3. Radiation from breast cancer scans can cause the breast cancer in the first place:

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2480762/radiation-induced...

That study is entirely based off simulation with the ultimate data being derived from survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki bonbings. We do not categorically know if there is a linear, no threshhold relationship between diagnostic radiation dose and cancer induction or if there is a threshhold dose below which radiation dose is “safe”. We also don’t know if low-level radiation is potentially beneficial (radiation Hormesis hypothesis).

That’s a lot of words to say, take that paper with a huge grain of salt.

Was the linear-no-threshold model not basically disproven by a study on people who lived in buildings built with steel scavenged from the ruins of Hiroshima or Nagasaki and therefore in an environment with elevated radioactive background levels. They showed lower incidence of cancer if I remember correctly?

Thank you, that's a fair point. I don't think mammograms are low-dosage radiation, are they?

>take that paper with a huge grain of salt.

Too much salt isn't healthy either ;)

>2. It is possible that the discovery of a tumor doesn’t mean cancer. This was a debate in breast cancer treatments- a lot of heartache and suffering can occur from a cancer scare and there has been existing controversy regarding early testing given this.

The same thing is true with thyroid tumors. A lot of people got their thyroids removed because they had tumors called "thyroid cancer", and now the consensus is that these tumors, while not completely benign, are so slow-growing that it's not worth it to remove them in most cases. Many times, people were only found to have these tumors after they had died (of something else).