Do Medical X-Rays Cause Cancer and Heart Disease?

If you read that medical x-rays were responsibleeffects of ionizing radiation on health, the latest
for half the incidence of cancer in this country -being Radiation from Medical Procedures in the
what would your reaction be?Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart
I suspect it would be based to a great extent onDisease. In this 700-page tome, Dr. Gofman
where you read it. If it was a banner headline onpresents study after study that point to medical
the National Enquirer, you would probably ignore it.x-rays not only playing a major role in causing
But if you saw it on the front cover of the New50% of cases of cancer - but also in causing
York Times, you would pay more attention.60% of the cases of coronary heart disease
No matter where you read it, your reaction would(CHD). The probable mechanism, Dr. Gofman
be the one of disbelief.explains, is radiation-induction of mutations in the
Why? Because you probably believe thatcoronary arteries, resulting in dysfunctional clones
contemporary medicine is based on thoroughly(mini-tumors) of smooth muscle cells.
tested science?Dr. Gofman is quick to point out that, first of all,
Do you believe that if medical x-rays were ahe is not against medical x-rays - only their use at
major cause of cancer, this would have beenneedlessly high dose levels. And second, that
discovered early on, and never allowed tox-rays are not by themselves the only cause of
happen? If so, do you have any evidence forthese diseases, but are a necessary co-actor.
such a belief - or is it reflective only of faith in theWhat this means is that medical x-rays are not
medical profession?solely responsible for our epidemic of cancer and
X-rays have been a valuable medical tool sinceCHD, but that when combined with other factors,
their discovery in 1895. But for over 70 yearsthey can and do cause the onset of these
we've known that x-rays cause genetic mutationsdiseases. Reduce the amount of exposure to
and cancer.medical x-rays and the incidence of cancer and
The belief that medical x-rays are not a majorCHD is proportionally reduced.
cause of cancer is based on three basicDr. Gofman shows how x-ray dosages can easily
assumptions:on average be reduced by 50% from present
- First, that risk from minimal doses of radiation islevels. He points out procedures as simple and
just hypothetical.inexpensive as taking frequent dose
- Second, that doctors and technicians administermeasurements. Proper training for technicians is
the minimum dose.essential. Radiographers need to compensate for
- Third, that repeated x-ray exposures are notthe age and size of patients. And specialists need
cumulative in their effect.to be aware of how much previous exposure
Search, and you will find overwhelming evidencetheir patients have had, and be judicious in
that none of these are true. But you need toordering only necessary imaging.
know where to look and you have to look at thePhysicians also need to be aware of diagnostic
raw data without bias.imaging devices that do not use ionizing radiation -
The evidence is occasionally published insuch as MRIs for neurological and musculo-skeletal
peer-reviewed, mainstream medical journals. Butconditions, and thermography for breast screening
all too often, it is published only in the more- and able to detect cancer years earlier than
obscure journals read by only a few thousandmammography. If Dr. Gofman's hypothesis is
specialists. And, because of the threatening natureright, making these prudent steps the rule rather
of the data to our current medical system, thethan the exception would save at least 250,000
findings are rarely covered in larger media outlets.lives per year.
For example, a paper was recently publishedAlthough a few radiologists have taken exception
entitled "Breast Cancer Mortality After Diagnosticto Dr. Gofman's work, none have refuted it in any
Radiography."way. Why, then, are these simple, life-saving
It showed the results of a study sponsored bymeasures not embraced by the entire medical
the National Cancer Institute that examined thecommunity? Why is this story not on the front
correlation of breast cancer mortality withpage of every newspaper in America?
receiving diagnostic x-ray exposure for scoliosisTwo hundred and fifty million x-rays will be
[curvature of the spine]. These women, who hadperformed in the United States this year. At a
an average of 25 diagnostic x-rays taken, had aconservative average cost of $50 per x-ray, that
70% greater risk of dying of breast cancer thanis an industry with annual sales of $12.5 billion.
the general population.Diagnostic x-ray imaging is a cornerstone of much
One of the paper's key conclusions was:of mainstream medicine. Nothing that weakens
"Consistent with radiation as a causative factor,the public's perception of the value and safety of
risk of dying of breast cancer increasedx-rays is likely to be publicized.
significantly with number of radiographicThose radiologists who have criticized Dr.
examinations in which the breast was exposedGofman's work have criticized it on the basis that
and with increasing cumulative radiation dose toit might scare patients away from having any
the breast."x-rays at all, when they might very well benefit
So much for assumption number three. But thefrom the procedure. This brings up a very serious
chances are that your doctor - or your oncologistissue of a patient's right to know. Says Dr.
or radiologist - has not seen this report, because itGofman, "We doubt that x-ray practitioners would
was published in Spine. Spine has a worldwidewant to assert that x-rays are the one agent, in
circulation of less than 8,000, consisting primarilyall of medicine, where referring physicians and
of physical and medical rehabilitation specialists.patients must be told about only the benefits, and
The FDA estimates that seven out of 10must be kept uninformed about dosage and risk."
Americans received at least one x-ray last year.There is a revolution going on in medicine right
How many did you and your family membersnow. It is the growth of what we call alternative
receive? How many have you received over yourmedicine - a movement typified by the absolute
lifetime? What was their dosage? Do you know?minimization of toxic medical modalities. This is
Do your doctors know?being driven not by the efforts of healthcare
The person who probably knows as much aboutprofessionals but by the market demands of
the effects of radiation as anyone in the world ispatients, who are becoming better informed and
John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus ofno longer blindly accepting unnecessary and
Molecular and Cell Biology at the University ofunacceptable "risk-benefit" ratios. Dr. Gofman has
California at Berkeley, and on the faculty of theinformation to help the public not only protect
University of California Medical School in Sanitself but to help get the x-ray industry to clean
Francisco (UCSF).house, through patient right-to-know policies.
Dr. Gofman has published six books on the