Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

I am all for evidence-based medicine making its way into dentristry if it's lacking... but if you're someone who is worried about cumulative exposure to X-ray length radiation, what is the dosage? And can we compare it relative to to say, millimeter scanners at the airport or a domestic flight?

I was under the impression that the digital machines they use these days are:

1. localised 2. very, very low dose

I have the same question. Why should I care? It's not an extra cost to me, so the radiation would be the reason, but I assume it's quite minor.

My dentist said something like "it exposes you to less radiation than eating a banana", but she also left the room when the machine was firing.

As an important distinction the current millimeter scanners at the airport are completely uncomparable. They use non-ionizing radiation similar to Wi-Fi. There used to be backscatter x-ray scanners (ionizing radiation) but these were decommissioned in the EU/US in 2012/2013 due to public concern even though the levels were low as well.

The importance of the distinction is a lifetime of non-ionizing radiation is not known to cause any adverse effects while any instance of ionizing radiation is known to damage cells, even when it's a low amount in a controlled area. The debate people have with the former is whether or not it might even causes a problem in the first place while the debate with the later is where the best balance on the damages vs advantages is.

I assume you mean it's covered by some sort of insurance (private or public) in which case you are paying for it you just don't really control how much you pay by individually opting in or out.

True, but dental insurance is so cheap relative to medical insurance.

radiation workers practice ALARA, which is an acronym for "as low as reasonably achievable".

Nothing wrong with eating bananas, but I wouldn't want to eat 20 a day for all sorts of reasons.

If your teeth are in good health (no work done in years and none expected), paying out of pocket for dental appointments might still be cheaper. Though that assumes you could cover an unexpected expense - this is effectively self-insuring.

I hate when people bring this up.

Yes, it's an incredibly small amount of radiation for you because you're only in there for one X ray maybe once a year.

For someone who operates the Xray maybe a half dozen times in a day (or more), every day, that number changes dramatically. It's still likely fine, but it's far better to be safe than sorry.

I remember taking my kid for an x-ray of his wrist and the tech lined it all up, and then said "okay, dad and me are going over here while I take the picture." My son immediately wanted to know what the hell we just exposed to him that wasn't safe for us.

In retrospect, the policy should be to let the parent stay. The risk to me is no worse than the risk to my kid. It's easy enough to explain why the tech should go behind a shield.

> Though that assumes you could cover an unexpected expense

Given how low the typical (non-DMO) coverage limits are for dental insurance, this is probably reasonable for many people.

I have a friend who was course VI at MIT but also a serious (chemical free) bodybuilder. He told me the story of working summers at a gym and he saw this one guy eating a large number of bananas as he trained. I don't know the number, but it was large enough that it was clearly going to be based on some serious bro science.

So my friend asks for the explanation. Guy asks him "what's the strongest animal?"

The answer (which I would dispute) was 'the gorilla'

"And what do gorillas eat?"