>gives off as much ionizing radiation in ten seconds as you

File: radiation.png (87KB, 1134x1333px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1134x1333px

>>8740040
A single 7 mSv chest CT scan to a 21 year old man will give them an increased cancer risk of 1 in 1273, and a abdomen-pelvis CT scan will give that same man an increased cancer risk of 1 in 636.

This is somehow considered "not harmful" by the entire medical community.

>>8740040
Got scanned by that thing 4 times in my life due to health issues.

Whats the worst thing that could happen?

Right /sci/ ? R-right ?

>>8740105
What scans were they?

>>8740103
>>8740040
>ALARA

>>8740119
Wow, you brought the dose from 5 years of background radiation in 10 seconds down to 4 year and 3 months worth of background radiation in 10 seconds? Wow, thanks!

>>8740123
>Be me
>Might have an aneurysm
>Could pop at any minute
>Vs. 1 in 1273 chance of developing cancer.

ALARA.

>>8740131
You're just an exception. 99% of people are not getting head CT scans to check for an aneurysm. They go to the ER saying they have a bad headache and are nauseous and they get a CT.

>>8740134
Sure thing buddy.

>>8740113
Spine, heart and twice for the brain.

>>8740040
What isn't poison, disease and death?
They're a product of the same people who cook up drugs so when you're old and in emotional/physical pain, your brain will be mush and you won't feel anything.

>>8740143
You have an additional cancer risk of 1 in about 500.

>>8740131
I guarantee you wouldn't do something if there was a sign that said "There is a 1 in 1,000 chance this will kill you"

>>8740151
>Don't do something 1 in 100 chance you die
>Do do something 1 in 1000 chance you die

Real hard choice there senpai.

>>8740163
Also it's not even dying, it's "slightly raised chance of developing cancer".

>>8740163
As I said, you're an exception. Most people do not get CT scans from their doctor for something serious like that.

>>8740170
do you have evidence for that?

>>8740173
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ct+scans+overused

>>8740179
inconclusive evidence

>>8740179
>>8740170
>>8740134
>The original journal article and subsequent news coverage stated that one-third of CT scans are medically unnecessary, needlessly exposing millions of patients to high doses of radiation. However, the “evidence” on which this statement was based was insubstantial. In an ad hoc survey conducted during a panel discussion at a meeting of pediatric radiologists, a speaker mentioned that he felt 10% of CT scans were not medically necessary.7 He then queried the audience, which responded that up to 30% were unnecessary. Aside from the fact that this was merely a casual inquiry, these are not the people making clinical decisions about patient care.

>10-30% = 99%

you can't average up to the nearest order of magnitude with percentages, you absolute village idiot.

>>8740206
marinara: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672242/

Your risk of cancer is almost 1 in 2 in your whole lifetime. I don't know why people think some increased risk of 1 in like 100 to 10,000 is even worth thinking about. your chance of dying from heart disease or cancer is like 1 per 300 people just in 2014.

>>8740203
Personally, I had a head CT, sort of a lower dosed one at 1.5 milisieverts that I later found I would not have gotten if the doctor talked to me for another minute or two. I can't do anything about it after the fact other than be mindful when a doctor wants me to get CT in the future and tell them I don't want it unless it's absolutely necessary or whatever. I don't think that one scan is going to kill me or affect me in any way, but I still wish I didn't get it since it wasn't necessary.

Stop vilifying extremely useful medical diagnostic tools. When I shattered my ankle recently, the doctors could only diagnose properly after a CT scan. Which also revealed two broken metatarsals and a crack in another ankle bone than previously assumed from four angles of X-ray.

Whether the US health care system is skewed towards liability over necessity because of a bloated private litigation industry or not, is not the fault of a highly useful technology. It's like saying cars are dangerous because you can't force people to wear seat belts, absolutely absurd.

>>8740131
17 % of people have aneurysms in their brain, regardless of age. Most aneurysms never rupture.

>>8740216
There would be no adverse effects from shooting ionizing radiation at your ankle. OP is talking about scans of your head, neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis, where there are lots of radiosensitive organs just waiting to have their atoms hit by some x-rays and fuck their own shit up.

>>8740206
dude asked an audience how many they thought were necessary. That 10-30% isn't even valid, like i said, inconclusive evidence.

>>8740226
I agree, the point was that even actual estimates from a pediatric radiologist aren't near what the village idiot claims. I don't disagree that there is inconclusive evidence, I am merely pointing out that what exists is in another direction entirely.

>>8740224
I didn't know, thanks. I still cover my balls whenever doing x-rays, though.

>>8740131
>Might have an aneurysm
Says who, retard? Someone on my mothers side had an aneurysm. Does that mean I should get a CT of my head to see if I'm going to have an aneurysm too? moron. Do you have high blood pressure? buy a fitbit and go for jogg every day then asshole. You don't need to blast your head with months of radiation just to get an answer to something that didn't even matter.

>>8740230
ah i see, thanks

>>8740224
>There would be no adverse effects from shooting ionizing radiation at your ankle.
I'm not in the anti-CT crowd, but that statement is completely retarded. There are many metastasizing cancers that can be caused from ankle radiation. If just one cancer cell enters the bloodstream and avoids an immune response, congratulations, you are now cancer-ridden.

>>8740236
Might have (present tense) in the sense that he was experiencing symptoms conclusive with it.
Your reading comprehension a shit.

>>8740245
https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/CTpediatricLancet

>Despite the elevation in cancer risk, these two malignancies are relatively rare and the actual number of additional cases caused by radiation exposure from CT scans is small. The most recent (2009) U.S. annual cancer incidence rates for children from birth through age 21 for leukemia and brain cancers are 4.3 per 100,000 and 2.9 per 100,000, respectively. The investigators estimate that for every 10,000 head CT scans performed on children 10 years of age or younger, one case of leukemia and one brain tumor would occur in the decade following the first CT beyond what would have been expected had no CT scans been performed.

What the hell dose do they even use for a CT scan of someones ankle? probably not a high dose. If this keeps you up at night, I'd go for a walk or something, because you'll probably have a higher chance getting hit by a car and dying on that walk than you would getting leukemia, or any cancer for that matter, from a CT scan.

how true are these posts
>>8739338
>>8739346

>>8740040
It's too bad that has literally never been shown in any study. You need to have a lot, and I mean a LOT of x-ray photons hitting you all at once for you to get radiation-induced cancer, or a high background rate for years and years.

>>8740040
That's the price of knowing what up with your retarded body, OP

Take it and stop being a wuss, you won't die (of that, you'll die of whatever horrible brain damage it was that caused you to make this thread)

>>8740272
Reading comprehension bruv. Of course the chances are extremely low, I was never arguing that.

B-b-but muh raydiashun!

>>8740236
There are familial syndromes predisposing to aneurysms and a whole host of other reasons why someone would be at an increased risk of having an aneurysm. If it's known it can be treated and they won't fucking die. Please refrain from posting about shit you know nothing about.

Albinos

>>8740147
So that means if 500 people did it 499 of them did not get cancer?


Seems worth it

>>8740598
it also means that out of the 70,000,000 people getting CT scans each year, something like 30,000 people will get cancer from them, every year. that's like a town of people.

>>8740206
>these are not the people making clinical decisions about patient care
>doctors are making clinical decisions about patient care
>not clinical decisions about their malpractice insurance
i worked in a hospital radiology unit for 7 years. every mother fucker who came into the ed with any complaint of a headache, present or past, or any numbness or tingling, present or past, got a head ct, because the docs know that they won't get sued for cancer in 15 years, but they would get sued if they missed the 1/100,000 low symptom bleed. the worst was when some 2 year old bumped their head and didn't even have a bruise, but hypochondriac parents would rush them into the ed any ways, the kid would get scanned, but they'd fight so much that nothing useful would come out, so they just got bonus radiation with no benefit.

tl;dr-in 50 years people will be horrified by how we throw around radiation

>>8740755
isn't it disgusting? i'll never go to the ER again for any problems unless i'm literally dying and it's via ambulance. fucking head CT scan.

>>8740755
Do you have any opinion on the dangers of x-ray radiation, particularly CT scans? Do you think even a single scan is deadly?

>>8740213
yo don't say that man. my neighbour died in his sleep cuz his heart stopped. why did you say this now i'm panicking. death is scary :(.

>>8740764
sarcasm duly noted, but in 7 years i saw literally thousands of unnecessary cts. fortunately i'm in a family of healthcare professionals, so i can make educated decisions about my care. unfortunately the combination of a litigious society with an under-informed population leads to undesirable results for many others.

>>8740767
all it takes is 1 cell in the wrong place to freak out and you're fucked. odds are slim, but why take it for silly stuff. especially since you don't know what scans you'll really need down the road.

>>8740782
i'm not being sarcastic dude. I really wish I didn't get the scan. it wasn't necessary at all.

>>8740795
my bad. tone's difficult to interpret in this format.

>>8740764
You're not a fucking child, you're allowed to say no to having the scan if it makes you this upset.

>>8740789
>all it takes is 1 cell in the wrong place to freak out and you're fucked.

lol what an uneducated way to put it. radiation is indirectly ionizing. you can't get a double strand break without two x-rays hitting the same cell which is why you need mega doses to get cancer from radiation, or a high chronic dose so you go through slow mutations. both are easy to avoid and a CT isn't going to do it. ask any medical physicist this stuff and they would explain why medical imaging isn't that dangerous in comparison to most things in life.

>>8740802
most people don't learn about it until after the fact. most hospitals don't warn you or anything.

File: unsafe area.png (85KB, 270x187px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 270x187px

>>8740804
> ask any medical physicist this stuff and they would explain why medical imaging isn't that dangerous
>medical physicists don't have a vested interest in the idea that this is safe

>>8740820
Why would they care...? They would be stars in the scientific community if they came out and said they were dangerous and that nobody should get them unless it's a life or death emergency. They would be blowing the top off a huge industry and probably be in a history book for it, at least a medical history book. Your paranoid logic isn't sound.

stay the fuk outa tanning booths too. lay the fuk that on murahka........

File: image-20161102-27237-jrcwgu.jpg (14KB, 237x349px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 237x349px

>>8740040
>not having your own personal CT scanner
>not drinking RadiThor on the daily
get a load of this guy

>>8740764
Thats basically the only reason to go to an ER. its what ER's r For. If you're really like having an emergency, i.e Life or Limb. So if its not Life or Limb; QUIT WAsTING the fuking ER's fuking time! Anything less than a sucking chest wound is wussy stuff so quit wasting the ER's time and stay the fuk home.

>>8740831
or they'd be blackballed and ostracized, and only years later would people go, "oh, yeah, dr. so-and-so was right..."

and i'm not some antihealthcare conspiracy nutjob (my kid got all his vaccines), and i believe that cts can be a critical, life-saving diagnostic tool, when truly indicated, but i also believe that they are overapplied by doctors without real medical reason to avoid getting sued into oblivion.

>>8740850
you can't sue a doctor because they didn't want to give you a CT. Doctors deny patients CT scans all of the time.

>>8740862
not if you're just a hypochondriac you can't. but if a doctor doesn't scan someone who ended up needing it you can bet the family will buttfuck them out of everything they can, whether or not it was reasonable to order a scan based off what the doctor saw. so, scans for everyone!

>>8740870
doctors have malpractice insurance. they don't care even if you were to get that far.

File: cl.png (108KB, 228x221px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 228x221px

>>8740877
>doctors don't care if they get sued

>>8740040
Mfw some shitty houseman attempted to send a patient with a metal nail in his body for an MRI. All housemans should be gassed desu.

>>8740733
Sure son. You can always raise the population and make it look bad. Say, maybe you should be a lawyer, so you can protect me when this happens alright?

>>8740961
lmao

>>8740961
What the fuck is a houseman?

that's nothing. I've had PET scans with contrast medium injected. I've had actual radioactive isotopes injected into my body.

>>8740987
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_officer

>>8740961
that'll get the nail out in a hurry. probably not kind to the machine either. he should be fine as long as a major artery or vein wasn't knicked.

File: 2008_05_02_13_55_29_706.jpg (39KB, 400x321px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 400x321px

>>8741067
Are you worried?

How the fuck wouldn't you be worried, literally a 0.33% increased risk at 20.

>>8741076
Yea but that's just a small chance. More likely it'll damage a multi-thousand dollars medical equipement and cause even more damage to the patient since at that point, the nail was already quite near the spinal cord. Holy fucking shit, I'm fucking glad that piece of shit got kicked out.

>>8741081
I can't tell if this is serious or not.

>>8741081
not terribly. if the cancer appears. I'll make the VA pay for it since the PET scan that caused it was when I was in the army.

I was also in Japan during the 3/11 Fukushima earthquake/tsunami/nuclear meltdown. so I probably inhaled some more alpha emitters then too.

>>8741084
Equipment*
Sorry, I'm feeling really drained.

>>8741084
Just remembered that shit costs 600,000 USD.

>>8741098
a .33% increase is pretty huge when you consider that adds up to an extra guy for every 300 people getting cancer.

>>8741122
it really isn't. if you're not obese/don't have diabetes/no major family history of cancer, you're not going to be that one guy.

>>8740103

ER doctor here

100% chance your dumbass sues me if I don't scan you and miss something important that can kill or maim you.

Scans for everyone until medical malpractice is done away with.

>>8743024
being an actual doctor, what do you think of the risks associated with CT scans?

>>8740040
In a hundred years we'll see this as leech treatment.

>>8740040
>yet they are given out like candy.
They're not. Maybe in burgerland docs practive defensive medicine, but you're not real people anyways.

>>8740103
>xkcd meme posted in a serious discussion
You opinion goes in the garbage where it belongs.


CT scans are dangerous, but they're also a life saving tool.
Depending on your age, the type of scan and the potential danger it might or might not be worth it.
Many times it is, and many times it isn't. Tough luck.
One thing that would be nice is to replace all non-emergency CTs of young people with MRIs when possible.

It sucks knowing that you might get cancer just because you're poor, and I've almost been there.

>>8740040
>given out like candy.

You have been watching WAY too much tv, kek

>>8743051
>CT scans are dangerous

prove it

>>8743036
>implying a doc would know shit
ask a medical physicist

>>8743059

[math]Read^{[1],[2],[3]} ~~~a^{[3],[5]} ~~fucking^{[4]} ~~ ~book^{[m][o][r][o][n]}.[/math]

>>8743091
any medical physicist would tell you it isnt dangerous. literally this >>8743000

>>8740103
Wow you're right you just stumbled upon the conspiracy of the century I bet if we look a little more closely at medical records we will find that 95% of those given Ct scans became sterile and Jewish MDs are 3x as likely to order a CT scan!!!

>>8740040
>should be reserved as last resorts in life or death situations
i thought thats what the ct is trying to fīd out wtf

>>8743243
:O!!!!!

anyone that argues that CT scans aren't deadly simply had one and doesn't want to believe they cut their lifespan in half in like 10 seconds.

>>8743363
>argues

or you just know what you're talking about and can explain why they aren't that dangerous. hoy shit a fucking roller coaster ride is probably more dangerous you moron.

>>8740134
>They go to the ER saying they have a bad headache and are nauseous and they get a CT.

This was me once honestly. Slipped on ice and hit the back of my head hard. Next day woke up in the middle of the night with the worst goddamn migraine of my life.

>>8743059
I had one and I died QED faggot.

>>8743899
Dumbass should've gone to the ER right away

>>8743899
same dude. fell and hit my forehead. was having nausea and dizziness with photosensitivity and a headache and shit. went to the ER and got a CT

>nothing is wrong

pretty damn annoying.

>has never been X-ray'd by 50's ussr 15 meter long rusty contraption that made scary sounds and failed to start 4 times

I'm fine but I do have suspicious amount of moles though...

>>8744099
Those could be tumours anon. They could be benign too, hopefully.

>>8744099
>>8744285
no. the moles would be an indication that he is more cancer prone

>>8740040
We can't show this to even be true yet. The Epi-CT study will show us just how much it harms us as all former studies have had major flaws falsifying them. I would bet money that if they find anything, it will be like 1 excess cancer in 10,000+. There is just no way for it to be any more dangerous than that. These estimates that we've seen on the news are totally the worst case scenario, naturally to hype it up as being a huge deal, but also because they're are using the LNT model by itself, which makes no sense, so they get these ridiculous "1 in 2000 scans will result in cancer" things. It's really stupid.

Let it be known that you have a higher chance of drowning.

Plus, if you were SO adamant about thinking a CT scan was going to give you cancer, keep your medical records and sue the shit out of the hospital/doctor when you get it, if you're just oh so sure it's going to happen to you.

>>8740206
>you can't average up to the nearest order of magnitude with percentages, you absolute village idiot.

I just really, really like this line, saving it.

>>8740224
>There would be no adverse effects from shooting ionizing radiation at your ankle.

What about ankle cancer?

>OP is talking about scans of your head, neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis, where there are lots of radiosensitive organs just waiting to have their atoms hit by some x-rays and fuck their own shit up.

Op neither said nor implied that.

>>8740233
With what?

>>8740236
>You don't need to blast your head with months of radiation

So getting a scan is about as dangerous as living a month longer? Do you plan to off yourself early to avoid the risk?

>>8740465
At least it doesn't use any chemicals.

>>8744968
It does some times. And they might be dangerous too, but not compared to the radiation itself.

File: big lipped alligator 2.gif (83KB, 453x326px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 453x326px

>>8740820
Amused that you posted Archer in a thread full of mentions of aneurysms.

>>8740961
>All housemans should be Gaussed desu.

>>8741081
>literally a 0.33% increased risk at 20.

Yo the risk goes from really almost nothing to really almost nothing plus a third of really almost nothing...

>>8743043
In 100 years we'll see a lot of stuff we do now as primitive.

Is your position that we don't get medical treatment until 100 years from now?

>>8744982
Would you play a loterry where you get to die with 1 to 300 chances?

Or better yet, every 300 people that get a scan, one of them dies. Spend a couple days in the clinic and you'll meet him.

File: x ray shoe fitting.jpg (62KB, 433x480px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 433x480px

>>8744099
You are now are reminded this THIS shit happened.

>>8744962
>So getting a scan is about as dangerous as living a month longer? Do you plan to off yourself early to avoid the risk?

That's not how it works.

You need to have two x-rays hit a cell at the same time to have a double strand break. That is more likely to happen during a high dose exposure.

>>8744996
You don't get a one in 300 chance of dying every time you get a scan. You are silly. Stop being silly!

>>8745003
>I don't like facts. Stop telling them!

>>8740147
Please link me a resource where having 4 scans increases your risk to that level.

>>8745013
http://www.xrayrisk.com/calculator/calculator.php

File: 878787898798970.png (35KB, 1239x355px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1239x355px

>>8745029
This is fucked up, dude what the fuck?

>>8743243
kek

>>8744996
>getting cancer = death
ayy lmao

>>8745390
for a lot of those scans, it does. they're to the head, chest, or abdomen. There are lots of deadly cancers that come from those areas.

>>8745390
cancers caused by CT are more likely to be deadly than the "normal" cancers 50+ year olds get.
That's because they hit a lot of places at the same time, places otherwise unlikely to go malignant or cancerous at all.
Of course that's not a real concern if you have a fractured skull or hydrocephalus or a messed up heart valve.

>>8745477
>cancers caused by CT are more likely to be deadly than the "normal" cancers 50+ year olds get.
LEL i love the fact that you just say that with conviction, despite never having read a single paper with data to back your claims.

>>8745477
>cancers caused by CT are more likely to be deadly than the "normal" cancers 50+ year olds get.
>That's because they hit a lot of places at the same time, places otherwise unlikely to go malignant or cancerous at all.

and you don't make any sense.

We have data from the atomic bomb blasts for fucks sake. Getting 100 mSv increased their individual cancer risk by 1% for the ~50 years after it happened. To say a single CT scan is dangerous is pretty silly.

>>8740961
>>8740987
>>8741070
Oh so what us Amerifats call residents.

>>8740040
>have had nausea for the past week for no real reason
>went to the doctor'sand they told me it's just a virus after taking my temperature, taking my breathing and shit
>nausea still isn't gone
I'm a massive hypochondriac so I may be blowing things out of proportion but I think the stress will kill me before the nausea does. Should I pull the trigger and get a CT scan?

>>8746024
Bomb blasts aren't the same as CT scans. Different energies, different dose rates. Huge approximations involved in the blast data. Political motives to underestimate cancer.
People are dying more from high exposures and less from lesser exposures. They still die though.
A single CT scan can be lethal. It might not be, but you need to be sure it's worth the risk.

>>8746237
>Different energies, different dose rates.
nope lol. you have literally no idea what you're even saying

>different energies
lmao

Just nausea? Starting with a CT is a retarded diagnostic approach. There are so many things that cause nausea and almost none of them are macroscopic enough to see on a CT.

Visit a second and third doctor and ask them to look into it. They will prescribe bloodwork but not a fucking CT.

>>8746245
if you hit your head and have nausea and are dizzy days later, getting a CT isn't abnormal.

>>8746252
Yeah but this guy didn't mention hitting his head. If he did, he really should get an x-ray at the very least.

You can get brain damage from high pressure in your head following a blow. I wish I had. Although CTs suck at detecting subtle damage at least he can avoid the worst.
>tfw even MRIs have a hard time detecting brain damage unless it either causes inflammation or localized structural damage
I hate this world.

>>8746266
>I wish I had.
done an xray after hitting my head. heh. not so funny though.

>>8746266
>I hate this world.
join the fucking club. hitting your head is like the worst thing you can do to yourself, and then on top of it you need to get a fucking CT to make sure you're not going to die of some hematoma or some shit. it feels like a rip off.

>>8746266
No I haven't hit my head. AFAIK this nausea just randomly started one night. I haven't even thrown up yet.

>>8746252
it isn't abnormal, but conking your head and having some nausea or dizziness days later doesn't mean you NEED a CT. Every doctor will give you one though because they don't want you to be the one person that they said "you don't need that' to and turns out you die in your sleep from a hemorhage that night and your family sues the fucking shit out of that doctor.

that shit has happened before. this is why if you go to a hospital and say you hit your head and feel dizzy and nauseous, they are taking no fucking chances with you even if you say you don't think you need it. they have a record of you going to the fucking hospital. if it turns out you needed that CT, they are extremely fucked.

This is why they are given. Clinically, they probably aren't needed at the rates they are given out. It's almost more of a legal thing at that point and there isn't anything they can do about it.

and no, you're not going to die from a single scan. that's retarded. your cumulative dose throughout your life is what contributes to radiation induced cancer. a single CT doesn't add much to that at all. There is more to it than that, but the fact is that it's all anyone here needs to know. I've talked to so many experts about this shit and not one has ever been worried about the dangers of a CT scan here or there throughout your life. Only when you are a very young, small child receiving multiple scans, are they at all worried. Adults have no reason to worry about a CT every decade or whatever, at all.

>>8745417
Source: ass

>be me
>daily headache for a month
>doctor recommend bain ct scan
>two ct scan (normal and with contrast)
>turns out I have subdural hygroma symptoms
>doctor wanted to open my brain but I refuse
>ask me to get ct scan every month to check my brain condition

what do /sci/?

>>8746928
Get a second opinion, ideally not from the retards in this thread.

>>8746928
>ct scan every month
this is a joke right? I like elaborate trolling attempts.

By the way I don't see why you would deny access to your subdural space. It's not that bad. Aren't they just going to drain and inspect the region? I'm not an expert, but it looks like they can't do much damage unless they fuck up big time.

>>8746990
>got a years worth of radiation to his head in minutes

why

>>8746321
wow, what if someone here is a little? discriminatory asshole.

>>8746276
You can always just opt to die of the hematoma.

If you don't happen to die, that's a bonus.

>>8748530
>If you don't happen to die, that's a bonus.
Not if you've lost enough gray matter.

>>8747630
>Implying getting a year's worth of radiation is really fucking dangerous.
>You do it every year, mang.
>Nobody says "I don't want to live so many years, because I get all that radiation each one..."

Also:

>why

To try and diagnose what the fuck was wrong with his brain? Just a guess.

>>8748547
In which case,you can always get one or two hundred quick scans and die from radiation.

>No problemo.

>>8740103
why are stone, brick, and concrete nuclear?

>>8748575
natural materials in them are weakly radioactive.

i don't think anyone is seriously arguing with you OP

First person to come up with better ways to get data and images on internal systems is gonna get into the medical journals

They don't give them out like candy either, you have to have a reason

>>8748590
Literally everyone ITT is arguing with OP. You're retarded.

>>8740151
Idk smoking gives you like a 1/3 chance of dying and lots of people do that, then they get chest CT's to check for lung cancer

>>8740040
>gives off as much ionizing radiation in ten seconds as you naturally receive in years
>unquantifiable

Is it to assume that CT scans will shorten my life by "years"???

Do Americans really use fucking CT for headaches as first action?

In my country these shits and MRI are used as last resort when clinical diagnosis is vague and other studies have been made.

>>8749368
>Do Americans really use fucking CT for headaches as first action?
yes

>>8749370
I always wondered what made American healthcare so expense, I think I know why now.

>>8749378
this has almost nothing to do with it.

>>8749368
>Do Americans really use fucking CT for headaches as first action?
it's not a rule but yeah, they're used a lot.

>>8746243
They literally do have different energies and dose rates though. Also many more variables with a nuke. You're going to have a fuck ton of different interactions due to the high/low proton materials around it, would you not? Gamma isn't even a particulate nigga. How are you going to compare alpha particles to X-rays/gammas? Alphas literally have a quality factor of 20. That shit ain't hard. With gammas you're probably only dealing with photoelectric effect, Compton, and pair production. Nuclear bomb is much spookier because of you inhale any radionuclides in the area u are le fugd xD

>>8740733
Even better! That's 1 in 2,333

The true number is 0 tho.
Not 1 person will get cancer specifically due to that one scan they had all those years ago. These numbers are just statistics. Scans are 1 factor in a myriad of influences that increase and decrease the chance of getting cancer.

>>8740105
0.006% chance of getting cancer.

>>8750577
holy shit someone ITT using logic...?

I'm a medical physicist. This is what I specialize in. One CT scan has absolutely no way to trigger a cancer causing event. The chances of that are so insignificant that the fact these fear mongering articles exist is really irresponsible.

>>8752137
>I'm a medical physicist
I doubt this. What area do you work in?

>>8752137
Where did you go to school?
I work for a medical device company that develops/manufactures brachytherapy sources and other related products.
Looking to back to school for my masters in either physics/applied physics, or medical physics.
How was your clinical rotation?