? I mean, God forbid someone isn't quaking in their boots like you are. God forbid someone thinks differently.

What an asshole I must be, right?

Originally posted by camus154

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Go suck up your x-rays dude. But when you have brain tumors and need a saw blade to cut open your skull to remove it, don't complain to me.

Boy, you're just all in a tizzy over dental x-rays, aren't you? I mean, God forbid someone isn't quaking in their boots like you are. God forbid someone thinks differently.

What an asshole I must be, right?

edit on 11-4-2012 by camus154 because: (no reason given)

God forbid the evidence and facts don't add up with the fantasy that xrays are safe and should be treated like toys. Giving children brain tumors on an industrial widespread scale is absolutely unacceptable, especially considering half of those kids still have their baby teeth which fall out naturally anyways.

And since ionizing radiation increases the mutation rates of DNA, it is possible that x-ray exposure could actually increase the chance of the bacteria in your mouth mutating and becoming resistant to antibiotics more easily. A few simple experiments could verify that very likely possibility.