The new recommendation from the panel is no mammograms till 50, then only every two years - a distinct change from "every year starting at 40." While the panel noted that the more aggressive mammography schedule carries no substantial benefit in breast cancer survival and increases the often underestimated stress of false positives and the real risks of unnecessary biopsies, the article did not mention whether they addressed the more serious risks of frequent x-rays.

Remember when pregnant women were routinely x-rayed to determine whether their pelvises were large enough to give birth to the children they carried? It stopped when we realized that it was causing a serious increase in leukemia in the children. X-ray exposure is cumulative - each one builds on the exposure you've previously had - and too much of it over a lifetime can lead to cancer. We are so serious about this that we don't even x-ray pregnant women's teeth anymore, even with a lead apron over their bellies. Pregnant or not, we cover all parts near the x-rayed part with lead aprons; we especially protect reproductive organs. So why is there so little willingness to discuss the implications of yearly x-rays on a part of the body that is already proving cancerous in 1 out of 8 American women?

With any procedure, drug, or intervention outside the natural course, we must ask not only what is the benefit, but what is the cost? A reasoned decision can only be made when we know the risk both of acting and not acting - a one-sided discussion benefitts no one.