The American College of Radiologists and the American Cancer Society have designated October as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Despite the push by these groups, Dr. Hansen says, "Just Say No! Do NOT get an annual screening Mammogram. The radiation exposure is greater than any potential benefit." Nevertheless, every woman over the age of 40 is now being encouraged to get a mammogram every year.

A woman ages about 4 years every time she gets a mammogram. Radiation causes cellular damage associated with aging and DNA mutations that raise the risk of developing cancer. The more mammograms you get the greater the risk. Women who start getting annual mammograms at age 40 have a 12-14% increased risk of developing breast cancer by the time they turn 50. Mounting evidence now indicates that the risks of annual screening mammography are not worth the benefits.

Radiation Risks
"A woman can't help noticing when the X-ray technician dashes for shelter behind a leaden window, before flicking on the X-Ray machine, that there must be significant risk of radiation from the test," says Susan Brenner, director of the

Breast Cancer Action group. It seems ironic to her that the technology the government regards as a lifesaving device uses ionizing radiation, which in high enough doses, is a well-established cause of breast cancer.

So why is it that the American Medical Association, American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Health and Human Services Department and the U.S. Preventive Task Force all recommended that women in their 40's should get mammograms every one to two years and women over age 50 should get them annually?

The truth is there is no reliable evidence that having regular mammograms reduces the risk of dying of breast cancer in women of any age. In fact, there is strong evidence to the contrary. According to the Nordic Cochrane Center, in Copenhagen, a respected international body that assesses medical evidence, an analysis that examined seven completed and eligible trials involving half a million women found that "The currently available reliable evidence does not show a survival benefit of mass screening for breast cancer."(Lancet 2001 Oct 20;358(9290):1340-2).

Why has this issue become so clouded and controversial? Why have these studies been ignored and criticized? Could it be that the conventional medical establishment has a too much vested interest in mammography, or too great a legal liability at stake to admit the obvious: Annual mammography, which admittedly causes significant side-effects, including cancer inducing radiation, and false-positives that lead to untold physical, emotional and financial stress, is no more effective than a good old-fashioned physical exam of the breasts.

Doctors Beat mammograms at Detecting Breast Lumps
Recent scientific research indicates that doctors beat mammograms at detecting breast lumps without inflicting cancer-causing radiation into your breasts. General practitioners (GPs) successfully identified lumps in 78% of cases, while breast surgeons were found to be slightly better with an 82% success rate. Mammography only proved sensitive in 63% of patients. "Both GP and breast surgeon clinical examination were more sensitive than mammography in determining if a lump was present,'' Royle told conference participants. The study also found that ultrasound, which emits no radiation, was the best noninvasive way of determining whether lumps were benign or malignant. (Eur J Cancer 2001 Sep;37 Suppl 5:1-48)

Arizona Institute of Natural Medicine Recommendation
There should be no more debate. In 1992 the Canadian National Breast Screening Study found that women in their 40s are actually more likely to die of breast cancer after they receive a decade of annual mammograms than women who do not start getting mammograms until after age 50. Mammography should be used only on as as-needed basis to help determine if a breast lump is benign or malignant.

The Arizona Institute of Natural Medicine recommends that a woman get only one mammogram at age 50 as a baseline for comparative purposes. That way if a physical exam finds a suspicious growth it can be compared to the baseline view. The truth is an annual physical breast exam has been shown to be more effective in finding breast lumps than mammography. Dr Hansen simply says, "Stay behind the leaden glass window anytime an X-Ray machine goes off. It's gamma radiation and it can kill you."

Instead of an annual mammogram get an annual breast exam from your family doctor.

For real prevention:

1) Avoid synthetic estrogens, including Birth Control Drugs and synthetic hormone replacement therapy (HRT)
2) Avoid saturated fats, especially estrogen fed beef and dairy
3) Eat plenty of broccoli which is a known anti-carcinogen which sweeps the harmful estrogens (estrone and estradiol) out of the body
4) Eat soy regularly because it contains a plant estrogen that is identical to Estriol, the body's cancer preventing estrogen
5) Get plenty of sleep inducing melatonin because of it potent anti-cancer activity
6) Eat lots of anti-cancer, flavonoid containing, foods like purple grapes (and their seeds), blueberries, plums, cherries, and cranberries
7)Drink Green Tea, or take take Flavinox, an herbal antioxidant supplement
8) Take a high potency multi-vitamin with antioxidants such as Peak Advantage.