On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:01:53 -0800, jps wrote:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:46:15 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:21:24 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



It's a matter of policy vs. specific women's health. Most places are
ignoring the recommendations, basically saying that it should be up to the
woman to decide if it's worth the risk of false positives, which can lead to
rather invasive investigations.

Don't think it's policy at all, since most of the medical voices I've
heard reject these findings out of hand.
From what I've gathered, it's just plain stupid.
Almost like saying get rid of airbags because so few people are saved
by them.
Or don't change the Pinto gas tank bracket because settling with the
number of people killed by a punctured gas tank will cost less than
the brackets.
What I haven't seen is any numbers on how many cases of breast cancer
are caused by the accumulated radiation exposure of mammographies.
They could make a case with that. They probably don't have the
numbers.
But the whole thing sounds real half-assed, and plays right into the
hands of those who have been screaming "Rationing is coming!"
Sure makes it look like they might have a case for that.

--Vic

Don't understand their advice. My partner's wife was just diagnosed
and went though a mastectomy. She's in her early 40's.

Diagnosed by a mammography?
The lack of details and focus makes it sound like I said about airbags
and gas tank brackets. Penny pinching pencil pushing bean counters.

If they've got a case to be made of not subjecting women to
unnecessary radiation, seems like they'd have been smart to put the
data together in a representative form "before" they made this
announcement?

Didn't mean to even suggest they could make that case, but I have
heard scattered talk about the mam radiation sometimes causing cancer.

Cart, horse?

Rickshaw.

--Vic