Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah I know they have this cute little advertising campaign about getting your "mammies grammed" or something like that, but at 54 I've never had one and not sure if and when I'm going to buckle. For one thing, I've heard that if you have dense breast tissue you shouldn't, and they're supposed to warn you against it b/c dense breast tissue and tumors both show up white and I'm guessing that I do have dense breast tissue--seems the doc mentioned it before. Also I've heard your breasts have a tendency to be dense before menopause and I haven't had that yet.
Then I was tooling around the internet b/c sometimes I wonder if I'm being rational or stupid and I came up with this:
This is anecdotal but my aunt has had breast cancer twice--both times it showed up shortly after the mammogram, which is radiation shot thru your delicate breast tissue. It's worse if you get a rough handler and I've heard plenty of horror stories about that. My aunt, who was a nurse, suspects that the mammograms may have actually caused the tumors and that even if they didn't, they certainly didn't pick up on them.
Yes, I know that with an aunt who's had breast cancer twice, that increases my chances but my aunt has always been in poor health--she was born exactly a year after mom and got the short end of the stick healthwise and then was a chain smoker for years. I will be keeping up with colonoscopies--colon cancer runs pretty direct thru the family--but I'm also willing to just take my chances--gotta die of something. Anyone else feel this way?
I strike a compromise, and get one every 2 or 3 years. I also have dense breast tissue, so there's not much point in getting one at all, I guess, because they say they can't see much.
Natural News is only a reliable source if you are a card-carrying member of the Mercola Fan Club and have tin foil hats in every color of the rainbow.
Moderator cut: off topic
As for the mammograms, I haven't had one yet as I'm only 36; and since there is no family history, my doctor said I can wait until at least age 45-50. But when that time comes, I will definitely do what is recommended. Why not??
Last edited by SouthernBelleInUtah; 04-20-2013 at 04:49 PM..
Natural News is only a reliable source if you are a card-carrying member of the Mercola Fan Club and have tin foil hats in every color of the rainbow.
Thank you for that laugh. I'm worried these people might influence and harm people here. I embarrassed to say that they even got me questioning if I was doing the right thing. I did some research and validated that I am. I'm really afraid for the women who might not bother to do their own research and simply go by what doomsday people are posting here.
Moderator cut: orphaned quote
The problem, dizzy, is you are risking people's lives here. I had my first mammogram 6 months ago. It found microcalcification. That's a strong precursor to breast cancer. Mammograms couldn't have caused it since it was my first mammogram. I'd be a FOOL to not follow these microcalcifications. My next mammogram is next week. I'm not worried because the first mammogram used 3 D imaging which means my microcalcifications could not be seen by traditional mammogram equipment. That means that they will catch this early if/when it is cancer. Women you influence to not have mammograms won't be as lucky as me.
Last edited by SouthernBelleInUtah; 04-20-2013 at 04:49 PM..
Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.