←back to thread

Routine dental X-rays are not backed by evidence

(arstechnica.com)
352 points keithly | 1 comments | 14 Oct 24 21:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.281s | source
Show context
agentultra ◴[15 Oct 24 13:41 UTC] No.41848509[source]▶
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

replies(3): >>41849545 #>>41849555 #>>41849604 #
1. zamadatix ◴[15 Oct 24 15:28 UTC] No.41849604[source]▶
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.