Are CT scans actually somewhat dangerous?

Octavian_Augustus

Octavian_Augustus

L'État, c'est moi
Joined
Oct 25, 2022
Posts
2,468
Reputation
4,115
WebMD says 1 in 2000 people will get a fatal cancer from CT (That seems super fucking high tbh...)

www.webmd.com

CT Scans and Cancer Risk

CT scans expose you to radiation, which has been linked to cancer. Learn your real cancer risk from these scans.
www.webmd.com www.webmd.com

Google says 80 million CT scans get done each year


So are there 40,000 fatal cancers being generated each year in the US due to CT (obviously might take time to show up)?
 
  • Woah
Reactions: optimisticzoomer
Sort by date Sort by votes
Probably people with certain genes for it who develop cancer
 
  • +1
Reactions: Octavian_Augustus
Upvote 0 Downvote
yes you shouldn’t do it too often especially when young
 
  • +1
Reactions: horizontallytall and Octavian_Augustus
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm not really sure how they can determine the direct causality here since most cancers that come about from scans are decades after the fact.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 20370 and Deleted member 18879
Upvote 0 Downvote
slop slinger said:
I'm not really sure how they can determine the direct causality here since most cancers that come about from scans are decades after the fact.
Click to expand...
Yes they did long term studies of exposed and non-exposed cohorts to see the difference in cancer incident rate.


It might not cause cancer immediately but maybe in 5,10,15, 20+ etc years.

God Hardmaxxing has so many trade-offs.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"Based on our estimates, a recent review suggested that, because current use in the US is 10 times higher than it was in the UK in the early 1990s, this figure might now be as high as 1.5% to 2% in the US"

--> 2% of US cancers caused by CT scans. Roughly 2 million new cancers a year in the US. So 40k cancers a year caused by CT scans. Fucking brutal.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 32486
Upvote 0 Downvote
@RealSurgerymax

On Giant you said it's 11 days worth of ordinary radiation for a face CT. What are your thoughts? Are face CT scans less dangerous? Please give me some copefuel bro.

EDIT: you said for cone beam CT my bad.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
It has been a while since I looked into this and I always found the way the discussion is usually framed was ridiculous. There are disagreements on the ways, if at all, cancer risk from the small radiation doses you get in ct scans can be measured. The causality is not at all clear for us to be able to say these scans "cause" cancer in a X->Z manner like the webmd article suggests.

Although suppose we do accept a clean causality. Even in the case of a head CT scan (the most you would need if getting surgery), it is equivalent to 1 year of background radiation. Also different parts of the body are more resistant to dispelling radiation than others, and IIRC the brain is much better at it than something like your lymph nodes. People in higher elevation are exposed to up to 3x-4x more the amount of background radiation as those at average elevation but they have no increased incidence of cancer. In short any fear of cancer risk should not prevent anyone from getting a head ct if they want surgery.
 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: Octavian_Augustus
Upvote 0 Downvote
slop slinger said:
It has been a while since I looked into this and I always found the way the discussion is usually framed was ridiculous. There are disagreements on the ways, if at all, cancer risk from the small radiation doses you get in ct scans can be measured. The causality is not at all clear for us to be able to say these scans "cause" cancer in a X->Z manner like the webmd article suggests.

Although suppose we do accept a clean causality. Even in the case of a head CT scan (the most you would need if getting surgery), it is equivalent to 1 year of background radiation. Also different parts of the body are more resistant to dispelling radiation than others, and IIRC the brain is much better at it than something like your lymph nodes. People in higher elevation are exposed to up to 3x-4x more the amount of background radiation as those at average elevation but they have no increased incidence of cancer. In short any fear of cancer risk should not prevent anyone from getting a head ct if they want surgery.
Click to expand...
Yes you're probably right. I heard head CT scans have the least amount of radiation exposure vs all other CT scans and that the brain is less susceptible.

I just read about a 21 year old NHL prospect dying of brain cancer 30 mins ago and it triggered some fear.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Octavian_Augustus said:
Yes you're probably right. I heard head CT scans have the least amount of radiation exposure vs all other CT scans and that the brain is less susceptible.

I just read about a 21 year old NHL prospect dying of brain cancer 30 mins ago and it triggered some fear.
Click to expand...
I also got horrified reading about lymphoma patients in their 20s and 30s.

In reality, we all probably have greater risk factors to worry about. My being exposed to secondhand smoke from my mom for 20yrs probably mogs all the ct scans ive gotten
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bro dont you know basic algebra? you literally said 1 in 2000 you idiot :feelskek:
dont get me started on "it causes cancer" rabbit hole.....it literally NEVER ends cause we live in a petroleum-plastic-derived world so EVERYHTING is toxic....you have a chance of developing cancer cause you touched coated interiors of a car just by touching the handles and then accidentally putting your fingers in your mouth

dont worry you AINT gonna die before 50-60 with modern technology if ure not fat and/ or have an accident you idiot/ by which point it doesnt really matter as 50-80 is bs anyways ofc
god damn ppl here are so autistic :feelskek:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Skywalker said:
bro dont you know basic algebra? you literally said 1 in 2000 you idiot :feelskek:
dont get me started on "it causes cancer" rabbit hole.....it literally NEVER ends cause we live in a petroleum-plastic-derived world so EVERYHTING is toxic....you have a chance of developing cancer cause you touched coated interiors of a car just by touching the handles and then accidentally putting your fingers in your mouth

dont worry you AINT gonna die before 50-60 with modern technology if ure not fat and/ or have an accident you idiot/ by which point it doesnt really matter as 50-80 is bs anyways ofc
god damn ppl here are so autistic :feelskek:
Click to expand...
Dumb fucking take. The radiation you receive from CT scans is way more carcinogenic than the plastics you touch everywhere. How can you even compare the two lol. Even doctors recommend not over-prescribing CT scans and being conservative with that type of imaging.

And yes 1 in 2000 is low odds but for a CT scan that really isn't that necessary it's still not great to expose yourself to that risk. If you're the unlucky sap that gets glioblastoma or some shit it's pretty much over since that cancer has a dog-shit 5 year survival rate.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Always do a lot of researcch, never believe any mainstream belief about biology and in general things ,
 
  • +1
Reactions: Skywalker
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (Looksmaxers: 0, Bluepillers: 2)
Back
Top