If we had gotten our heads out of the sand on pushing CT scans as the answer, years ago we might have progressed further on other tech too.
E.g., photons: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-06-scientists-entire-hum...
We have people working around low-flying aircraft all the time. I’m guessing the associated job risks are better.
When you take those jobs, it’s because you want to make money, not because your life is at risk, there’s information asymmetry between you and the medical provider who is indirectly rewarded for billing for scans, and the overarching medical system prioritized CT scans over MRIs while our engineering culture failed to establish something safer and cheaper.
Would you play Russian Roulette with a revolver with 500 chambers and 1 bullet? What if by doing so a hospital would receive thousands of dollars, and would go on to be paid many more thousands of dollars if you got unlucky?
The cost-benefit trade-off is there, and the powers that be are prioritizing cancer.
> ...93 million CT examinations performed ... projected to result in approximately 103 000 future cancers ... cancer risk was higher in children ... CT-associated cancers could eventually account for 5% of all new cancer diagnoses annually.
Although keep in mind that these numbers do need context. cancer != death. That ranges from cold comfort (in the case painful chemo treatment & years of fear) to a critical factor (based on how the USA diagnoses it, approximately 6% of men will have prostate cancer that does not require treatment).
Based only on these numbers above and my prior beliefs, I would say that that either
A) CT scans are a necessary evil that haven't been adequately replaced
or
B) These numbers less problematic than one might expect, due to some quirk of the data
I generally trust the USA's medical establishment on new treatment, though I've heard that they're slow to clamp down on outdated treatments.
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/radiati...
Also, framed another way, 5% of cancer cases caused by CT scans would mean that 1 in 20 people in the cancer ward were placed there by a CT scan. Or alternatively, phasing out CT scans would prevent 1 in 20 cancer cases, with prevention being worth more than a cure for every 1 cancer patient in 20.
And yes, you can still see bone in an MRI. A related question is, how well can you see soft tissue in a CT scan?
CT scans are routinely used to diagnose soft tissue problems, where they are the wrong tool for the job: an MRI would be more ideal. CT scans in these situations expose the patient to avoidable cancer risks while compromising the level of insight provided to the medical provider.
Interoperative imaging is another specialist use case. The need for CT scans in specialist situations speaks to the failure to develop alternatives with lower cancer risks. Also, the need to use a CT scan in certain situations does not mean that the CT scans should be used in other situations.