[AlaskaAngel]

One negative and very likely factor/probability affecting the question regarding mammograms is that in wanting to "think positive" about this question, we also tend to want to disregard the knowledge that radiation itself to a degree is known to be a cause of cancer. To what exact degree the low level of radiation used for mammograms causes cells to malfunction is the question, but we can't entirely discount the likelihood by wishful thinking.

In addition, in reality we are subjecting both those who actually get breast cancer in their lifetime (is our guess at that at present 1 in 3 women???) as well as the 2/3 who never are formally diagnosed with it. Those who are diagnosed with it, logically, receive far more radiation over time than those never diagnosed with it.

So, in considering both the positives AND the negatives about current professional recommendations for mammogams, the question quite possibly would be, how many original occurrences plus recurrences are due to the steady/increased exposure to radiation, as opposed to how much benefit we get from detection by mammograms and other radiation exposures.

Two-thirds of those receiving mammograms are not diagnosed with bc in their lifetime and get essentially no benefit from having them (other than periodic reassurance by them, and any incidental diagnosis of other problems that a mammogram might expose).

A.A.