The mammogram controversy is heating up. Those who are in the radiation business, cancer survivors, researchers and oncologists are at war over the new guide lines for mammograms. Currently, it is suggested that all women start having yearly mammograms at age 40.

I have maintained, for years, that mammograms are given too frequently to women who aren't even at risk. Breast cancer is over represented in the media and women have been convinced into thinking that if they don't get yearly mammograms after the age of 40, they are putting themselves at risk for missing an early diagnosis. Actually, I believe that women are putting themselves at risk for breast cancer by exposing breast tissue to radiation year after year after year. Also, with the kind of pressure used to flatten the tissue, it is possible that a lump could get broken into little bits, leading to metastasis to other areas of the body.

According to an article published by Elsevier Global Medical News. 2009 Oct 22, S Boschert;

"To prevent one death from breast cancer among women aged 50-70 years, for example, 838 women must be screened for 6 years, leading to thousands of biopsies and treatments of lesions that are not life threatening, they noted. The authors called for more research on ways to distinguish minimal-risk from high-risk disease."

In other words, since mass numbers of women are getting mammograms too often, even when they are not high risk candidates for breast cancer, it is the law of averages that dictate an over abundance of false positives, unnecessary biopsies and over-treatment for early stage cancers that may resolve themselves without treatment. Thousands of women, yearly, may needlessly be subjected to the stress and pain that comes with surgery, radiation and chemo. At age 40, the chance of getting breast cancer in the next 10 years is 1.46% or 1 in 68.

Personally, I have had one mammogram in my life, about 6 or 7 years ago and I don't plan to have any more. However, I am in a catch 22 as I am considered high risk for breast cancer because of the high dose radiation I had to my chest as a teenager. But, if I have regular, yearly mammograms, I am exposing myself to yet more radiation. Thermograms or ultrasounds might be a better choice.

I also feel the same way about pap smears and colonscopy. These are invasive and can cause damage to tissue, leading back to the lesion theory of cancer. False positives and over treatment are also issues with these tests. Research suggests that low grade prostate cancers may also have regressed spontaneously, if left untreated.

The bottom line is: Think about it. If you are not engaging in risky, breast cancer related behaviors and you don't have breast cancer in your family, then why go looking for problems that probably don't exist anyway. If you fall into the high risk category, then do whatever you are comfortable with in order to keep up surveillance. Otherwise, mind your nutrition, exercise, exposure to chemicals and other toxins, live clean and your risk will be no higher than it was with or without mammograms. Why expose yourself to greater risk by having a diagnostic procedure more often than you should?