Skip to main content

Fact check: Post comparing mammogram radiation to Hiroshima is wildly inaccurate

Isabella Fertel   | Paste BN

The claim: 10 years of regular mammograms expose patients to Hiroshima levels of radiation 

A March 18 Instagram post (direct link, archived link) features an image of a woman along with text that makes a claim about mammogram screenings.

“If a woman follows the 10-year protocol of getting a mammogram every year or every six months she is getting as much radiation as a woman had at Hiroshima the atomic bomb if she stood a mile away from the epicenter,” reads the text. 

The post attributes the quote to “Dr. Veronique Desaulniers” and also includes video footage of Desaulniers making this statement. 

The post garnered more than 7,000 likes in a month. 

Follow us on Facebook! Like our page to get updates throughout the day on our latest debunks

Our rating: False

The situations presented here are not close to equivalent. Being the referenced distance from Hiroshima would result in radiation exposure 100 times greater than 10 years of mammograms, experts say.

Post wildly exaggerates amount of radiation exposure from mammograms 

The posts cite Dr. Veronique Desaulniers as the source of information. Desaulniers is a chiropractor, not a doctor of medicine. 

Desaulniers and the post mention Hiroshima in reference to the atomic bomb detonated above the Japanese city during World War II on August 6, 1945. It was the first atomic bomb used in warfare and killed at least 80,000 people instantly. 

The initial dosage of radiation absorbed by a human body standing 1600 meters (about a mile) away from ground zero of the Hiroshima atomic bomb was 403 millisieverts, according to a 2014 study commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. 

That’s more than 100 times the radiation from 10 years of normal mammograms, according to Dr. Edward Hendrick, a professor of radiology at the University of Colorado. 

The average dose of radiation from a typical mammogram with two views of each breast is about .4 millisieverts, according to Hendrick and the American Cancer Society. 

A decade of annual mammography would expose a patient to 10 times that, for a total radiation dose of 4 millisieverts, Hendrick said.

While that amount of radiation is not insubstantial, cancer researchers and radiation experts say the benefits of mammography outweigh the risks of being exposed to a low dose of radiation.  

“To put these doses into perspective, people in the US are normally exposed to an average of about 3 millisieverts of radiation each year just from their natural surroundings,” the American Cancer Society website says. 

The amount of radiation exposure from a mammogram screening of both breasts is about the same dose of radiation a person would be exposed to from their natural surroundings over seven weeks. 

Hendricks also pointed out that the radiation exposure from 10 years of annual mammograms is not absorbed by the body in one dose. Normal breast tissue is able to repair genetic damage incurred from the radiation of a mammogram in between yearly or bi-annual screenings, he said.

Regular mammograms can help identify breast cancer early while it is easier to treat, reducing the need to use more invasive treatments like mastectomy and chemotherapy, according to the American Cancer Society. 

Anyone with breast tissue is at risk of developing breast cancer, but a person's risk factor changes based on their sex and age. As a result, the screening recommendations for different groups vary. 

The American Cancer Society recommends all people assigned female at birth between the ages of 45 and 54 get mammograms every year, with the option to begin at 40. People assigned female at birth aged 55 and older are advised to continue to get mammograms every year or every other year.

The Canadian Cancer Society recommends that trans women and people who have taken gender-affirming hormones like estrogen for more than five years get a mammogram every 2 years.

Fact check: There is no evidence asparagus can cure cancer despite longtime claim

Paste BN reached out to Desaulniers and the Instagram user who shared the post for comment. 

Reuters and Full Fact also debunked this claim. 

Our fact-check sources: 

Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or electronic newspaper replica here.

Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.

Facebook Twitter Email