←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: 0.001s | 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 #
ericmcer ◴[15 Oct 24 15:23 UTC] No.41849555[source]▶
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.
replies(3): >>41849748 #>>41850313 #>>41850584 #
s1artibartfast ◴[15 Oct 24 15:43 UTC] No.41849748[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>41851809 #
1. gmarx ◴[15 Oct 24 18:48 UTC] No.41851809{3}[source]▶
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?"