Jump to content
Complete France Forum

What do you make of this? (Mammograms)


Christine Animal

Recommended Posts

That's an interesting article and I've read similar (Google Dr. Mercola, and read some of his articles). But I've also read that one of the factors that contributes to breast cancer is wearing a bra, where the breast is squeezed and heated (usually because bras contain lycra and other fabrics that don't allow any cooling or ventilation). If you're wearing one of those for, say, 16 hours a day, every day, and also having a mammogram every 2 years then I think the possibility of overcooking the breast tissues is considerably higher than if you are just having the mammogram alone.

I know several people who've had early stage breast cancer detected in a mammogram, and had treatment. Therefore I think they're useful, particularly if you've a family history. But opinion will always be divided on this ... and you are receiving a heavy shot of radiation each time.

Re. the bra issue ... when I gave up work ten years ago one of the first things I did was throw away my business suits and all-but-one of my bras (now only used for occasions when I have to dress posh). I'd say I only wear it three or four times a year. However, back in the UK last year I was going to a wedding and needed a bra, and went to M&S and asked for a fitting. She measured me and brought a selection - and nothing fitted, literally nothing, to her and my surprise. Perhaps ten years of boobie freedom has reshaped them, who knows, but it's clear that our natural body shape is very different to the artificial shape that bras squeeze you into.

(I'm guessing that the men on the forum are reading this with their eyes boggling !!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I have read a few things about mammograms and bras. Both appear to have disadvantages as well as advantages.

I have to say these days there appears to be rather a lot of men around with manboobs and just to look perkier when they are out, maybe they should wear a bra or bind them tight....... that would be down to the way they would like to be perceived, I suppose.

I have always had problems finding bras that fit, even when I was a small size. And the fitters, bof, I have yet to find a good one.... maybe Rigby and Peller is the place to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just making Lehaut's (no pun intended!) link live.

http://www.thelocal.fr/page/view/breasts-better-off-without-bras-french-study#.UXztdYlBuUk

Remember when I saw that flying saucer thing (meteorite) go past the window one night.  I got on to a French spaceship site and since they keep sending me their news letters and I did receive the original version of the bra study.

http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/news/t/medecine/d/science-daccalace-a-bas-les-soutiens-gorges_45849/#xtor=EPR-20-[HEBDO]-20130416-[ACTU-science_decalee_:_a_bas_les_soutiens-gorges__]

 

Now here's one from them to keep Wooly busy for a while (I hope!)   [:D]

http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/news/t/biologie-3/d/taille-du-penis-pour-les-femmes-elle-compte-quand-meme_45753/#xtor=EPR-20-[HEBDO]-20130416-[ACTU-taille_du_penis_:_pour_les_femmes__elle_compte_quand_meme]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only had one mammogram in France and the female techinician was a sadist. She tugged and tugged on my nipple and then brought the plate down and not gently. Then she did the other side. I never had another done in France. In England the woman was gentler, and maybe a different french technican would have been kinder.

I went to see my gynae in France after the first one and told her how much I had been hurt and  that if that machine had to test testicles too, then it would all be a much less traumatic experience and the machine designed rather better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and if you knew what they did and where  to take a biopsy of our prostates you too would have tears in your eyes ..

(Sorry for the Hijack)

To be serious having had two procedures for different sorts of cancer, both of which came up positive but early enough to be treated I would always err on the side of having the test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to go back to the mammogram issue: in the past few years, I have been shocked and appalled to see how many women I know have, or have had, breast cancer (could it really be close to 50%, and is that a fluke?). Some of them quite young (40), some with aggressive forms. Indeed, several have died since then, but there are many survivors. I remember a couple of decades ago, there were already the same doubts about the usefulness of mammograms - just like there were controversies about the way treatments (chimio, radiotherapy, even radical mastectomies) were changing the overall prognosis - there always were question marks around this. So it seems that now, in spite of so-called huge advances in cancer treatment, when it comes to breast cancer, we are no further than we were, say, 40 years ago?

So, whether early detection of anomalies is any use or not, who knows? And then of course, there are the false results of mammographies - some tiny tumours are very aggressive and yet hardly detectable.

But just to be on the safe side, I will submit myself to mammograms whenever it's time (every 2 years here - until you are 75 that is - when you are over 75, nobody seems to care anymore, as you don't get your routine screening anymore..................)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5E - I agree, as long as there's no better alternative, continue with the regular mammograms.

Like you, I've been shocked by the apparent increase in cancer diagnoses over the last 20 years, including breast and prostate cancer. I could give you a sad list of casualties of people I knew.

I also joined the ranks recently, thank God only a small melanoma.

Is it because the health authorities are more successful in early detection, or people are more open to discussing it? Or is it more prevalent because of our unhealthy lifestyles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that many more people are being tested early. There is a similar debate over whether prostate cancers really always need to be treated, with a body of opinion preferring 'watchful waiting'.

I am glad mine was treated, and sometimes wonder if the adverse point of view isn't motivated by cost, but I might be being over cynical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...