/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9093546
>have neurofibromatosis
probably, but then again just about anything will and it's 100% inevitable
>don't have neurofibromatosis
no

comparing to background rates which are ~3 mSv per year, a CT is not significant, a head CT giving off about 2 mSv for perspective.

Think about it like this. Those doses I just mentioned are whole body doses. Your head in a CT scan isn't actually receiving 2 mSv, that would probably be dangerous. It's receiving the equivalent of a 2 mSv full body dose, which is something like .02 mSv.

Think of it like this even: I want to drown you with just a bucket of water. Which will drown you faster, pouring the bucket all at once over your head (CT) or pouring it equally over ~250 days over your head (annual background radiation AKA what you receive just by existing)... neither will drown you.

Talk to any imaging physicist and they'll explain it in a very detailed way why it is insignificant. tl;dr you need double strand breaks, and x-rays just don't do that in these doses.

TL;DR pic related

also

>smoking
>drinking
>obesity
>diabetes
>bad diet
>no exercise

These will harm you more than a CT and we have mountains of studies/data to show that, but yes scans are probably done more than they need to be, mostly on children, and it's a waste of time and money.