CT Scan Cancer Risk?

[Anonymous No.8230504]

Yesterday, I went to get a head CT scan. This is the only CT scan I've ever gotten. Should I worry about dying of a brain tumor later in life?

[Anonymous No.8230508]

Little known fact; The cancer that shows up in your CT scan results are the results of the cancer caused by the CT scan itself ;)

[Anonymous No.8230509]

cancers are small people just like you and me,so to detect them in your brain,the doctors must give you a cancer amplifier so the tomography can be done right.But if you dont already have it,you might just get one,go and scan yourself tomorow,who knows what you might find

[Anonymous No.8230512]

>>8230508
I legitimately have death anxiety from this. I keep thinking that I shouldn't have gotten it and now I'll die of a fucking brain tumor.

They said the machine was only one year old, so maybe it was very new and optimized and used even less radiation than normal? Also, the actual scan took like 5-10 seconds.

[Anonymous No.8230514]

>>8230512
its not about how new it is,its the calibration that matters,and its all down to the technical precision and proficiency of doctors

[Anonymous No.8230517]

>>8230514
the guy said it was like 180 slice or something.

[Anonymous No.8230521]

>>8230512

OP is you experience health anxiety, never ever come to 4chan for advice.

This is the worst possible thing you could have done.

You're only going to get trolled into a panic attack.

[Anonymous No.8230522]

>>8230517
it surely makes slices,DICOM ones, and they use it to reconstruct 3d models of the brain and detect cancer,ususaly its more than 180 of them

[Anonymous No.8230524]

>>8230504
>Should I worry about dying of a brain tumor later in life?
No. One CT scan isn't going to give you cancer.

The stress you sound like you are experiencing is much worse for your brain than any CT scan will ever be. Relax.

[Anonymous No.8230528]

>>8230524
this

[Anonymous No.8230529]

>>8230504
Earths background or solar radiation are far more likely to be the cause of any cancer you might get than any amount of x-rays you might reasonably get

[Anonymous No.8230530]

>>8230524
>One CT scan isn't going to give you cancer
Well it might, its just not very likely

[Anonymous No.8230531]

>>8230529
a head CT scan gives 2mSv on average, which is like 8 months of radiation to the skull in about 10 seconds. although it is actually the lowest dosed CT scan by far, it's still worrisome, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.8230534]

>>8230530
I see what you're saying, but if we're going to be hung up on technicalities then we should also note that technically cancer isn't caused by any one specific event, but a cumulative process. In that sense, the CT scan by itself still won't give you cancer, it just marginally heightens the chances of cancer developing later on. But I guess we agree on the fact that it's all about probabilities, which in this case don't increase significantly due to the CT scan.

[Anonymous No.8230542]

>>8230534
> cancer isn't caused by any one specific event, but a cumulative process
Sort of, its a series of mutations. You could argue that the final one in the series is what turns a non-cancer cell into a cancer cell, and that specific single event (or even the whole series technically) could be the result of a single external event like a CT scan

Really though I'm just being pedantic, your point is basically correct

[Anonymous No.8230547]

>>8230542
Fair point, and nuanced. I think we agree.
>Really though I'm just being pedantic, your point is basically correct
This statement plus some trolling on top captures /sci/ in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.8230549]

>>8230547
>This statement plus some trolling on top captures /sci/ in a nutshell.
Well at least we admit to it

[Anonymous No.8230551]

Observe the image OP. You're getting your daily dost of radiation from everything already.

[Anonymous No.8230567]

The worry of cancer from CT scans come from small children that are still growing, as well as people who receive multiple CT scans, over and over again. A single CT scan, especially of the head, is not a cause for concern. a head CT scan is by far the safest CT scan. You will more than likely die of something totally unrelated to cancer in your brain OP, don't worry.

Think about it like this, there are people who have round-trip flights on a weekly basis, and they're getting about .2 mSv every single time, so they're receiving about 12-18 mSv per year, or about 4x the mSv of what you receive in a year.

>>8230551
basically this. You very well will die of a cancer totally unrelated to the head, OP.

[Anonymous No.8230569]

So, I called the hospital to talk to the radiology department and the machine used is a:

siemens somatom definition as 128-slice

they said that they just got it a year ago and all of this. So, at the very least I know it isn't some old machine that uses a lot of power and could possibly be faulty.

[Anonymous No.8230572]

>>8230569
you'd better get another CT scan to figure out the cause of this pathological paranoia you seem to be experiencing.

[Anonymous No.8230575]

>>8230572
haha, I have aspergers and am extremely neurotic. I know I'm being a bit ridiculous, but it is scary to even have the thought that you could have contributed to a future brain tumor or who knows what, you know?

[Anonymous No.8230578]

>>8230575
Yeah, but like we already pointed out multiple times, there's absolutely no need to worry.

[Anonymous No.8230579]

>>8230575
Every breath you take has a chance of containing a microbe that will kill you. 1 in 20 people has flesh eating bacteria on their hands at any given time

[Anonymous No.8230592]

>>8230578
>there's absolutely no need to worry
Lol, didn't know that the Big Radiation shilled this board too.

OP, you have an increased chance to get a brain tumor now, yes, but the increased chance is minimal(AKA like a .05% increased chance, but this exponentially increases the more scans you get, which many people do get and this is the cause for concern, especially in children who are still growing quite a lot) how about this, you now know for a fact that you have no brain tumors, no bleeding, literally nothing going on in your head. That's pretty cool, isn't it? Some of us probably very well may have something going on in our skulls that we don't know about yet and will fuck us in the ass later on in life.

Harvard did a study on women getting loads of CT scans, like 40,000 women all getting multiple scans. All of them got different amounts(we're taking like 7 scans on average for fucks sake). The conclusion was something like a 2-8% increase of some kind of cancer.

Your single head CT scan isn't going to do shit OP. There are people who go to Chernobyl for shits and giggles who get like 6+ mSv per hour, easily adding up to 100+ mSv for the day just from the trip and end up fine.

Lets say you were the most unlikely motherfucker on the planet and this contributed to a brain tumor. Brain tumors take a long time to cause issues and the vast majority of brain tumors are in people 65 years and older, not young guys. Plus, brain tumors aren't automatic killers. It's like a 60% chance of being benign anyway.

If you were getting multiple abdomin CT scans(easily the most dangerous ones) per year or something, yeah OP, I'd say you're contributing to something, but this truly is very little cause for concern. You're much more likely to get hit by a car or die of a heart attack than of a single head CT scan causing a malignant brain tumor.

[Anonymous No.8230594]

>>8230592
>>there's absolutely no need to worry
>Lol, didn't know that the Big Radiation shilled this board too.
>proceeds to tell OP not to worry

[Evy No.8230598]

Did you know that you can get botulism from honey?

Do you know what dying of botulism is like?

[Anonymous No.8230622]

>>8230594
Yeah, it was just a joke. Nobody ever says shit like "Big Radiation".

If you were able to get a brain tumor from a single head CT scan, especially one from a modern machine like
>>8230569
>Siemens SOMATOM Definition AS 128-slice

Everyone would die of cancer from a CT scanner. Head CT scans are by far the least powerful. An Abdominal CT scan would practically kill you on sight, kek. it's like 4-5x the radiation, and the abdomen is NOT 4-5x as large as the head.

Just to add insult to injury for that Harvard study, women are significantly more likely to develop cancer from radiation, so even that 2%-8% figure is more than what it would be for a male with the same amount of scans. It's just a non-issue OP. If you REALLY gave so much of a shit, get an MRI every year for the rest of your life. It would be totally unnecessary, but you'd know fore absolute, undeniable 100% certainty whether or not you develop a brain tumor(that we're just assuming is directly related to your single fucking head CT scan).

I'm just saying, WAY more people would be dying of tumors if SINGLE CT SCANS were so dangerous. They just aren't. Get like 6 per year for several years and then we're talking about something to worry about.

[Anonymous No.8230629]

http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/how-radiation-sickness-works/

[Anonymous No.8230642]

>>8230629
Radiation sickness isn't what we're talking about here.

[Anonymous No.8230656]

>>8230598
No you can't. Only babies from age 0 to 3 can because their immune systems aren't developed enough. Nobody over that age (and have a functioning immune system) ever got botulism.

[Anonymous No.8230717]

4th year MD-PhD student here.

You have 1 month to live.

[Anonymous No.8230799]

>>8230504

The CT was prescribed/recommended to you for a reason.

This reason almost certainly is more important than the chance of dying from the CT.

A typical head CT is like 8 months of background radioation. It's not trivial, but it's not neglegible either.

I'm not going to go into detail about the chances of cancer, but also note that even if you get cancer, the most common type of brain cancer are meningiomas, and they aren't very aggressive.

[Anonymous No.8230813]

Basically what everyone else ITT said. If there was a higher risk to getting cancer related to the head from a CT scan of the head, it's too small for even all of our research from our most reputable institutions to say with certainty. The most we can muster is shit like
>one ct scan gives you a 1/1500 chance of developing cancer related to it
like, woopy, you know? Plus, even then, brain cancer isn't even close to the worst kinds of cancer. Pancreatic cancer, you're basically fucked no matter what you do about it. Brain tumors can be easily detected and don't spread. AKA you're cool OP, don't sweat it. I really mean it.

Like that other anon said, just get an MRI every year of your head for the next few years if it concerns you that much. it would show you if anything came of that one scan, which statistically there won't be anything. Come on OP, do you really think everyone would be that dumb to let people get this stuff without it being safe? There are things that give you cancer, and single CT scans aren't one of those things.

>>8230799
>It's not trivial, but it's not neglegible either.
lol what are you even saying m80

[Anonymous No.8230874]

The extra risk of any one person developing a fatal cancer from a typical CT procedure is about 1 in 2,000. kek go to a therapist OP. you have more worries than you should. If you had multiple, then yeah, but one scan on a modern machine? are you srs? there are ~80,000,000 CT scans per year in the USA, literally 1 in 4 people.

[Anonymous No.8230886]

>>8230531
Pffft, thats nothing. Thats like working at a nuclear reactor for a few weeks

[Anonymous No.8230905]

from cancer.gov

>Individuals who have had multiple CT scans before the age of 15 were found to have an increased risk of developing leukemia, brain tumors (8), and other cancers (9) in the decade following their first scan. However, the lifetime risk of cancer from a single CT scan was small—about one case of cancer for every 10,000 scans performed on children.

one case in every ten thousand. and that's for kids that are still growing a lot.

really, we're just grasping at straws here.

lets say it like this, if I had to bet money whether or not OP dies of cancer or a tumor related to the head, I'd bet no every time. it's just a non-issue unless you're one of those little kids getting like 6 scans annually for like three years. this? it's just a wank. speaking of wanks, have a wank and calm down OP. see a psychologist. you very well may have some sort of major anxiety issue and are one of the few people who really should be on some sort of medication or at least be in therapy for a bit.

>>8230886
I think the idea is that that one shot in one spot of your body is the danger when in reality that's not really how getting cancer from radiation works. it's a cumulative effect of mutating and mutating until the cells just don't know what they're doing anymore. two extra mSv isn't going to do shit. people living in Denver, Colorado get like 6 mSv per year as a fucking baseline, just being alive, and OP is probably going to get like 4 mSv this year including everything with the scan.

There are people that get literally like 6 chest or abdominal scans per year, so like almost 100 mSv per year, for multiple years, and even they are fine. Astronauts get ass-raped with radiation way above levels here on earth, and they are all fine.

You just need to chill out, OP. You're definitely a hypochondriac, that's for damn sure. Just think if you didn't read all of the shit online, you wouldn't think anything of that single scan that will literally 2000/1 not affect you anyway.

[Anonymous No.8230906]

>Should I worry about dying of a brain tumor later in life?
yes, but not from a CT scan

[Anonymous No.8230913]

Op youre seriously going to die

t. geologist

[Anonymous No.8231139]

I wish we had a radiologist ITT because they'd have a giggle at how silly OP is being. 2 mSv is like fucking peanuts. Over 100 mSv is where shit starts to become concerning. if 2 mSv was enough to fuck your shit up then many, many more peoples shit would be fucked up. do you realize how many people get CT head scans per year?

[Anonymous No.8231468]

lol. it will give you something like a 1 in 2000 increase OP. It's when you're a kiddo, or get like 20 scans that those sort of concerns come up. notice how if you look up something like "CT Scan Radiation Concern?", you get a lot of shit related to pediatrics, and how consecutive scans accumulate to a greater risk of something being of concern? Literally millions of people every year get a head CT scan OP.

Of all CT scans to be worried about, the head CT scan is the least worrisome.
>the brain doesn't really react to radiation under 50 Sv(deadly amount)
>the head CT scan is the least irradiating, giving off not even one years worth of background radiation
>OP has said it's a Somoton Definition AS, which are very modern, practically brand new technology, meaning that the amount of radiation is more than likely 2 mSv or less. only the old machines from the 80s and 90s gave off more and even then, they weren't a cause for concern.

The fact that the info is even online is practically criminal. it's just scaring the fucking shit out of people like OP over something minimal. The brain doesn't grow or replicate it's cells. Brain tumors, benign or malignant, are a product of shitty genetics or severe head trauma. The rest of the body has a worse time dealing with radiation but it still has to be severe, like 50+ mSv at a minimum.

just my opinion, but grow some nuts OP. use this as a learning experience. you obviously are a hypochondriac and hate the idea of being irradiated. use this as your safe lesson to never get a CT scan again and only MRI if you can do so. MRI does cost a fucking assload more though, and takes way, way longer. any emergency situation automatically rules out an MRI even if you can afford it. Just don't get into a situation where you need more CT scans, OP. simple as that. you're fine and dandy. don't worry. take a benzo and realize that this shit is just not going to affect you and it's all in your head, pun intended.

[Anonymous No.8231509]

>mfw this concern
Do you not realize that people literally get punched in the head for a living, headbutted, have multiple head CAT scans for years, car accidents, and have other ridiculous shit happen to them without ever developing brain cancer or anything significant? You're okay, OP. Relax. It was a single solitary scan. People that develop tumors are either old, had a family history of it, or had so much trauma that their body couldn't heal itself correctly anymore. DNA damage or whatever is a scary way of just saying that your body is healing itself, and it does that very well, unless you're old or suffered a lot of trauma many times, as already said. see how this shit is making sense? Trust me, you're fine OP. I know what it's like to have retarded levels of anxiety like that. Just know that what you're thinking, you're throwing way out of proportion to the reality.

[Anonymous No.8231670]

>>8230508
Lol wouldnt ve surprised what are they shooting you with in there

[Anonymous No.8231755]

The worry of CT scans today is that it's so widespread now that literally tens of millions of people are getting them each year. japan gets literally like 3x what the USA gets per year.

the individual risks are minimal from one scan. one head ct scan puts you in the minority. something like 30% get 3 ct scans or more. your risk increase was literally like 0.01-0.05% dude.

[Anonymous No.8231758]

this thread should be archived for anyone that is scared of their single ct scan desu. the info ITT is pretty damn good and clears the air from all of the fear-mongering articles online.

[Anonymous No.8232582]

The brain doesn't get affected by radiation like the rest of the body does. You're suffering from anxiety. People who were A-bomb survivors, receiving anywhere from 5-100+ mSv, had no issues, something like 80 out of 30,000 of them got some kind of cancer that they think was from the blasts. they didn't have any reproductive issues, zero problems, and that was a fucking ATOMIC BOMB. the ones who ended up getting cancer were definitely closer to the 100+ mSv range than the 5 mSv range. 5 mSv really isn't that much, and you probably got half of that in your scan.

There is some girl on reddit that has had like 8 head CT scans and she's fine after years and women are waay more susceptible to radiation damaging them than men. You're just getting mega anxiety. You really shouldn't look this stuff up anymore. They're going to tell you the worst cases scenarios every time. Sure, theoretically it's possible at a 0.05% increase, but you can say that for almost fucking anything dude. I theoretically could bite my finger nail after going to the grocery store and contract some flesh eating parasite that kills me within the month, but it will never happen. We literally don't even have any definitive evidence that medical scans cause cancers or anything. It's all just extrapolating, so we're just scaring people for no reason. There hasn't been any significant effect on people with exposure under an immediate 100 mSv, simple as that. 2 mSv on a head scan OP? You have anxiety over something that you're blowing out of proportions. MAYBE if you had 50 mSv, we could point out a couple of studies of some radiation workers who were affected by something under 100 mSv, like 132 mGy which is over 3x what you got on your scan and we're talking about bone marrow, but it's all estimated as the lowest dosages so it really is just a wash. jap bomb survivors had an average dose of 200 mSv. no shit they got something. Most biologists agree that until you hit about 100 mSv, you're fine.

[Anonymous No.8232732]

Books have been written about the questions you're asking, but suffice it to say that you need to stop worrying about this. Radiation affects rapidly growing cells, and the adult brain does not have many of those, so it is very resistant to radiation damage. No lead vest is needed, CT scanners are designed to minimize the dose to anything not inside the tube. As someone else noted, your chances of getting cancer from a single head CT are tiny, probably 1 in 10,000 or fewer. You have a far greater chance of getting cancer from your dietary habits and your daily environment than from the scan.

t. Neurosurgeon

[Anonymous No.8233719]

>>8232582
so are mSv and rads like the same thing?
I keep seeing rads pushed as a meme because of fallout but i am genuinely curious to how much radiation I am exposed to on the average day

I know the LD50 is like 350mSv and 1000mSv will kill you in an hour or something like that

[Anonymous No.8233786]

>>8233719
The OP is worried about a 2 mSv, which is about 8 months of radiation to the whole body, and the absorbed dose to the brain is going to be something like 10-50 mGy, but the brain isn't particularly affected by low doses of radiation like this like other parts of the body would. This is why multiple CT scans of the abdomen, chest, or pelvis are actually considered to be concerning because there is so much susceptible shit to get fucked up. You'd need 8000 Sv to kill you with certainty.

the different measurements have to do with different shit.

[Anonymous No.8233894]

OP, people get literally dozens of even more powerful CT scans and are totally fine. Suck it up.

[Anonymous No.8233934]

>>8230575
How often do you worry about this kind of thing? You seem very troubled over it.

[Anonymous No.8233938]

>>8233934
I ALWAYS worry about anything related to my health, especially my fucking brain. Who wouldn't?!

[Anonymous No.8233965]

ct scans use magnetic fields not radiation so cancer is very unlikely

[Anonymous No.8233990]

>>8233965
lol no they don't CT scans are literally just dozens of x-rays. you're thinking of MRIs, which take much longer, and are more expensive.

[Anonymous No.8234815]

you don't get shit like this unless you are receiving a high dose of radiation. 2 mSv is just not that. The more scans you get in a smaller period of time, then yes you simply increase your odds of something healing incorrectly. People who are affected by radiation like this are radiation workers, or they have a disorder that runs in their family that makes them prone to tumors. There are I think five or so, and they're all pretty rare. You know if you have it.

There are many people that get many head CT scans per year. If a head CT scan was that dangerous, it just flat out wouldn't be used unless it was an extreme situation, like you were rushed into the ER from a major car vehicle accident and you're comatose or something and they need to know what's wrong RIGHT NOW so they can do surgery RIGHT THERE. A CT scan doesn't pose that much of a risk unless you get many in a short amount of time and if you have some family history. many people that get malignant brain tumors like gliomas did in fact have an environmental cause where their close friends also had gotten them, as well as their father/brother having it.

Working in construction and being exposed to solvents increases your risk. High dose radiation is the only clear cause of tumors, but high dose radiation REALLY fucks your shit up no matter where it is, and a tumor is desu the least of your worries at the time. These studies freaking people out over a single scan is just dumb. It's just not enough energy to damage you unless you have the disorders that promotes tumor growth, which are very rare. If a single head CT scan gave you brain cancer, we'd have a very significant increase in brain cancer cases, and we just don't, yet we've have head CT scans since the 70s, and head imaging was the original purpose of the CT scanner.

[Anonymous No.8234822]

>>8233938
I don't worry about my healt. Worrying to much is unhealthy anon

[Anonymous No.8234824]

>>8234822
>worrying too much about health is unhealthy

what a fucking bullshit quagmire this is.

[Anonymous No.8234845]

There has been a 0.00001% increase in brain cancer(one more person) since 1975, which has also been going down in the past decade by 0.2% of that increase.

So, brain cancer cases have gone up one case out of 100,000 people since 1975, when the CT Scanner was invented, and was used mostly for the head.

New cases have also started to go back down that 1 case it went up by.

>Using statistical models for analysis, rates for new brain and other nervous system cancer cases have been falling on average 0.2% each year over the last 10 years.

Just by these simple statistics, it's safe to say that CT scans had an extremely minimal, if not negligible increase in brain cancer formation.

If it was something to worry about, it would be much, much more than . For all we know, that 1% has to do with the obesity epidemic or hazardous modern materials in construction, or maybe nuclear workers. Who really knows.

People that post articles online about how these low doses of radiation fuck your body up really need to get shot in the head, because they're making people go nuts over a fucking CAT scan. Fucking assholes. Astronauts get DOUSED in radiation, 10x what a CT scan gives you, the entire time they're up there and they're ALL FINE. ONE astronaut has to date ever gotten any sort of cancer(pancreatic), and he's 61 years old and was up there for over a MONTH.

I HATE fear-mongering health articles.

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ld/brain.html
wow guys, one extra case since 1975 yet it has also gone back down to that original 6 cases in 1975, I GUESS IT WAS FROM THE CT SCANS RITE?

fuck off. I'm sick of people blaming medical community for shit that we can see is just now true from basic statistical data.

Shuttle (Average Skin Dose) ~433 mrem/mission
Apollo 14 (Highest Skin Dose) 1,400 mrem / mission
Skylab 4 (Highest Skin Dose) 17,800 mrem/mission
Shuttle (Highest Skin Dose) 7,864 mrem/mission

a head CT scan gives you 200 mrem. fuck off with this bullshit.

[Anonymous No.8234853]

>>8234845
> is just NOT** true from basic statistical data.

fixed

[Anonymous No.8234878]

>>8234845
kek the risk of brain cancer has literally not moved since 1980 when we had 3 million scans per year yet this thread had to have like 60 replies explaining in detail why it's not possible. You can look at every single statistical study on brain cancer cases in the past fifty years and they literally have moved up or down by 1 case out of 100,000 people the entire time. CT scans, especially a single scan, doesn't do shit to you. They are very important. MRIs take much longer, cost much more, and use multiple people to operate. It's good if you need to get a screening every month for whatever reason, but anything that is even close to an emergency? Get a CT scan. It takes moments.

[Anonymous No.8235129]

>>8234845
well you're correct

US population was about 225,000,000 in 1980 so well use that as the average.

studies show that there was an increase of about almost 1 person in 100,000, or almost 2250 new cases in 1985 for the entire US population between like 1975 and 1985. now we have about the same number as we did in 1980, but our population is about 325,000,000, so our population has gone up by quite a lot, yet the amount of brain cancers per 100,000 has not changed, showing even more so that CT scans have not influenced the growth of brain cancers in any way as there are now many many more people that could have been affected by now.

also, we could also even say it was because of the CT scans that we were able to find them more easily, causing that extra 2250 to be not even related to anything causing it, just finding it.

who really knows. it doesn't matter though as all negligible no matter how you look at it.

about 15,000 cases in 1985 with the 225,000,000 population

about 22,750 cases in 2016 with the 325,000,000 population

so any big scary
>we have 23,000 brain tumor cases this year!!
is literally because of the population increase and has nothing to do with anything external for 99.99% of US citizens

all you really need for proof that CT scans have nothing to do with brain cancer. the brain is extremely radiation resistant and if this was ever even on the table as a worry, it would have been banned before it was used for the first time in the public back in 1975, 41 years ago.

I got you, OP. That's a wrap. This bullshit is debunked.

[Anonymous No.8235213]

>>8230504
yes.

get /fit/ if you want your risk to lower though.

[Anonymous No.8235297]

>>8235129
this data tells us everything other than the possibility that the radiation from ct scans makes it easier to develop brain cancer when you're an old fart, but I guess by then who really gives a shit. I might not even be right there. there were still 3,000,000 scans in 1980, so 36 years ago. if that was going to do anything, it would have by now.

this makes me feel better about the head scan I had a few years ago at 23. i was sort of scared of the radiation too.

[Anonymous No.8235510]

>>8233938
Man I used to be just like you. I was in a constant state of near panic over my brain health (though occasionally had heart or other worries). I'd obsessively monitor various physiological and mental functions to reassure myself that I was ok. So I totally get where you are coming from. I take fluvoxamine now and now my worries are mostly gone. I'd consider something like this if your fears are interfering with your life too much. I realize my situation was a little extreme.

[Anonymous No.8235518]

>>8235510
>I'd obsessively monitor various physiological and mental functions

What exactly does this entail anon? What were you really doing?

[Anonymous No.8235537]

TL;DR

It doesn't affect you OP. You'll die of something totally unrelated. Brain cancer isn't even common in the realm of cancers, like half of a percent of cancer cases are related to the brain kek.

[Anonymous No.8235539]

>>8235518
It's been a while so I don't remember it in full detail, but I'd try to focus on things to make sure my vision wasn't blurry, talk out loud to make sure I was still able to form words, if I smelled something, I'd have to identify the source to make sure I wasn't hallucinating it, move my limbs around to ensure I still had motor control, etc. Primarily, I was concerned with having a stroke.

[Anonymous No.8235548]

>>8235539
Fuck dude, I basically do all of that. I'm always worrying whether or not I'm still all here, you know? If I hit my head, even the lightest knock, it pisses me off for the entire day. Conking my head and getting this CT scan has made me angrier than really anything in a while, just because it's so stupid how it all came about.

I'm definitely still here though. It was a week ago now and I feel fine. My therapist from a few years ago told me that I should possibly go on Xanax, but I just don't like medications.

[Anonymous No.8235571]

>>8235548
Yeah it could get a little weird sometimes, I'd wonder if I really even existed at all, probably because the anxiety levels got so high that I'd experience derealization as a result. Of course that only reinforced the idea that there was something seriously wrong, and I'd just spiral out of control. I had panic attacks daily over this, and even went to the ER one night.

A few months before it all started, I read a book called "My Stroke of Insight", in which the author (an actual brain scientist) experiences a stroke and describes the experience in great detail. I remember her saying that as soon as she got up out of bed that morning, she felt like she had left her body. I would NOT recommend that you read it.

Xanax sounds like nasty stuff, I never tried that myself, and in fact my doctor refused to prescribe me anything like it. Fluvoxamine works well for me, because it is primarily indicated for OCD, and my worries had a strong obsessive component. My anxiety also decreased significantly on it. I'm not even on a high dose; I was only on 100 mgs for a couple years, and now I am on 50. I tried going off of it last year and it did not go well. I am ok with being on it for the rest of my life if I have to be.

[Anonymous No.8235586]

>>8235571
How do you actually feel in comparison to how you originally are? You feel "better"? Do you go more "with the flow"? Do you feel sort of dumber?

[Anonymous No.8235596]

>>8230504
>>8230512
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301-man-with-tiny-brain-shocks-doctors
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329861-900-woman-of-24-found-to-have-no-cerebellum-in-her-brain/

really makes you think

[Anonymous No.8235606]

>>8235510
>>8235539
>>8235571
What do you think about head CT scans?

[Anonymous No.8235623]

>>8235586
Yes, yes, and no. The constant stress had a far more detrimental effect on my mental functioning than this medication could ever hope to. But again, I am not on a very high dose at this point, which I think is the key. I take just enough to take the edge off.

[Anonymous No.8235624]

Medical physicist MSc student here, ask me anything.

[Anonymous No.8235631]

>>8235624
Can you tell OP whether or not he should be worrying about a single CT scan to the head?

Does

>>8234815
>>8234845
>>8234878
>>8235129

make sense?

[Anonymous No.8235632]

>>8235624
Why did God create cancer?

[Anonymous No.8235633]

>>8235606
I had one once when I was 13, although it didn't last long and I don't believe they even obtained any information from it. I had a very severe reaction to the CT scan dye. It's funny, they thought I was having a panic attack when I told them I could not breath. I did not know that horror then.

In terms of safety, judging by the information in this thread it doesn't appear to be especially dangerous. I likely would have reacted in exactly the same way as OP back when I was in my 'state', though.

When I was in my state, I urged my doctor to schedule me for an MRI. I told my therapist about it, and she told me not to worry to much about any 'abnormalities' that may be found. In the end, I decided I'd rather not know about any such things, and cancelled it. It wasn't medically necessary at all anyway. I did have a completely unnecessary chest x-ray once, though. I've destroyed all credibility in the eyes of my doctor. I could legitimately have something wrong at this point, and he'd tell me that the only problem I have is a mental one.

[Anonymous No.8235634]

>>8235633
Ah, so you were thinking about getting a MRI afterwards as well? I was also considering it.

[Anonymous No.8235641]

>>8235631
Obviously there is a chance that he will get cancer from this, however it is unlikely. You can find the average head CT dose in Sieverts on the web (ICRU or IAEA or american health-thingie website maybe?). From that you can easily calculate the actual chance according to the stadards developed by the IAEA. It will be miniscule.

>>8234815
He is simplifying too much but generally right.

>>8234845
>>8234878
>>8235129
They do make sense.

>>8235632
Cell level microevolution and the imperfection of your immune system did.

[Anonymous No.8235646]

>>8235634

Are you wanting it just for 'peace of mind'? Sounds like that might not be a good idea. You are also just reinforcing the anxiety if you keep doing things like this.

[Anonymous No.8235648]

>>8235641
>Obviously there is a chance that he will get cancer from this, however it is unlikely.

Even saying that is a bit much. The chance is so low that it may as well be theoretically speaking as there is proof that it does not affect anyone from basic statistical data from the past 40 years.
>>8234845
>>8235129

[Anonymous No.8235650]

>>8235646
I won't bother with it now if everything ITT is correct and I don't see how it couldn't. The logic is there, to me. If the CT scanner has been around for this long, and millions of people have gotten their head scanned, on old scanners and multiple times no less, and we have NO increase in brain tumors? It really does just make the argument fall on its face, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.8235660]

>>8235650
Good thinking! Keep on keepin on.

[Anonymous No.8235747]

i've also had a ct scan of my head. what is the conclusion of this thread? should i worry?

[Anonymous No.8235967]

>>8235747
No.

[Anonymous No.8236461]

>>8235747
>should i worry?
No, just enjoy your last moments.

[Anonymous No.8236581]

>>8236461
kek

[Anonymous No.8236586]

>>8234815
>>8234845
>>8234878
>>8235129
>tfw you read all of this and it all makes sense yet you keep having anxiety over it anyway because you think that somehow there is an error in the logic even though there couldn't possibly be

fuck, I hate anxiety/OCD/whatever does this to me

[Anonymous No.8236641]

>>8236586
The only error could be that the studies themselves are not valid, but you can look at ANY study showing brain cancer rates in the last 40+ years anywhere in the world, and they are all the same. The USA studies are the most important as the most CT scans are there so it will be the most valid compared to other countries, though.

I just looked at something from a UK brain cancer website, and they basically say that your chance after one CT scan goes up by 0.25% at the high end MAXIMUM estimate. WHY MENTION IT FOR FUCKS SAKE?!

the fact that they even bother to mention shit like this and freak people out is just weird.

They talk about how your chance goes up by anywhere from 50-500% per fucking GRAY. you get like 40 MILIGRAYS from a head CT scan.

it's just retarded. they use these high doses and people who don't know any better will suddenly thing that they have a 50-500% increased risk to get a brain tumor from their CT scan. what idiocy.

WHY EVEN MENTION CT SCANNING if you're just going to talk about high doses like 1+ Sv and 1 Gy?!

What fear-mongering retardation, if I've ever seen it. Whoever makes some of these pages is just a retard.

[Anonymous No.8236647]

>>8235596
>Feuillet and his colleagues describe the case of this patient in The Lancet. He is a married father of two children, and works as a civil servant.
>Civil Servant

Fucking lol

[Anonymous No.8236660]

>>8236586
OP, I'm a radiation therapist. Let me gently fuck your butt with knowledge.

1.20% of people die of cancer. Thats baseline. Some places are slightly higher, some slightly lower, but mostly its just the fact that as you grow older the chances that one of your billions upon billions of cells making a mistake and your body not catching it increase. It's just a statistical thing.

2.The good news is that we're getting better at fighting it, assuming we find it early. So if you're really worried about these sorts of things, just have regular doctor's appointments and tell them about any strange pains, changes in weight, changes in perception, etc.

3. The radiation from a CT scan is not gonna give you cancer. Ok, I can't say that definitively but you get a lot of radiation when you fly in a plane too but no one complains about that giving them cancer. Radiation is everywhere but chances are that if any kind of radiation is gonna give you cancer, its solar, not diagnostic.

[Anonymous No.8236672]

>>8236660
You get about 1/8th of the radiation, over hours of time, from a flight. Round trip and then we'll get something like 1/4th, over several hours, over the entire body. They really aren't that comparable. Comparing to astronauts would be better like >>8234845

[Anonymous No.8236689]

>>8236641
>WHY MENTION IT FOR FUCKS SAKE?!
>the fact that they even bother to mention shit like this and freak people out is just weird.
>What fear-mongering retardation, if I've ever seen it. Whoever makes some of these pages is just a retard.
They just tell the truth, and it's up to you to interpret it. Normal people don't freak out that easily, seek therapy.

[Anonymous No.8236752]

Millions of people get head CT scans every year. We would be seeing huge surges in cancer incidents if they affected you in any way that was significant. There are literally like 60-70 million scans per year in the USA, many of them will be head CT scans, and some people will be getting multiple. I know people who got head CT scans. Nothing ever happened to them, and lots of them even got them when they were kids from sports even though your risk is ~~~sooo much higher if you're an adolescent or a child~~~. Anyone that doesn't say that these are theoretical increases are just not looking at all of the data we have available. We would have seen this starting back in 90s if it was true. I've looked at the USA rate, Spain rate, UK rate, Australia rate.. They have all made changes +/- 1 case in 100,000 in the last 40 years, meaning they haven't moved, especially in relation to how many head CT scans we have per year. If low dose radiation from a CT scan was enough to kick-start some cancers, it would have happened a long while ago. Am I not seeing something that everyone is freaking out about?

[Anonymous No.8236758]

>>8236689
>tell the truth
Well, they put all of the evidence on the table, no matter how irrelevant it is, basically. You're right though. High doses of radiation are all we really have as evidence for cancers.

[Anonymous No.8236803]

You need to see a psychologist, OP. I'm not trying to sound like some kind of snarky asshole if that's what it sounds like, but you legitimately need to talk to someone about HOW you think, because you definitely have something like anxiety and OCD. You obviously had the insurance to pay for medical imaging, so therapy shouldn't be out of reach for you. I'm doubting that your one CT scan is where this is truly all coming from.

[Anonymous No.8237829]

>>8236803
Why is it so weird that I'm worried about this?

[Anonymous No.8238617]

>>8237829
it's weird to worry about this because the data just isn't there and therefore you're suffering from health anxiety. Doctors aren't idiots. They would know if these scans were something to really worry about. something like 3/10 people in the USA get a scan every year. We'd see gigantic increases in cancers all over if CT scans were an issue.

[Anonymous No.8238632]

>>8237829
it isn't, but it may be a symptom of a disorder. I had something similar. Never had any mental problems whatsoever. One day felt something really weird in my stomach/chest and was convinced i had an aortic anneurysm, something i read about a few years earlier and never really thought about until that point. The fear was completly irrational and i knew that, but that didn't help at all. I'd get panic attacks and could barely sleep. Was sometimes convinced that i'd drop dead any second.

A psychologist can help with something like this, and if it's early prevent it from getting worse. If this shit really causes a lot of problems for you like it did for me you might get some slight anxiolytic medication like opipramol or citalopram, in most cases a psychologist can help without medication i think.

Consider going to one and have him look at your symptoms and the way you think, it might be worth it. What you have could be a medical condition that can be treated. If that's the case you really want treatment because otherwise it might get a lot worse.

[Anonymous No.8238635]

>>8238632
but what happened to you is based on almost nothing, just normal body shit, while I had a head CT scan, an external thing that happened to me.

[Anonymous No.8238640]

>>8238635
fear of getting cancer from a CT scan is based on nothing, as others pointed out multiple times already. The data is easily available, the logic behind it irrefutable. If knowing that helps you everything is fine, if it doesn't consider visiting a psychologist before it gets worse. They don't bite.

[Anonymous No.8238646]

>>8238640
It's not like we truly know though. Those studies could have been done in any way.

Why are all of these articles saying that it poses a risk then? All of these fucking articles from cancer organizations saying ionizing radiation causes cancer, even mentioning CT scans?

[Anonymous No.8238652]

>>8236672
Yeah but people tend to fly in planes more than once, and they tend to do it more than they fly in space.

Point is, freaking out about some minor dose of radiation is dumb.

[Anonymous No.8238654]

>>8238646
how do i know i don't have an aortic anneursym? I could very well have one for all i know, some people don't have symptoms until its to late. The point is that i have no reason to think i have one since the chances are ridiculously small. Same for your problem. Each year millions of people get CT scans, the technology is widely used since the late 70s. More than 30 years, and nobody noticed that people get cancer from a standard imaging technology?

Besides that the potential danger in CT scans is, as you pointed out, only the ionizing radiation. And you get hit by more of that in a single transatlantic flight.

[Anonymous No.8238661]

>>8238646
Because ionizing radiation DOES cause cancer and CT scans CAN increase your risk. If you have a bunch of them.

News flash, if a procedure puts a bunch of radiation into you, than doing it lots of times might be a poor idea.

In other news, don't sit in front of an xray source for hours on end. Also don't light your balls on fire.

[Anonymous No.8238662]

>>8238654
>Besides that the potential danger in CT scans is, as you pointed out, only the ionizing radiation. And you get hit by more of that in a single transatlantic flight.

This is how I know you don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.8238665]

>>8238662
Oh, did i get the numbers wrong? So how many transatlantic flights do you need to reach the same dosage then? Does it make any difference?

[Anonymous No.8238671]

>>8238665
In a head CT scan, you receive about 2 mSv to your head in about 10 seconds

In a transatlantic flight, you receive about .5 mSv to your entire body throughout several hours.

The difference is great.

[Anonymous No.8238672]

>>8238671
a round-trip flight, actually.

a single flight from A to B would only give you about 1/8th in several hour to your entire body.

Nobody cares about risks for cancer from flights because there is nothing to worry about.

[Anonymous No.8238685]

>>8238671
>>8238672
what about the pilot that does this a few times per week?

Point being, each year millions of people get CT scans, no data is available that shows that a single scan increases your chances to get cancer. If that'd be the case you can be sure that someone would've discovered it, there are enough people crawling through data like this in search for something to write a paper about. In addition to all the guys whose job it is to check if medical procedures are safe.

Also i'm pretty sure that even the people getting close to 10 times of the normal annual dose through their workplace don't have significantly higher cancer risks. At least that's what our prof told us last year when he spoke about TLVs

[Anonymous No.8238698]

>>8238685
2 mSv in 10 seconds to a single part of your body is dramatically worse than 2 mSv in one year to your entire body.

How do you not understand this dramatic difference?

[Anonymous No.8238721]

>>8238698
how do you not understand that this was done more than a hundred million times by now and yet nobody was able to link it to an increased cancer risk?

Also do you even have any source that shows that it matters for your cancer risk over what period of time you recievea negligible dose of radiation?

[Anonymous No.8238744]

>>8238721
literally from the chart >>8230551

[Anonymous No.8238752]

>>8238721
>how do you not understand that this was done more than a hundred million times by now and yet nobody was able to link it to an increased cancer risk?

35~ years isn't long enough to see the damage it does. We DO already know that it effects you the younger you are(kids). I'm only 21. I'm barely not a kid.

[Anonymous No.8238805]

>>8238752
Yes it affects kids, but we're talking about 5 years old and younger in a most cases. These kids are still growing very rapidly in the brain(the most in our entire lives) and the room for error is massive. Even an 18 year old male is 99% there and done. Radiation(or in other words, damaged cells) is always bad for cells that are still dividing a lot and gives room for error, which is why it is actually considered worrisome for multiple CT scans in other parts of the body like the abdomen.

This is why legitimate pediatric ct scans are considered worrisome. This is a huge distinction in the logic of this thread. You're 21. Your brain is done growing and most likely has been for a year or two. You'd have to have some serious family history of Neurofibromatosis, which is all very rare and you'd know about it by all of your relatives dying of cancer.

If I was your father, I would be worried if our doctor told us he wanted a CT scan of your brain at <5 years old when you're a little kiddo and I'd ask if there was an alternative, but at 21? I wouldn't be worried. Your shit is set in stone at this point and most likely has been for while.

Loads of kids get head CT scans from playing sports and shit like that. They have more of a risk than you do yet they don't give a fuck, because the risk even for them is teeny tiny.

[Anonymous No.8238823]

>>8238752
and yes, 35 years is absolutely enough time to see how these scans have affected people. Even if everyone received 3 scans(debatable) in 1980, that's still 1,000,000 people that receive CT scans just that year in just the USA. If the worry was legitimate, it would have been investigated hardcore, massive suing of hospitals and people involved with the creation of the technology... it would have been a huge thing. That hasn't happened in 35 years, yet millions of people get at least one scan each year in the USA alone.

We have no data to suggest that the radiation in CT scans affect you, after 35 years of millions of people per year receiving them, sometimes multiple.

If this doesn't calm your concerns, then you need to see a psychologist because the data is just not correlating with what you're concerned about. Unless you're secretly a 4 year old or have a huge history of cancers in your family and just neglect to mention it, you shouldn't be worried about this at all.

[Anonymous No.8238832]

>>8238823
and not to mention that our modern scanners, which you have cited is what your hospital used on you here >>8230569, use less radiation than the ones back in the 80s and 90s.

There are so many points that go against your worries that it's just silly. I feel like even if the dose was 1 mSv, you'd still be just as worried as you have been.

Stop reading online health articles.

[Anonymous No.8238845]

>>8238832
and not to mention that females are automatically more susceptible to radiation damage than males.

The evidence against your worry just keeps piling on(unless you're also secretly a girl)

[Anonymous No.8239467]

>>8231139
>2 mSv is like fucking peanuts

literally, eat a peanut and you get 2 mSv

[Anonymous No.8239538]

>>8230512
your dose isn't high
fuck off
you can look up approximately how much you received if you really want to know
>muh radiation
hope you don't get prostate cancer or something, because you're pretty much guaranteed to have to treat it with radiation

[Anonymous No.8239559]

>>8233719
you're way off
LD50/30 is like 400-500 Rem (4-5 Sv)
according to the NRC
you get roughly 300 mRem from background radiation in the US on average (3 mSv)
>>8233786
> 8000 Sv
lel that's retardedly high. like orders of magnitude. 8000 Rem will kill you with most certainty, 8000 Sv is 100 times greater

[Anonymous No.8239569]

>>8239559
I meant 8000 mSv. That's just my mistake.

[Anonymous No.8240019]

>>8239467
kek

[Anonymous No.8241550]

>>8239538
holy shit read the thread retard.

[Anonymous No.8242557]

>>8239559
>you get roughly 300 mRem from background radiation in the US on average (3 mSv)
US gets like 6 mSv per year.

[Anonymous No.8242572]

>>8230508

The kind of cancer that actually shows up on a ct scan takes a long ass time to develope.

[Anonymous No.8243041]

>>8242572
what is that supposed to even mean anon

[Anonymous No.8243384]

The radiation your head receives from a head CT scan isn't enough to overwhelm your bodies natural repair mechanisms. It just isn't. Having Neurofibromatosis, meaning you have a system that is prone to tumor growth and ill-repair is all that would be affected by radiation. If we're talking something like an instant 100+ mSv, then you'll probably have an issue if we're talking about the head. If you have a family history of tumors, especially of the brain, then that would indicate something like Neurofibromatosis.

[Anonymous No.8244778]

>>8239467
fuck off retard

[Anonymous No.8245422]

>>8230531
Source?

[Anonymous No.8245636]

>>8230504
>Should I worry
No. But you should be aware that given your available information, your odds are probably higher. Radiologists frequently bullshit about radiation exposure during scans, comparing it to plane flights or X time period of background radiation. The former is bluntly wrong, the latter is disingenuous because it's all happening at once and on a very concentrated area.

Anyway. What's done is done. As another anon said, unnecessarily stressing is worse for you at this point. Your risk could be higher, or it could never amount to anything. Even though it happened yesterday I'd still take in a high dose of antioxidants to more quickly stop any free radical cascades, elevated ROS / NOS production, etc.

I refused a cone beam CT of my jaw and lower face region precisely because I wasn't capable of bringing myself to risk it, and didn't have goggles or a thyroid shield to slightly lower exposure. Internal scattering will always be a problem though, and it would largely go right to the brain. I couldn't go through with it to confirm the source of a decade of pain resembling type 2 trigeminal neuralgia. So why ever you did it, or had to do it, know that you did something someone else was too afraid to. Precisely because I knew I'd have difficulty managing the subsequent anxiety.

[Anonymous No.8245638]

Holy shit, why is this thread still alive? It'll outlive OP at this rate.

[Anonymous No.8245657]

>>8245638
Kek

[Anonymous No.8245668]

>>8245636
Read the thread. Worrying about a single head CT scan is pretty pointless given all of the information posted.

>>8234845
>>8234853
>>8234878
>>8235129

>>8235648

>>8238805
>>8238823
>>8238832
>>8238845

[Anonymous No.8245679]

>>8245668
>Read the thread.
I've read the available literature instead.

Like I said though, it's pointless for him to worry. The risk, while probably low, isn't really knowable. And it ain't the same as radon exposure over time, or stuff around you getting hit by muons here and there.

Don't buy into radiology bullshitting. These people will tell you even a PET scan is totally safe.

[Anonymous No.8245682]

>>8245679
Yeah, I was eating bananas, black beans, orange juice the few days after.

[Anonymous No.8245688]

>>8245679
>The risk, while probably low, isn't really knowable

There was a study of about 30,000 women recieving multiple CT scans, like 7 scans on average, and about 2% received cancer that they believe is from the scans, and we're talking about back-to-back abdominal scans, and they're women.

If OP had a chest, abdomen, or pelvis CT where the faster-growing cells are more vulnerable to radiation, then I'd see the concern. This was a single head CT scan on a healthy grown male. His worry is so much more worrisome than his CT scan which is why i suggested going to a therapist above.

[Anonymous No.8245703]

>>8245688
Yes yes, I know. Most of the brain is not undergoing active growth and the parts that are, are fairly controlled. Brain tumors are more apt to be metastasis from elsewere. Etc. I get it.

The segment you responded to already addressed your post. A risk exists, and you cannot naively apply a vague statistic without taking into account what's behind and driving its results, ie, it's not knowable nor predictable. OP's anxiety stems from intellectual honesty, don't try to convince him to be stupid and then say to get a therapist.

OP will have to reconcile his worry for himself. If I were me I'd be more worried about the cells that may have been killed off by free radical cascades, than the longer term possibility of cancer.

[Anonymous No.8245711]

>>8230504
I would be far more concerned about the tumor you have right now, OP.

[Anonymous No.8245723]

>>8245711
kek. that's just from google images.

[Anonymous No.8245726]

>>8245723
His name. Was Bob.

[Anonymous No.8245739]

>>8245703
I understand what you're saying. All that we know for sure with the data we have is that it's very unlikely and yes I would also be more worrying of how many, if any cells were killed. I feel like that would be more likely with an older person, although I have nothing to back that up, it seems like it'd make more sense than a 21 year old male.

[Anon No.8245746]

>>8230504
Maybe you should consider asking a medical professional instead of a bunch of nerds sitting in mom's basement.

[Anonymous No.8245754]

>>8245746
lmao he did and they all told him to not worry.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskDocs/comments/4v0f1n/dangers_of_a_head_ct_scan/

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskDocs/comments/4v6csm/what_causes_glioblastoma/

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4v6bei/what_causes_glioblastomafamily_history_head_ct/

from another thread he made

[Anonymous No.8245763]

>>8245754
OP is just worried and panicking.
Don't make fun of him.

[Anonymous No.8245775]

>>8245754
>medical professional
>reddit

jesus christ...

[Anonymous No.8245835]

>>8245763
This is why I keep saying to go to a therapist. He already knows or could deduce(he's clearly not an idiot, but has anxiety issues that this scan triggered) that his single scan didn't affect him enough to think about it all of the time. His actual problem is his anxiety.

OP, you have to realize that you could die from a heart attack at any time. In fact, you probably will, statistically die of heart disease. Brain tumors seem to be something that a lot of people with health anxiety seem to worry about, and getting that CT scan is what triggered it in OP.

Maybe this is a wake-up call that your time is actually finite and you aren't invincible. You are likely to die of a heart attack, but all you can hope for is that you live to an old age until then, say your 80s.

People with health anxiety seem to be more worried about not living long enough to enjoy the majority of their life. You see health anxiety in young people, especially 20s, when you're finally free to do as you wish, the LAST thing you want is to go to the doctor and they say "oh turns out you have pancreatic cancer, you'll be dead within six months. gg hope you did something worthwhile with your life"

Health anxiety, at least I believe, stems from that.

If you worry about things like this, once you actually DO become old and you're on your death bed, you'll be wishing you just forgot about this shit and lived your life, because it's all a waste of time. Statistically, you will live to old age OP as long as you have no underlying problems, so even this is something you'll look back on as that silly shit you worried about and have a laugh.

People die at all ages OP. The best case scenario is that you live to an old age. The worst is that you died not doing anything to look back on when you get there, and it's not hard to do. Do anything. Even the gesture of doing something that you wanted to do would be enough, even if the outcome from it wasn't what you hoped.

[Anonymous No.8245888]

>>8245835
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Top-12-First-Issues-That-Kill-Men-63066.shtml

>1. Heart Disease
>2. Lung Cancer
>3. Colon Cancer
>4. Car Crash
>5. Stroke
>6. Emphysema or Chronic Bronchitis
>7. Diabetes
>8. Flu or Pneumonia
>9. Suicide
>10. Kidney issues
>11. Obesity
>12. Sleep Apnea
>13. Alzheimers

You have all of that shit to worry about OP. Don't worry about brain cancer, lol. That's just about the least of your concerns. What made you so sure you'd die from something special? A lot of those things above are sort of intertwined with each other too. A lot of them have huge risk increases from smoking, being overweight, heredity, having Diabetes, shit like that. Just eat your fruits and vegetables, and don't expect life to just hand you anything. Be happy that you're alive at all. Once you realize that, you have no reason to worry. It's like a zen.

[Anonymous No.8246492]

>>8245888
>no prostate cancer

[Anonymous No.8246505]

>>8246492
Prostate was on there but the vast majority are 80+ year old men. I guess I could say the same for Alzheimers. You got me there anon, haha.

[Anonymous No.8247232]

>>8245638
It's a really good thread at this point.

[Anonymous No.8248913]

>>8245679
>These people will tell you even a PET scan is totally safe.
...because it is unless you have Neurofibromatosis.

[Anonymous No.8248936]

>>8245703
>A risk exists
prove it. you're operating under the assumption of stochastic health effects from low doses of radiation, based on a linear no-threshold relationship between dose and biological damage, which was extrapolated to very low doses from very high doses back in the 40s and 50s from atomic bomb survivors.
#hormesis

[Anonymous No.8248961]

>>8245703
>OP's anxiety stems from intellectual honesty, don't try to convince him to be stupid and then say to get a therapist.

If you legitimately think that OPs worry isn't stemming from an anxiety disorder then you probably need to see a therapist yourself if you can't dig your own head out of your ass. We have literally decades of millions of people receiving these scans and nothing has changed.

[Anonymous No.8249023]

>>8248913
I like putting stuff in my body that emits gamma radiation too.

>>8248936
>prove it. you're operating under the assumption of stochastic health effects from low doses of radiation[...]
I'm operating on a logical framework based around physics, and the higher level composition of biological systems. The machinery of which has a very narrow window for responding positively to radiation exposure, a larger window for repairing and having any effects be functionally inert, and a comparably sized window of distinctly negative outcomes.

I don't think you really understand how fragile neurons are, and how readily free radical damage spurs apoptosis. You also don't seem to realize a number of regions do actually undergo continued, controlled growth, and there is little means to predict what goes where. You also fail to realize what regulatory feedback loops control these processes. Ask yourself, have you ever wondered why gliomas are among the most common tumors that arise from within the brain? Hmm...

>>8248961
This is called a naively applied heuristic, and as usual, it's based around a faith in statistics. Despite that you don't actually know much of anything about the underlying mechanics driving what you're seeing, you tell yourself you have a meaningful capacity for prediction. eg, with more information and a better informed heuristic, an individual that would otherwise be within a generic statistical "1 in 100,000" chance, might be quickly revealed to have much higher odds, if not odds that are practically deterministic. You START with naive statistics, they are not the end, and you don't rely on them.

Likewise you're overestimating the rate with which these types of scans have been used historically. Although the amount of radiation required to construct a useful image modern day is much lower, which is a good indication for OP.
[limit]

[Anonymous No.8249033]

>>8249023
[cont]
Nonetheless, OP is right to be realistic about how much he knows. He can unravel and learn to counterbalance his anxiety on his own, and it's really none of your business to be quite blunt. Unfortunately your attitude is a product of a system that knows it can charge a lot for scans and is increasingly apathetic about total radiation exposure over time. When you come to live in a world where kids walk in to the dentist and have a cone beam CT for routine dental imaging, just remember, you did this.

Like I said above, I'd be worried as much about how many brain cells I killed, but oh well. That's just the way it works. I don't think he should bother worrying too much. People also shouldn't try to convince him he can get CT scans every day and be A-okay, because that's the hackjob logic you're trying to push.

[Anonymous No.8249045]

>>8249033
nobody is saying that CT scans don't do anything ever, but one head scan isn't going to do anything. out of any scans he could have gotten and how many, a single head CT scan is about the safest scan you can get. you're acting like he received several abdominal scans.

[Anonymous No.8249054]

>>8249045
>nobody is saying that CT scans don't do anything ever
>but one head scan isn't going to do anything.
I know it's just informal wording here, but this is what I'm talking about. Those two statements directly contradict each other. Does it do something, or does it not? And if it doesn't do much of anything, why would it matter how many scans you have? Cumulatively, if the odds are so low, and the machinery of the body is affected so negligibly, certainly your odds would be less than even linear.

Cut it out. Just be honest so I can leave.

[Anonymous No.8249058]

>>8249023
>I'm operating on a logical framework based around physics, and the higher level composition of biological systems. The machinery of which has a very narrow window for responding positively to radiation exposure, a larger window for repairing and having any effects be functionally inert, and a comparably sized window of distinctly negative outcomes.
>I don't think you really understand how fragile neurons are, and how readily free radical damage spurs apoptosis
what i know is radiation. a single ct scan isn't gonna do him any harm. you do realize that radiation is essentially the most effective method of treating cancer (including brain tumors with BNCT)
who is saying shit like you can get a ct scan every day and be ok? nobody, we're saying a scan once in a blue moon when you need it is fine (who fucking needs a ct scan or PET or SPECT, etc. more than once or twice in their life anyway)

[Anonymous No.8249059]

>>8249054
One head CT scan shouldn't be causing the OP to worry that he's going to die of a brain tumor. That's what he's saying. The affect will be negligible on an adult male with no family history of cancers.

[Anonymous No.8249064]

>>8249054
not that guy, but read up on the idea of radiation hormesis

[Anonymous No.8249075]

>>8249054
>he still thinks that LNT makes sense

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19066487

[Anonymous No.8249079]

>>8249058
>you do realize that radiation is essentially the most effective method of treating cancer (including brain tumors with BNCT)
No. These ways of solving problems are sloppy and stupid. It might be the most effective now, but it doesn't make it good or remotely ideal.

Soon we'll be able to control blood brain barrier permeability via microwave exposure (and VDCCs of the cancerous cells themselves), and get drugs into the brain in appreciable amounts. Hopefully these drugs will be better as far as collateral damage.

>>8249059
I agree. Maybe people ought to say it right, if that's the case.

>>8249064
>>8249075
I have. That's why I said there's a small window for positive effects. Please read instead of embarrassing yourself by "laughing at me".

[Anonymous No.8249082]

>>8249054
Until you can statistically show that, since the creation of X-ray computed tomography, cancer rates have risen, there isn't any solid data you have other than masturbatory jargon nobody cares about.

[Anonymous No.8249088]

>>8249082
I'd show it mechanically, not statistically, actually. So I more likely know I know something, and know I know what I think I know :^)

For all you know there are other factors influencing cancer rates. Risk assessment will always be better performed by relying on logic before statistics.

[Anonymous No.8249090]

>>8249079
>It might be the most effective now, but it doesn't make it good or remotely ideal.
brachytherapy has over a 98% cure rate for prostate cancer. hardly sloppy or stupid

[Anonymous No.8249094]

>>8249059
this. nobody is saying that radiation doesn't effect you, but to say that a single head scan is going to be anything to worry about or make you think that you're going to die of a brain tumor in your lifetime or whatever is just totally ignorant and fear mongering. OP will live a normal life and die of heart disease or something, more than likely unless he gets hit by a car. That's just statistics at work. To say that OP would have something to worry about from a fucking head scan, man, we have lots of other people to give the news to then, who have completely normal lives and will also die from something unrelated to radiation damage caused by their ct scans.

[Anonymous No.8249097]

>>8249090
I'm talking more about malignant cancers arising in the brain itself, than metastasis. Nonetheless, even for metastasis, cure rate is not the only parameter for how ideal something is.

[Anonymous No.8249099]

>>8249054
>Studies in cell cultures can be useful for finding mechanisms for biological processes, but they also can be criticized for not effectively capturing the whole of the living organism.

>A study by E.I. Azzam suggested that pre-exposure to radiation causes cells to turn on protection mechanisms.[42] A different study by de Toledo and collaborators, has shown that irradiation with gamma rays increases the concentration of glutathione, an antioxidant found in cells.[43]

>In 2011, an in vitro study led by S.V. Costes showed in time-lapse images a strongly non-linear response of certain cellular repair mechanisms called radiation-induced foci (RIF). The study found that low doses of radiation prompted higher rates of RIF formation than high doses, and that after low-dose exposure RIF continued to form after the radiation had ended. Measured rates of RIF formation were 15 RIF/Gy at 2 Gy, and 64 RIF/Gy at .1 Gy.[28] These results suggest that low dose levels of ionizing radiation may not increase cancer risk directly proportional to dose and thus contradict the linear-no-threshold standard model.[44] Mina Bissell, a world-renowned breast cancer researcher and collaborator in this study stated “Our data show that at lower doses of ionizing radiation, DNA repair mechanisms work much better than at higher doses. This non-linear DNA damage response casts doubt on the general assumption that any amount of ionizing radiation is harmful and additive.”[44]

[Anonymous No.8249107]

Radiation gives you a higher chance of thyroid cancer and leukemia. Brain cancer? I've never seen it.

[Anonymous No.8249121]

>>8249099
DNA repair mechanisms cannot magically recover information in the case that it's irreversibly lost. DNA repair mechanisms are also only positive if their elevation is strictly short term. Long term activation increases cancer risk.

Read about the heat shock pathways if you want to know more about the dualisms involved in cellular stress.

This last line is also retarded.
>This non-linear DNA damage response casts doubt on the general assumption that any amount of ionizing radiation is harmful and additive.”
Which is a shame because they started strong:
>Studies in cell cultures can be useful for finding mechanisms for biological processes, but they also can be criticized for not effectively capturing the whole of the living organism.

[Anonymous No.8249127]

>>8249121
>This last line is also retarded.
why? it's much more retarded to say that any amount of ionizing radiation is in fact harmful and additive

[Anonymous No.8249132]

>>8249127
>additive
Meaningless in the absence of a dose and time scale.
>harmful
Obvious when you consider the effect of free radical cascades.

Seriously. You can kill off dopaminergic neurons just by forcing them to leave a lot of dopamine in their synapse, for fuck's sake. It's not like this is some compartmentalized topic and we don't have experience with anything else.

[Anonymous No.8249137]

OP is quite literally suffering from something thanks to the Linear no-threshold model that is called Radiophobia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model#Mental_health_effects

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia

The fact that the LNT model is so vague yet still taken seriously by some bodys just to cover their own asses has caused people who receive radiation treatments, medical scans, nuclear power plant accidents, anything related to radiation to cause this huge fear that is EXACTLY what the OP is experiencing.

>Because damage from very-low-level radiation cannot be detected, people exposed to it are left in anguished uncertainty about what will happen to them. Many believe they have been fundamentally contaminated for life and may refuse to have children for fear of birth defects. They may be shunned by others in their community who fear a sort of mysterious contagion.

the LNT model is absolutely idiotic and I've never taken it seriously. There is NO evidence to support the LNT model. There IS evidence to support something related to hormesis, if not at least the linear-quadratic model. We literally don't use the LNT model for cell survival, but the linear quadratic model.

>>8249023
This guy is an idiot, basically.

[Anonymous No.8249144]

>>8249137
>This guy is an idiot, basically.
Put it in mechanical terms, now.

[Anonymous No.8249158]

>>8249121
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis#Ionizing_Radiation

[Anonymous No.8249170]

>>8249158
Supports what I've been saying about proper risk assessment and dealing with a large number of unpredictable variables.

[Anonymous No.8249179]

>>8249137
I didn't even know that there was a name for it. I thought that this was just OP sperging out. This post makes more sense than most ITT.

[Anonymous No.8249232]

>>8249144
Mechanically shove a dildo up your ass.

[Anonymous No.8249235]

>>8249232
No.

[Anonymous No.8249251]

>>8249235
You'd probably think it'd give you a higher risk of prostate cancer.

[Anonymous No.8249260]

>>8249251
I thought risk of prostate cancer relative to prostate massage, or frequent ejaculation, was statistically a myth though...
:^)

[Anonymous No.8249272]

>>8249121
What you're saying doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.8249277]

>>8249272
>Put it in mechanical terms, now.
Substantiate in mechanical terms.

[Anonymous No.8249284]

>>8249054
I'd bet money that you're autistic. I really, truly would. I'm not bullshitting to make a joke. You are probably autistic. You can't even understand informal wording.

[Anonymous No.8249290]

>>8249284
You'd lose that money.

[Anonymous No.8249322]

>>8249054
>nobody is saying that CT scans don't do anything ever
>but one head scan isn't going to do anything.

> Those two statements directly contradict each other
No, they don't.

>Does it do something, or does it not?
Obviously, it is negligible at the doses that a single scan would expose you to. You don't seem to be an idiot, so how does this confuse you? OP has not mentioned in this entire thread that he was scanned with a contrasting agent and without, so one scan is what we have been discussing, one scan with no contrasting agent.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are following the LNT model, which could be the only excuse for why you're posting this.

[Anonymous No.8249351]

>>8249322
>I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are following the LNT model
I'm following my model. A hard mechanical model that is applicable at arbitrary scales, and can readily handle a large spectrum of variables. Its only two goals are accuracy and realitic risk assessment, while taking into account uncertainty and controlling for known and unknown sources of error.

If the machine is shown to function differently, have different composition, or physics is... somehow shown to be different, the model will adapt. That's what it does, and that's what I'm interested. I don't really like compartmentalization, or strictly self inclusive models. I don't think we should embrace paradigms. Humans psychology and tendency towards delusion must be taken into account, and the notion of a "paradigm shift" is typically a symptom of the fruits of our very worst behaviors at work.

Anyway, it seems I'm ultimately derailing this thread. All I'm saying is to be realistic. Consider the full spectrum of possible factors, and the relationships between them. That's all.

OP, again, you shouldn't bother worrying. It'd be nice if you ever include -why- you got the scan, but whatever. It's over now.

[Anonymous No.8249370]

>>8249351
>It'd be nice if you ever include -why- you got the scan
I fell and hit my head on a wall, like the corner of a wall so it hit between my eyebrows, left a 1" cut that bled down to my nose, but stopped bleeding after I took care of it and bandaged it up.

I went to the hospital after getting a bit dizzy and nauseous out of nowhere a few days later. They gave me the scan, told me nothing was wrong in any way, and sent me home with some anti-nausea medication prescription that I didn't ask for and never filled. Obviously I regret getting the scan being that nothing ended up being wrong, but hindsight is 20/20 I guess. They had MRIs but they told me that I needed to set an appointment for it. I feel like they thought I was worse than I was and were giving me the scan out of safety. I really didn't need anti-nausea pills. It wasn't nearly that bad. I just wanted to know if there was some sort of bleeding or something wrong with my head in any way, and I guess there wasn't. If I could go back, obviously I'd do nothing, but I do wish, even as I was asking them about radiation dangers, that they said "you know what, we'll give you an MRI if it concerns you that much" but they never said that even though I was talking to everyone there about the radiation concerns. All they did was tell me stuff like "the dose is low for a head scan so you don't have to worry" and "knowing if something is wrong is better than not knowing" etc etc... They ended up telling me that I probably suffered a minor concussion.

From what I've read in this thread, the radiation won't effect me, but I'm still never getting a CT scan again unless it is absolutely vital to my survival.

[Anonymous No.8249394]

>>8249370
I figured it was something like that and you ended up going to an ER, or some other situation where you're evaluated rapidly. MRIs need to be set up in advance, they want to screen you for implants, probability that you could have embedded pieces of metal (if you're a machinist or something), etc. They also do limited screening if they're using a contrasting agent.

Anyway. I ended up in a few similar situations, and it does suck all around. Knowing shit isn't feeling or working quite right, but also being trapped in knowing you don't want the effect of ruling anything out, especially in the case of it being nothing. They are right though, it is better you at least know.

Also, for what it's worth, while an MRI is better overall, you don't leave the same way you entered either. Ion channel function is affected by magnetic fields, etc. Mainly this just causes a temporary elevation of heat shock proteins, and elevated neurotransmitter release (via changing the function of VDCCs).

[Anonymous No.8249397]

>>8249394
Also, get a copy of the imaging results for yourself. Somehow makes it all a bit more worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.8249414]

>>8249394
>>8249397
Have you had a CT scan?

[Anonymous No.8249429]

>>8249414
No. I had two MRIs, and then declined a CT (years later). All of these scans were ultimately about the same core thing. I narrowed it down years ago but hadn't verified, and now, still lack the specifics on a mechanical level. I'm pretty sure what it would roughly show though. Maybe after I can afford some x-ray shielding goggles and a thyroid shield, I'll reconsider it. I've dealt with enough shit in my life that the possibility of any further waste, hassle, setback, loss, or unwanted mental change, is psychologically unacceptable. If I am to take any risk, it's going to be on my terms.

I also have a screwed up neck and jaw, and went to an ER when I developed a nystagmus, felt like I was floating and didn't really "have" legs, and I became dizzy and disoriented. This had been a pattern and I feared maybe I had a kinked or magically painlessly dissected vertebral artery. Wasn't thinking properly anyway. They said I was probably fine and offered a CT "if I wanted", I decided against it. It then slowly resolved.

[Anonymous No.8249442]

>>8249429
So you're saying that you're unwilling to get a CT scan until you have some x-ray shielding goggles and a thyroid shield. Doesn't that seem a bit excessive unless you have some family history?

[Anonymous No.8249457]

>>8249442
I don't think so, no. The whole of the logical framework generating and feeding into that result is fairly extended and can't be concisely communicated. Overall I'm a fairly durable person, but I'd just say I wouldn't be surprised to find I have very specific deficits. And either way, every family history needs a first.

Like I said, I've done, lived with, fought with, and fixed enough shit that I'm just tired of it all. I'm doing better than all my previous metrics of "good enough". And I've had pain that resembles trigeminal neuralgia for the last decade. Why would it matter so much to know now when there isn't shit to be done about it.

[Anonymous No.8249479]

>>8249457
What is your outlook on life? Do you care about living long?

[Anonymous No.8249485]

>>8249479
I wouldn't mind something killing me off, but can't do it myself and would, probably, actively prevent it. If I ultimately couldn't, I wouldn't really mind.

Ideally I don't get stuck half dead, or stuck in a position where something will only passively cause problems.

[Anonymous No.8249490]

>>8249485
So you want your death to be quick and not lower your quality of life while you're living it?

Do you really think that a single head CT scan is worrisome? You mention wearing these goggles and shields, but what do you really think?

[Anonymous No.8249503]

>>8249490
It doesn't necessarily need to be intant, and I don't mind experiencing it in some cases, it just needs to be near certain and its process occurring on a reasonable time scale (seconds to a few hours). Ideally minutes.

I think what I've said above. It's not trivial from a risk assessment perspective, but probability wise, it's probably fine. The goggles are mainly to block some external exposure from reaching the brain, and to lower the exposure to the eye (as it can cause cataracts). Doesn't do much against internal scattering but oh well. Assuming you're the OP, in your case the target was the structures in the brain anyway, and it was likely tuned accordingly. In my case it's intended to visualize bones, nerves, blood vessels, muscles, potential cysts or tumors. I'd imagine this might mean a higher frequency and lower penetration depth, smaller voxel size, but I don't know.

As a whole, it's not ideal, and not something I'd use with alternatives, but probably fine. The anxiety of the not knowing eventually disappears, or is counterbalanced afterwards, and you go on. I suppose I'm just unwilling to go through the process and live with more psychological overhead than I do already. As I said, it's not pressing that I know. It's been life for a long time.

[Anonymous No.8249546]

>>8249503
You sound like you know quite a lot. What is your profession?

[Anonymous No.8249564]

>>8230512
just deal with the cancer as iit comes. Imunotherapy is a bangin feild yanno.

[Anonymous No.8249627]

>>8249546
I don't have one, so I guess my profession is "a job".

[Anonymous No.8250759]

>>8249370
well, there was really nothing else you could have done then. an MRI isn't something you can just go get. random dizziness and nausea isn't that normal, even after a minor concussion(especially days after). You were doing what you had to do. For all you know, you were bleeding into your skull slowly and were going to have a stroke or something and actually have a problem. I say it was worth it. You really shouldn't worry about this radiation garbage. The LNT model doesn't really even have evidence to support it as it was simply an extrapolation of high doses decades ago. There is evidence to support that low doses of radiation are not nearly as bad as the LNT model says. I'll take sides with the model that actually has evidence behind it. This thread has shown just about all of the evidence to support that you shouldn't worry about this. You've talked to doctors, everyone ITT, all of these charts and statistics. Nothing ITT has shown that you should worry about the radiation from your head CT scan. The LNT model is only still supported due to political reasons, being as safe as possible and covering asses. People are scared of radiation because of the LNT model. It's not the correct model. If we were talking about an abdominal CT scan, really any scan other than a head scan, this thread would be a bit different. You would have a reason to be concerned, but even then you'd be fine.

[Anonymous No.8251853]

>>8249627
AKA not reputable

[Anonymous No.8251860]

>>8230508
Little known fact: you're a dumbass. The time from mutation to tumor formation is at least months but more likely years.

[Anonymous No.8251861]

>>8251853
I have and maintain no stature.
I could have lied, you know. Maybe you should think about that.

[Anonymous No.8251866]

>>8251860
it was obviously a joke retard. tumors take years. you don't get a brain tumor from a ct scan kek

[Anonymous No.8252448]

>>8230504
>Should I worry about dying of a brain tumor later in life?

From the radiation of a one head ct scan? No. It's just not realistic to worry about something like that. If you have a major family history of brain tumors, then you were fucked from the beginning of life, but if you don't, then you have no reason to worry. Just know that you're going to die one day, and it could be any day. Many people die early. If it does happen to you, and I'm just speaking generally, don't feel like you got a short end of the stick. Just live life. You only get this one. Be happy. When you die, you die, and that's that. Everyone faces it. Everyone. Nobody cheats death. Your worries and fears are what every other person that has ever lived on earth has felt. You're not alone.

This scan, it will not effect you. You will die of something totally unrelated, and I'd bet significant money on it.