/sci/ - Science & Math

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25314057

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v112/n1/full/bjc2014526a.html

>RESULTS:

>During a mean follow-up of 4 years, 27 cases of tumours of the central nervous system, 25 of leukaemia and 21 of lymphoma were diagnosed; 32% of them among children with PF. Specific patterns of CT exposures were observed according to PFs. Adjustment for PF reduced the excess risk estimates related to cumulative doses from CT scans. No significant excess risk was observed in relation to CT exposures.

>>8808146
They probably do, at a very low rate. It's a risk/benefit thing -- do you stand to gain more by detecting something with a scan than you risk by getting a dose of radiation?

That's why you don;t just randomly scan people who, for example, have no reason to think they have lung cancer, but have a bee in their bonnets about ti and want to get a scan they do not in fact need. Just to choose an example at random.

>>8808146
we have never shown them to

>>8808201
>No significant excess risk was observed in relation to CT exposures.

so no? it's just if you have a predisposing factor?

theoretically possible, but any effect is probably completely drowned out by daily life

>>8808299

>Have a bee in their bonnet
That’s some old school shit right there. +1 like.

>>8808299
>but have a bee in their bonnets

>>8808364
citation needed

>>8808146
Medical radiographic imaging approaches using ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation promotes the liklihood of neocarcinomas. Be advised that the risk is usually negligible compared to the prognostic information provided by using these imaging approaches. Of course, you could always ask for ultrasound or MRI...

A single x-ray is about the same dose of radiation as an intercontinental flight.

>>8809967
this, the benefits far outway the risks

>>8810084
>outway

>>8808146
Yes, it's a risk and a major thing to consider when planning these things. Basically, a minimal kind of contrast/resolution is demanded which is tried to be achieved with minimal x-ray dosage. It's an interesting problem.

>>8810856
citation needed

lmao you're literally all going to die 30-50 years early. good job.

>>8808146
No, and especially not in the head region. Brain is particularly insensitive to radiation. You don't want to get these all the time, but they aren't very bad

>>8810975
citation needed

Well, xrays do excert some radiation on the body, which can be calculated in Sieverts.

Sieverts are cumulative, so if you had enough xray images taken you may be at death risk comparable to working on a nuclear facility

nuclear workers are allowed to receive up to 20 mSv annually with no shown effects This is literally regulatory agencies that say this; actual medical physicists and shit t hat say you can receive 20 mSv in your job as a nuke worker with no problems, so if your CT scan was under like 15 mSv, you're fine, meaning if you received anything short of a PET scan or something, you have nothing to worry about at all.

To say a single CT scan causes cancer is a bit ridiculous. I wouldn't be able to get behind that. People would be getting cancer from stupid shit. You don't get cancer from singular exposures unless it is a huge dose like 100+ mSv. It is way too hard to do with one CT scan that you had when you were 21 or something. People who are smoke their entire lives are exposed to huge chronic doses of ionizing radiation via the alpha particles in their mouth/throat/lungs, and EVEN THEN only 1 in ~10 of those bastards get cancer related to smoking. To say one CT or some dental X-rays or that X-ray you had when you broke your ribs in high school or something is going to give you cancer? Fuck off. That's retarded. The chances of that must be really, really low.