Children's Leukemia Rate Doubles with 3 X-rays: Average Child Has 7 by Age 18.

Doubling of leukemia with only 3 x-rays must be the tip of the iceberg. Make your doctor prove the necessity of x-rays before agreeing to them.

by Heidi Stevenson

28 January 2011

We all know that x-rays and other ionizing radiation can be harmful, but the risk has been casually dismissed as minor, certainly not great enough to avoid tests. However, a pair of recent studies documents that our children's rate of cancer is dramatically affected by the tests. One study shows that the most common childhood leukemia is doubled with as few as three x-rays, and that even a single x-ray increases the chances of one type of leukemia. The other study found that the average child receives seven x-rays by age 18.

The obvious lesson is that parents should demand that doctors be able to strongly justify x-rays in relation to the increased risk of leukemia before allowing them.

The leukemia study's lead researcher, University of California, Berkeley Professor of Epidemiology, Patrica Buffler, expressed surprise at the results:

The general clinical impression has been that the level of radiation a child would be exposed to today from a conventional X-ray would not confer an additional risk for cancer. The results of our study were not what we expected.

This begs the question: Why, in all the years that x-rays have been used casually, are we just now investigating whether x-rays increase cancer?

The Studies

Leukemia Study

"Diagnostic X-rays and risk of childhood leukaemia", published in the International Journal of Epidemiology⁽¹⁾, studied 711 children diagnosed with acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL) and 116 children diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) by age 14 to find whether there's a connection between x-rays and leukemia. Information about different types of tests that utilize x-rays were not available, so that CT scans, which utilize far more radiation than plain x-rays, could not be distinguished.

The children with leukemia were compared with similar children who didn't have the disease. The researchers found that children who'd been exposed to one or two x-rays may have experienced a slight increase in leukemia risk.

The addition of a third X-ray increased the chance of ALL by 1.22 to 2.79 times, depending on the type of cancer, with the greatest effect on B-cell ALL. This is particularly significant because leukemia accounts for one-third of all childhood cancers, and ALL accounts for 80% of childhood leukemia.

Dental x-rays were not included because of the researchers' assumption that the amount of radiation from them is too low to have any effect. [Ed: Considering the lead researcher's comment above, one must wonder if they've rethought that assumption. They might also have considered research—produced half a year earlier, though likely not available as their study was pursued—demonstrating that thyroid cancer is increased with use of dental x-rays⁽²⁾.]

They found that chest x-rays resulted in the greatest increase in leukemia, but the data weren't adequate to determine how significant the exposed area of the body and source of exposure were.

Study of Number of X-Rays in Children

The authors of "Use of Medical Imaging Procedures With Ionizing Radiation in Children", published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine"⁽³⁾, reviewed the records of 355,088 children. They found that, during a three-year period, 42.5% of children are likely to receive some form of ionizing radiation in a diagnostic study. In other words, close to half of all American children are given some form of x-ray every three years!

Overall, the average number of x-ray, CT scan, fluoroscopy, or other ionizing radiation procedures is 7 for every child in America!

What Are We Doing?

What on earth are we doing? It has long been known that ionizing radiation causes a wide array of cancers, and that there is a cumulative effect. The carcinogenic effects of ionizing radiation last a lifetime. Yet, modern medicine routinely minimizes the risk, with doctors telling patients that it's so minor, they can ignore it.

The UK's National Health Service (NHS) has a typical attitude. Here's what they officially tell patients:

People are often concerned about being exposed to radiation during an X-ray. However, everyone is exposed to sources of natural radiation throughout their life. Natural radiation is sometimes referred to as background radiation...

...The doses that are used in X-rays carry a theoretical risk of triggering cancer at a later date (as does your exposure to background radiation), but the risk is very low...

...It is important to put the risk of cancer in perspective as everyone has a one in three chance of developing cancer at some point.⁽⁴⁾

In other words, the NHS is telling patients, "Don't worry, just trust us." But, they're basing it on assumptions, not on what's known. They redirect attention to natural radiation—but fail to consider or point out that diagnostic radiation isn't a part of background radiation, it's in addition to background radiation. They state that the "risk is very low", but the claim is based on nothing but a desire for it to be low.

They casually state that the use of x-rays diagnostically is "theoretical", but they obviously didn't bother to find out if the theory has any validity.

Finally, they point out that "everyone has a one in three chance of developing cancer". With such a cavalier attitude about routinely irradiating people with a known carcinogen, is it any wonder?

*****************************************************************************

What do you think? Click here to comment!

*****************************************************************************

Search Gaia Health: