Recent radiobiological studies have provided convincing evidence that low-energy X-rays used in mammography are approximately four times – but probably even six times – more effective in causing mutant harm than X-rays of more energy. Since the current risk assessment of radiation is based on the effects of gamma radiation of high energy, this implies that the risks of radiation-induced by radiation for mammographic X-rays are underestimated by the same factor.

In other words, the radiation risk model used to determine whether the benefits of breast screening in asymptomatic women outweigh their harm underestimates the risk of mammography of breast cancer and related types of cancer between 4-600%.

The authors continued

Risk assessments for radiation-induced cancer – mainly derived – are based on the effects of high-energy gamma-radiation and hence the implication is that the risks of radiation-induced arterial cancer may arise from mammography higher than on the basis of standard risk assessments.
This is not the only study that demonstrates mammographic X-rays that are more carcinogenic than atomic bomb spectra radiation. There is also a huge amount of data on the lack of X-ray mammography.

In a systematic review of the 2009 Cochrane Database, also known as Gotzsche and Nielsen Cochrane Reviev, entitled “Screening for Breast Cancer with Mammography”, the authors found small statistical justifications for mass breast projections:

Screening caused up to 30% excessive diagnosis and excessive treatment, or an absolute increase in the risk of 0.5%. This means that for every 2,000 women invited to screening for 10 years, they will have a prolonged life, and 10 healthy women who would not be diagnosed if there was no screening will be unnecessarily treated. Moreover, more than 200 women will experience significant psychological difficulties over several months due to false positive findings. Therefore, it is not clear whether the screening is more good than harm.

In this review, the basis for estimating unnecessary treatment was a 35% increased risk of surgery in women who had undergone screening. Many operations, in fact, were the result of in situ (DCIS) cancer diagnosis, a “cancer” that would not exist as a clinically relevant entity, if not due to the fact that it can be detected via a x-ray  -mammograph. DCIS, in most cases, has no tangible lesion or symptoms, and some experts believe that it should be fully reclassified as a non-cancerous condition.

Suppose, therefore, that these reviews are correct, and that, at the very least, projections do nothing good, and in the worst case, they cause more harm than good. The main question, however, is how much more harm than benefits? If we take into account that, according to the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2011), a mammography uses 4 mSv of radiation compared to the .02 mSv of your average X-ray (200 times more radiation) and then we factor in 4-600% higher genotoxicity/carcinogenicity associated with specific “low-energy” wavelengths used in mammography, it is very possible that beyond the epidemic of over-diagnosis and excessive treatment, mammography planted seed radiation of cancer in the chests of millions of women.

Low-wavelength cause double fractures within the DNA-sensitive cells, which the cell can not repair. Over time, these mutations lead to “neoplastic transformation”; radiation has the ability to induce a cancerous phenotype in formerly healthy cells that have similar Cancer Stem Cells (CSC).

Please follow and like us:
error0