Mammogram Dangers

this scares the daylights out of me. I think of all the radiation between dental x-rays, mammograms etc. I have had to go back for additional images because of dense tissue, so I usually wind up getting more than just the routine mammograms. It really scares me. I thought I read somewhere that the digital mammography uses less radiation. Not sure if that is true.

I have ended up having to go back, due to dense tissue, both times I had a mammogram. The follow up is so much worse! I must have had at least 5 or 6 new mammograms on the 1. Each time they kept clamping the machine tighter and tighter. Finally on the last one the tech only clamped down on 1/2 of me. I thought my skin was going to be ripped off! The only good part was in the end she was able to get a clear picture and the dr. said all was well.

I don't understand why women have to be subjected to this, especially when there is a painless ultrasound that can be done. After my first mammo I had the ultrasound and that shows everything, right down to the lungs.
 
OP, here is something to make you feel better about your radiation risks. I assume you have flown to WDW in your lifetime, so according to this site you receive about the same amount of radiation from a mammogram as you do for a 1000 mile flight :)

http://www.exempla.org/body.cfm?id=1586

How much radiation do my breasts receive with a mammogram?

The amount of radiation is extremely minimal and is comparable to the amount of radiation your entire body receives from the sun during a 1000 mile plane trip.


Disclaimer- I am not posting this as fact, just a little heads up info to lighten the mood, that is all. If you (general you) are concerned, do some research from reputable websites. Its all out there and you can decide if the risks of a mammogram are worth it for you.
After seeing some of the women post here about having breast cancer and having a family history myself, I'll continue to have my mammograms. The slight chance of cancer from my mammogram far outweighs my other risk factors.
Besides my dh is a nuclear physicist so I've got a radiation expert in my house :thumbsup2
 
I take these articles with a grain of salt. :goodvibes
Many times we read of something that benefitted us yesterday and is bad for us today. :confused3

Praise God my dear Mom is a 18 yr BC survivor ~
I will continue my mammograms faithfully, continue to think positive and not sweat the small stuff. :flower3:


I went 4 years without getting a mammogram and have advanced stage breast cancer. I was diagnosed at 49 but could have had it for those 4 years.

I have had surgery, radiation, various forms of chemo for years, had lung removal surgery after it spread. All because I didn't want to go annually.

Bless you, I really admire your strength, courage, and positive outlook! :flower3:
 
Another breast cancer survivor, grade 3, stage 2, invasive ductal carcinoma, triple negative, positive lymph nodes. Almost a year's worth of treatment - surgery, three types of chemo, radiation with permanent marks/tattoos placed on my chest which are a daily reminder of my past as well as a permanent low grade, painful swelling of my arm and hand on the affected side from the lymph node removal. One of those chemo agents is known to be toxic to the heart, and I myself as a cardiac nurse take care of those patients whose hearts are failing from it, ironically enough. Follow up every three months with an oncologist, yearly MRIs alternating with mammograms, so some type of screening every six months; now to the point of yearly follow up with my oncologist and not-miss yearly primary care visits, having to schedule these along with mamms and MRIs so I have some type of screening and "hands on me" every three months. Oh and now, insurance doesn't want to pay for the MRIs so it's a fight involving my oncologist and myself with multiple appeals each time. Along with the years of worry I've had as a mom to young children about my long term survival.

Ya, fun stuff. :rolleyes1

Honestly, people. I am sad for those of you who want to use these types of articles as an excuse to not do mammograms. Let me tell you, if you can find a cancer early, like those posters here fortunate enough to find it in its earliest stages, before it's become invasive or spread to lymph nodes or worse, distant organs, you'd be crazy not to take advantage of it. Because once you get an invasive cancer, there's no going back. You cannot undo the damage done while it's sitting there growing. It changes your life forever, and may even kill you and take you away from your loved ones and children. And even if not, it casts a shadow over the rest of your life when you have to live the way I've described above. Don't be foolish - go for your yearlies. Balance all of the above with a miniscule amount of radiation exposure.

BTW, I did have my yearly mammograms, and the last one I had prior to finding a lump in the 11th month before my next one had nothing there. I had a very fast growing, aggressive cancer that grew exponentially in that time, so a mammogram was not exactly helpful to me. But that doesn't stop me from getting them now. I also plan to have my own daughter start fairly early, at least to get baseline images and regular screening, since I myself was young-ish at diagnosis and had relatively no history in the family, am BRAC negative, etc.

Please, be smart about it. :grouphug:
 

Not only is that second article posted full of quackery, it's also downright offensive. He's arguing that women are so very emotionally fragile that the very thought of having a medical test will send us into a tailspin for weeks and ruin our days. WTH????

My doctor suggested a baseline mamogram for me at my last physical. This will be my first one. My thought was not "Oh My Goodness I might have cancer! I'm going to die!" insted it was "1. Wow. I'm getting old. and 2. I'm so thankful we have this technology that just may save my life one day (and did save the life of my grandmother)."

I thought the days of having to protect emotionally-unstable-women-from-the-big-bad-scary-world were over. Evidently not.
 
This notion of mammography compression actually spreading cancer is odd. I've never heard that one before.

I think that I'll continue to get them. I'm late for mine but still in the right year. Next month.
 
October is breast cancer awareness month, please do get those mammograms done, they may save your life...for you, for your family!!
 
Really really don't mean to sound snarky about this - honest :goodvibes . But went back and read the "about the author" paragraph in the article linked in the OP. Tiis is a direct quote about the author's background "His expertise is in weight loss, customized nutrition & exercise, & structural corrective chiropractic care." Is this the kind of expertise you would look for in someone giving medical advice about breast cancer??? Please please think about the credentials of those you are essentially entrusting your life to....
 
I had ductal carcinoma in situ....it was found when a suspicious area was compared with my last (which was clear) mamogram. I had a lumpectomy (I call it a chunkectomy.) The tumor could not be felt. The margins were clear, so they did a bone scan and a few other tests. The tumor was estrogen-receptive (so a few years of tomoxifen) and some radiation later, I am fine. It has been 7 years now.

The attendance clerk at school didn't get mamograms because she was "too busy." She passed away from breast cancer.
 
What age do most women start getting Mammograms and how often do you go? I had my first one last year at age 39 (no medical history). I am due to go again next week. Is it necessary to go yearly at my age?

To answer your question, you had your first at 39 that's when they do a baseline then after the age of 40 you go once every year.
 
It is surprising somewhat at how the benefits of mammograms have been called into question of late. The screening might not be the no-brainer some have made it out to be. Recall some of UK based Dr. Briffa's articles on this:

"UK Government finally does the decent thing over mammography"

http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/10/27/uk-government-finally-does-the-decent-thing-over-mammography/

&

"Researchers claim that women are being misled over mammograms"

http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/09/01/researchers-claim-that-women-are-being-misled-over-mammograms/

snippet from his article:

Mammography seeks to diagnose breast cancer earlier, with the hope that more timely initiation of treatment will lead to better outcomes. All this makes sense, but there are facts about mammography which do not make it the ‘no-brainer’ many doctors and researchers would have us believe it to be.

Claims are often made that mammography saves lives. However, you can read here about research which found that reductions in death rates on the introduction of mammography were actually smaller than those in areas where mammography was not offered to women. The implication here is that reductions in death on the introduction of mammography were nothing to do with mammography at all, but due to other factors such as improvements in breast cancer treatments.

And there’s something else that women need to know about mammography too: it very often leads to the detection of lesions that turn out to be ‘nothing’, as well as cancers that would not have troubled the women over their natural lives. As a result, many women are subjected to stress and unnecessary investigations and treatments. Sometimes, these treatments cost women their lives. This is most certainly not a trivial matter.

In recent years, some researchers and doctors have been keen to provide some balance to the mammography debate. They have called, if nothing else, for women to be given both sides of the mammography story, and for its deficiencies and pitfalls to be explained to women so that they can make more informed decisions about whether to attend for screening. However, in response to this, proponents of mammography have generally responded with intransigence, restating the supposed benefits of the practice despite the concerns about it.

The ante was upped again this week on the publication of a paper in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine written by two mammography researchers who, again, point to evidence that mammography’s true ability to save lives is dubious at best [1]. The paper is critical of scientists attached to the NHS (National Health Service) Breast Screening Programme in the UK. The claim is that they are clinging to beliefs formed 25 years ago, despite good evidence coming to light which shows these beliefs to be scientifically untenable.

The paper also points out that new evidence regarding the ineffectiveness of mammography and the problem of over-diagnosis have not been reflected in an information leaflet for women published last year.

You can read here how Professor Peter Gotzsche, the paper’s lead author, claims:...
 
Until they come out with something that is definitively better than a mammogram, I'm going every year. A few minutes of pain compared to the pain my daughter would feel if I weren't here anymore? No brainer.
 
It is surprising somewhat at how the benefits of mammograms have been called into question of late. The screening might not be the no-brainer some have made it out to be. Recall some of UK based Dr. Briffa's articles on this:

"UK Government finally does the decent thing over mammography"

http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/10/27/uk-government-finally-does-the-decent-thing-over-mammography/

&

"Researchers claim that women are being misled over mammograms"

http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/09/01/researchers-claim-that-women-are-being-misled-over-mammograms/

snippet from his article:

And, yet again, the doctor cited is a "naturally-oriented medical doctor" whose website flogs his books, vitamins and "corporate programs".

How about someone quotes something in an established PEER REVIEWED journal that proves how "dangerous" mammograms are.

As for me, having done my research (my PhD is in epidemiology), I'm sticking with my mammograms.
 
In the grand scheme of things, there are other things that are bigger worries than that. The chemicals in our foods, the chemicals in our homes, and the chemicals in our health and beauty products and in our environment are probably a bigger concern. I worry more about the continuous exposure to those things day in and day out than I do about the radiation in my annual mammogram.

Besides, I'm far more likely to be hit by a bus as I'm leaving the mammogram place than to die from cancer caused by the radiation.

:thumbsup2

I got my first one this past spring at 41. It led to another then a biopsy that thankfully led to nothing. I just went back for my 6 mo check on that side and had a heck of a time because no one could find the notes where it said I needed a re-check. I pushed because I knew I had been told to re-check.

It's not fun but I'd rather deal with a few minutes of pain and discomfort than not know. I know it's not 100% accurate but I know enough survivors and those who have died from it that I'm not willing to let it go.
 
It is surprising somewhat at how the benefits of mammograms have been called into question of late. The screening might not be the no-brainer some have made it out to be. Recall some of UK based Dr. Briffa's articles on this:

"UK Government finally does the decent thing over mammography"

http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/10/27/uk-government-finally-does-the-decent-thing-over-mammography/

&

"Researchers claim that women are being misled over mammograms"

http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/09/01/researchers-claim-that-women-are-being-misled-over-mammograms/

snippet from his article:

I personally know 5 women whose lives were saved because of the benefits of mammograms. I think they, and all of us who know and love them are happy they were misled ;)
 
As a breast cancer survivor who was diagnosed at 34, I find articles like the ones posted here just downright offensive.

Pain hurts, cancer kills.
 
I have a mammogram each year on my remaining breast. I had breast cancer at age 31. It can happen even younger. My daughter had a baseline mammogram at age 18 due to the young age at which my cancer was detected. She's had one every three years since.

We had a bit of a scare just a couple of weeks ago. My daughter's mammogram came back abnormal. She had additional views done and it was determined that everything is okay, but she will have another mammogram in a year just to be safe.

Early detection is key. I was lucky. I found my cancer early. It's been 29 years since my surgery. I almost didn't go in because I thought I was too young for breast cancer. Thank goodness I did.
 
Guys, not all medical information on the internet is true, or correct. Anyone can call themselves a doctor, or an 'expert'. Anyone can create a professional looking blog in about 10 minutes, for free, to hawk their books and products, or promote some loony theory that they have an obsession with.

Get your medical information from your doctor, that you know and trust, or from known resources like the Mayo Clinic. Or better still, ask your doctor to recommend good sources of medical information on the web.
 
Thanks everyone.....
You have really set my mind at ease that having a yearly mammogram is absolutely in my best interest. Thinking of those who are fighting breast cancer right now....wishing them a full recovery :grouphug:
 



New Posts










Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top