Thermal Imaging - Brief History
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Shop our On Line Store
The scientific community has long been suspicious of the risks posed by the ionizing radiation of the
mammogram—and for good reason.
In 1904, soon after Thomas Edison made the first X-ray machine, his assistant, Clarence Dally, died
from radiation induced cancer. He has been referred to as a “martyr for science.”
Radiation became the longest standing and most documented cause of cancer. Even Thomas Edison
refused ever to have an X-Ray. Viewing inside the human body, however, was so compelling that
the risks have been
virtually ignored, down-played, and thought of as “worth the benefit.” You might ask, “To whom is
this worth the risks?” Although mammography was quickly accepted in the 1970s as the answer to
the breast cancer problem, no known research was carried out on the effects of radiation on the
breast at that time.
What the Studies Reveal Because of rising concerns in the scientific community, recent studies
reveal some troubling results. For your education, we will briefly review those studies, which point
out that mammogram do not reduce mortality, and radiation raises the risks of causing cancer on
two fronts: it damages DNA and surrounding tissues—a deadly combination.
January, 2000
A 1999 study revealed that there had been no decrease in breast cancer mortality in Sweden, where
screening had been recommended since 1985. The decision to screen was based on eight
internationally
controlled mammogram trials, including about 500,000 women. Due to unsatisfactory results in
Sweden, a
review of the studies was conducted and found that the results of the original eight studies were
misinterpreted and, therefore, misrepresented. The analysis concluded that for every 1,000 women
screened biennially for 12 years, one breast cancer was avoided, whereas the total number of
deaths
was increased by six. There is no reliable evidence to date, which says that mammography screening
decreases breast cancer mortality (Lancet 2000; 129-34).
2002 Radiation Research
The Low-Dose Radiation Research Program was funded by a grant supported by the US Department
of Education and the National Institute of Health. Conclusions showed that low energy X-rays of
mammogram produce an increased biological risk, as opposed to higher energy photons of other
types of X-rays.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California cell biologist Mary Helen Barcellos-
Hoff shows that exposure to ionizing radiation creates a wound that promotes a micro environment
in the tissue surrounding breast cells that can cause cells to become cancerous. “Our studies
demonstrate that radiation elicits rapid and persistent global alterations in the mammary gland
micro environment. Radiation exposure can cause breast cancer by pathways other than genetic
mutations (DNA damage).” Ionizing radiation is a well-established carcinogen, but previous studies
of its cancer-causing effects have largely focused on damage to the breast cells’ DNA. Barcellos-Hoff
has pursued a different tactic. “It takes a tissue to make a tumor,” she says. “Cells don’t become
tumors without cooperation from the surrounding
tissue.”
2002 Saarland University, Hamburg, Germany
It is generally accepted that ionizing radiation causes double and multiple strand breaks in DNA,
which is an
accepted cause of cancer. Research reveals that exposure to low-dose radiation causes damage so
extensive to the DNA that it is unable to repair itself, resulting in a permanent genetic mutation of
the DNA.
2004 Radiation Research
The Neoplastic Transformation Potential of Mammography X-Rays To help resolve the controversy
regarding the risk of mammography breast screening, a study was carried out with a grant to the
University of Birmingham, UK.
A comparison was made using an actual low-dose mammogram X-ray machine and a standard high-
dose X-ray (chest X-ray). Results suggested that the risks (of developing cancer) associated
with mammogram screening may be approximately five times higher than previously assumed
(which was
1%), making the estimated increased risk of 5% for each exposure. The authors suggested that the
risk-
benefit relationship of mammography exposure clearly needs to be re-evaluated.
Prevention is always the best policy Ionizing radiation damage is cumulative, which means each
exposure multiplies the risk. The fact that the risk exists at all justifies the necessity to use a safe,
noninvasive method of screening to avoid causing the disease that mammogram is designed to
detect. Clearly, one way to prevent breast cancer is to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure. In
spite of its risks, ionizing radiation is widely supported by those who benefit in various ways from its
use, as well as results of mammographies on
otherwise healthy women. It is an elective procedure, not a requirement. You have a choice. When
a mammogram is recommended, consider whose interest it serves to recommend exposing you to a
known risk. Take responsibility for your best interest.
Thermal Imaging is a safe, affordable and reliable option. It can prevent breast disease by helping
you to monitor your breast health and to avoid ionizing radiation. In addition, it can detect
previously undetected signs of microscopic development in time to make choices that can change the
outcome. Even if you have had only one mammogram, then you are at risk. Early detection is vital.
Remember, the best way to manage a disaster is to prevent it!
Just added: 2007
"This study points out the need for the use of other techniques to find cancer at its earliest stages,"
said Dr.
John Niederhuber, director of the national Cancer Institute, which helped pay for the study. Dr.
Joshua Fenton of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues studied more than 429,000
mammogram for their study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine. About 24 million
screening mammogram is taken in the U.S. each year. "We would guess maybe 25 to 30 percent of
facilities have adopted this, maybe
more in urban centers where they have a high volume," said Fenton. The results "constitute a
substantial hit to this technology" and will "surprise and disappoint" most doctors who read
mammogram, Dr. Ferris Hall of
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, wrote in a commentary. Hall said Medicare pays an extra $20
for mammogram that are read by computer, a financial incentive that "was mandated by a heavily
lobbied Congress, despite little evidence-based data in support of its value at the time."
Complicating the issue is the fact that the field is changing so quickly, further research may not be
practical, he said. "Such studies will be expensive, controversial, indeterminate, or quickly passe
owing to the emergence of new technology,"
Hall wrote. Three such computer-aided devices, costing $160,000 to $240,000, have been approved
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Most of the facilities in the Fenton study used units from
R2 Technology Inc. of Santa Clara, Calif. the first to get FDA approval, in 1998. R2 is owned by
Hologic Inc.. Kodak and iCAD Inc., of Nashua, N.H., also make units. The research team used
mammogram taken from 1998 to 2002 at 43 medical facilities in three states, seven of which
switched to computer-aided detection in the
middle of the study. With human-read mammogram, 98 out of every 1,000 women were mistakenly
told they were free of cancer. When the readings were done with the help of a computer, that
number rose to 128 out of 1,000, without significantly increasing the number of tumors that were
spotted by X-ray. In addition, the researchers said the computer programs tended to focus on the
least-dangerous types of cancers. "There was no clear benefit in terms of breast cancer detection,"
Fenton said in a telephone interview. The
researchers also estimated that if every medical center used computer-assisted detection, it would
cost the U.S. health care system an extra $550 million, an increase of 18 percent in the cost of doing
breast cancer
screening exams. There is a lot of pressure to improve detection. Hall said missed tumors are the
most common source of lawsuits against radiologists, and in as many as half of all cancer cases,
doctors turned out to have missed the tumor in an earlier mammogram. And with many medical
students avoiding the field because of the stress, there is a shortage of good mammographers. Hall
said one alternative would be magnetic resonance imaging. Although it may detect 10 times as
many cancers than mammography or physical examination, it is also 10 times more expensive. "In
certain populations of women, MRIs are much more sensitive to picking up cancers than
mammography," said the chairwoman of the American Cancer Society's Breast Cancer Advisory
Group, Dr. Christy Russell. For those women, the chance of an MRI finding a tumor is 70 percent or
higher, compared to just 30 percent for mammography or ultrasound, she said.
mammogram—and for good reason.
In 1904, soon after Thomas Edison made the first X-ray machine, his assistant, Clarence Dally, died
from radiation induced cancer. He has been referred to as a “martyr for science.”
Radiation became the longest standing and most documented cause of cancer. Even Thomas Edison
refused ever to have an X-Ray. Viewing inside the human body, however, was so compelling that
the risks have been
virtually ignored, down-played, and thought of as “worth the benefit.” You might ask, “To whom is
this worth the risks?” Although mammography was quickly accepted in the 1970s as the answer to
the breast cancer problem, no known research was carried out on the effects of radiation on the
breast at that time.
What the Studies Reveal Because of rising concerns in the scientific community, recent studies
reveal some troubling results. For your education, we will briefly review those studies, which point
out that mammogram do not reduce mortality, and radiation raises the risks of causing cancer on
two fronts: it damages DNA and surrounding tissues—a deadly combination.
January, 2000
A 1999 study revealed that there had been no decrease in breast cancer mortality in Sweden, where
screening had been recommended since 1985. The decision to screen was based on eight
internationally
controlled mammogram trials, including about 500,000 women. Due to unsatisfactory results in
Sweden, a
review of the studies was conducted and found that the results of the original eight studies were
misinterpreted and, therefore, misrepresented. The analysis concluded that for every 1,000 women
screened biennially for 12 years, one breast cancer was avoided, whereas the total number of
deaths
was increased by six. There is no reliable evidence to date, which says that mammography screening
decreases breast cancer mortality (Lancet 2000; 129-34).
2002 Radiation Research
The Low-Dose Radiation Research Program was funded by a grant supported by the US Department
of Education and the National Institute of Health. Conclusions showed that low energy X-rays of
mammogram produce an increased biological risk, as opposed to higher energy photons of other
types of X-rays.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California cell biologist Mary Helen Barcellos-
Hoff shows that exposure to ionizing radiation creates a wound that promotes a micro environment
in the tissue surrounding breast cells that can cause cells to become cancerous. “Our studies
demonstrate that radiation elicits rapid and persistent global alterations in the mammary gland
micro environment. Radiation exposure can cause breast cancer by pathways other than genetic
mutations (DNA damage).” Ionizing radiation is a well-established carcinogen, but previous studies
of its cancer-causing effects have largely focused on damage to the breast cells’ DNA. Barcellos-Hoff
has pursued a different tactic. “It takes a tissue to make a tumor,” she says. “Cells don’t become
tumors without cooperation from the surrounding
tissue.”
2002 Saarland University, Hamburg, Germany
It is generally accepted that ionizing radiation causes double and multiple strand breaks in DNA,
which is an
accepted cause of cancer. Research reveals that exposure to low-dose radiation causes damage so
extensive to the DNA that it is unable to repair itself, resulting in a permanent genetic mutation of
the DNA.
2004 Radiation Research
The Neoplastic Transformation Potential of Mammography X-Rays To help resolve the controversy
regarding the risk of mammography breast screening, a study was carried out with a grant to the
University of Birmingham, UK.
A comparison was made using an actual low-dose mammogram X-ray machine and a standard high-
dose X-ray (chest X-ray). Results suggested that the risks (of developing cancer) associated
with mammogram screening may be approximately five times higher than previously assumed
(which was
1%), making the estimated increased risk of 5% for each exposure. The authors suggested that the
risk-
benefit relationship of mammography exposure clearly needs to be re-evaluated.
Prevention is always the best policy Ionizing radiation damage is cumulative, which means each
exposure multiplies the risk. The fact that the risk exists at all justifies the necessity to use a safe,
noninvasive method of screening to avoid causing the disease that mammogram is designed to
detect. Clearly, one way to prevent breast cancer is to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure. In
spite of its risks, ionizing radiation is widely supported by those who benefit in various ways from its
use, as well as results of mammographies on
otherwise healthy women. It is an elective procedure, not a requirement. You have a choice. When
a mammogram is recommended, consider whose interest it serves to recommend exposing you to a
known risk. Take responsibility for your best interest.
Thermal Imaging is a safe, affordable and reliable option. It can prevent breast disease by helping
you to monitor your breast health and to avoid ionizing radiation. In addition, it can detect
previously undetected signs of microscopic development in time to make choices that can change the
outcome. Even if you have had only one mammogram, then you are at risk. Early detection is vital.
Remember, the best way to manage a disaster is to prevent it!
Just added: 2007
"This study points out the need for the use of other techniques to find cancer at its earliest stages,"
said Dr.
John Niederhuber, director of the national Cancer Institute, which helped pay for the study. Dr.
Joshua Fenton of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues studied more than 429,000
mammogram for their study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine. About 24 million
screening mammogram is taken in the U.S. each year. "We would guess maybe 25 to 30 percent of
facilities have adopted this, maybe
more in urban centers where they have a high volume," said Fenton. The results "constitute a
substantial hit to this technology" and will "surprise and disappoint" most doctors who read
mammogram, Dr. Ferris Hall of
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, wrote in a commentary. Hall said Medicare pays an extra $20
for mammogram that are read by computer, a financial incentive that "was mandated by a heavily
lobbied Congress, despite little evidence-based data in support of its value at the time."
Complicating the issue is the fact that the field is changing so quickly, further research may not be
practical, he said. "Such studies will be expensive, controversial, indeterminate, or quickly passe
owing to the emergence of new technology,"
Hall wrote. Three such computer-aided devices, costing $160,000 to $240,000, have been approved
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Most of the facilities in the Fenton study used units from
R2 Technology Inc. of Santa Clara, Calif. the first to get FDA approval, in 1998. R2 is owned by
Hologic Inc.. Kodak and iCAD Inc., of Nashua, N.H., also make units. The research team used
mammogram taken from 1998 to 2002 at 43 medical facilities in three states, seven of which
switched to computer-aided detection in the
middle of the study. With human-read mammogram, 98 out of every 1,000 women were mistakenly
told they were free of cancer. When the readings were done with the help of a computer, that
number rose to 128 out of 1,000, without significantly increasing the number of tumors that were
spotted by X-ray. In addition, the researchers said the computer programs tended to focus on the
least-dangerous types of cancers. "There was no clear benefit in terms of breast cancer detection,"
Fenton said in a telephone interview. The
researchers also estimated that if every medical center used computer-assisted detection, it would
cost the U.S. health care system an extra $550 million, an increase of 18 percent in the cost of doing
breast cancer
screening exams. There is a lot of pressure to improve detection. Hall said missed tumors are the
most common source of lawsuits against radiologists, and in as many as half of all cancer cases,
doctors turned out to have missed the tumor in an earlier mammogram. And with many medical
students avoiding the field because of the stress, there is a shortage of good mammographers. Hall
said one alternative would be magnetic resonance imaging. Although it may detect 10 times as
many cancers than mammography or physical examination, it is also 10 times more expensive. "In
certain populations of women, MRIs are much more sensitive to picking up cancers than
mammography," said the chairwoman of the American Cancer Society's Breast Cancer Advisory
Group, Dr. Christy Russell. For those women, the chance of an MRI finding a tumor is 70 percent or
higher, compared to just 30 percent for mammography or ultrasound, she said.
For more information:
| A Therapy Above Centers for Natural Medicine 727 - 518 - 2268 Greater Tampa/St Petersburg area, Florida |
