ginge As with most of your posts, I read it very carefully and found it interesting. The bit about...
More sophisticated measures (scanning the arteries) are no more better at predicting risk, and don't fulfil the requirements of screening that I've listed above.
...had me wondering where medicine is going with this science.
CAT scans can be breathtakingly clear. I had an hour long demonstration from a teaching doctor/radiologist, who took a joy in showing me his new kit. Some of the functions were so space-aged I wondered if it was real. By total chance, I found a neighbor of mine had supplied the entire system, and was able to pick his brains for a while as well.
Skip for a moment to the vessel wall scenario I mentioned above. Much of the television program used graphics, but there was some film of the images from the tiny sideways looking sonic camera. They made a very convincing argument. I guess post-mortem research over a period of time confirmed the depth of the pockets which became inflamed and popped their gooey contents into the bloodstream.
What this is telling us is that there is no need for the vessel to be lined with the deadly product, it can be hidden in the walls of otherwise clear tubes.
Firstly, can CAT see these pockets? Given the images I saw were from a previous patient, a huge amount of information is stored. 'We' were not only taken to colour-coded vessels, but then progressed through walls that seemed to magically open as the 'focus depth' changed. I was shown the inner lining as clear as the artist's graphics in the program. I would have thought such pocketing would be crystal clear.
Okay, what's to be done? Putting a camera in is simply not acceptable. One can not subject crew to what is in effect, surgery with significant risk.
CAT uses X-rays. Low level, but for fairly long periods while the computer gathers enough data to achieve the tomography. This is okay in a search for something deadly, but not appropriate for routine checkups. Or is it?
When we consider what's at stake, then the middle aged captain - in command of an aircraft carrying hundreds of people - might well have such a check every five years. If he's going to take on that responsibility, they maybe he should accept the risk. I wanted chest X-rays to stop because of risk, but I would accept five-year CAT scans as I approached 50. The trouble is, they're not cheap, but there would perhaps be a significant advantage for the subject if lungs were looked at, at the same time.