CT scan risks

[Anonymous]

https://www.consumersafety.org/drug-lawsuits/gadolinium/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F yes this would worry me!

OMG shut up.

CT scans are safe.

Define "safe"? There is no "safe" level of ionizing radiation. Every bit you are exposed to harms you a little more.

I mean then don't go outside or fly on a plane? Being exposed to ionizing radiation is 100% inevitable and you weigh risks. Like getting a dental X ray to diagnose needing a root canal rather than letting your teeth rot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Talk to your doctor about treating your anxiety.

This 100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have had 3. My son has had two. Sometimes you have to assume risks to get the necessary information. Nothing is risk free.

You really don't. Not unless you are treating cancer. You won't know or feel the consequences until a few years out. The fact is, a large percentage of cancers are caused, directly, from CT scans in prior years. Please stop having your son get the unless it's for a very very serious reason. OP: I realize this thread is days old, but you are right to question. Doctors get commissions for use of machines or are lazy. MRI would be the best logical next step. My FIL has sinus cancer and has yet to get a CT--they do MRI. So close to the brain, CT scans of the head should be avoided at all costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F yes this would worry me!

OMG shut up.

CT scans are safe.

Define "safe"? There is no "safe" level of ionizing radiation. Every bit you are exposed to harms you a little more.

I mean then don't go outside or fly on a plane? Being exposed to ionizing radiation is 100% inevitable and you weigh risks. Like getting a dental X ray to diagnose needing a root canal rather than letting your teeth rot.

If you think that the radiation of a dental x-ray is anywhere near the level of a CT scan, you really need to educate yourself. And by the way, you should limit the number of dental x-rays you have in your life. The dentists have to pay for those machines somehow, so unnecessary scans it is!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F yes this would worry me!

OMG shut up.

CT scans are safe.

Define "safe"? There is no "safe" level of ionizing radiation. Every bit you are exposed to harms you a little more.

I mean then don't go outside or fly on a plane? Being exposed to ionizing radiation is 100% inevitable and you weigh risks. Like getting a dental X ray to diagnose needing a root canal rather than letting your teeth rot.

If you think that the radiation of a dental x-ray is anywhere near the level of a CT scan, you really need to educate yourself. And by the way, you should limit the number of dental x-rays you have in your life. The dentists have to pay for those machines somehow, so unnecessary scans it is!

I mean I had a family member who had a tumor in their sinus that was pushing in on their optic nerve so... yes sometimes getting the CT scan is absolutely worth the risk. It took ages for my family member to get diagnosed properly but the second they did the scan they saw the issue. You have to weigh factors.

[Anonymous]

For those of you comparing CT scans to typical sun exposure or even dental x-rays, please understand, the medical community is fully aware that there is substantial risk, particularly for those with repeated scans.
https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/16/g-s1-60488/ct-scan-cancer-risk-ionizing-radiation#:~:text=Their%20new%20research%2C%20based%20on,ve%20been%20exposed%20to%20already.

[Anonymous]

MRI not a good diagnostic tool for sinus investigations? CT much better. This is why mri not recommended

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those of you comparing CT scans to typical sun exposure or even dental x-rays, please understand, the medical community is fully aware that there is substantial risk, particularly for those with repeated scans.
https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/16/g-s1-60488/ct-scan-cancer-risk-ionizing-radiation#:~:text=Their%20new%20research%2C%20based%20on,ve%20been%20exposed%20to%20already.

That struck me as pretty alarming because 200 dental x-rays is still many lifetimes' worth: "A brain scan, the website shows, can emit as little radiation as 200 dental X-rays or as much as 1,600."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:F yes this would worry me!

OMG shut up.

CT scans are safe.

Define "safe"? There is no "safe" level of ionizing radiation. Every bit you are exposed to harms you a little more.

This is not true. Radiation is in our everyday environment. If you wear a dosimeter inside a building and walk outside, it will start ticking from the radiation from sunlight. We have evolved to live with radiation. Environmental regulators decided that, unlike any other substance known to man, the curve for damage from radiation was "linear no threshold" (meaning there is no dose that is harmless) based upon zero scientific evidence. How do I know this? I talked to one of the guys who wrote the regs. They had no evidence of harm from radiation at lower doses, so they just drew a straight line to zero. Every other substance known to man has a threshold beneath which there is no harm, and he agreed that is the case with radiation. If no level of radiation were safe, people who live in Colorado would have a higher incidence of cancer, not a lower one. This is just used to scare people. If you really believe this, then never fly in an airplane or live at altitude (or go inside any building in DC made of granite, which are literally radioactive).

That's a lot of typing to say nothing really.

Smoke some cigs to calm down, if it's not linear as you say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Talk to your doctor about treating your anxiety.

This 100%

So ignore the dangers, and take more mind altering addictive drugs to profit the doctors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.independent.co.uk/health-and-wellbeing/mri-scan-injection-oxalic-acid-b2732737.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawJqgtVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHsnxScux-bytPLWcDl7uR5_Es_oQqJFCS3qGd0M3i9rMq55QHQVrLFA9vR4B_aem_0EVSOigVeoYyxEhenMNViQ

That is about MRI and not CT scan.

Correct. Someone posted that MRI’s are safer but the contrast used with MRI’s causes some people a lifetime of problems.

Those are mostly used in CT not MRIs.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. CT’s use ionizing contrast and MRI’s these days (especially for head things, breast things, and pelvic organ things) are given with the contrast gadolinium, a toxic heavy metal that doesn’t fully leave the body and can cause long term issues. Some people become incapacitated after just one dose, others after several doses as it builds up.

It leaves the body as it is water based and chelated. The danger is acute more so. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482487/

Neither CT's or MRI's with tracers are really safe, and both are harmful. Weigh the risks for either.

[Anonymous]

I've absolutely had to have scans in the recent years due to cardiac reasons.

There's not a lot I can do, now, is there? Postings these things are worthwhile, but these scans also save lives. I can’t walk around frightened all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.independent.co.uk/health-and-wellbeing/mri-scan-injection-oxalic-acid-b2732737.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawJqgtVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHsnxScux-bytPLWcDl7uR5_Es_oQqJFCS3qGd0M3i9rMq55QHQVrLFA9vR4B_aem_0EVSOigVeoYyxEhenMNViQ

That is about MRI and not CT scan.

Correct. Someone posted that MRI’s are safer but the contrast used with MRI’s causes some people a lifetime of problems.

Those are mostly used in CT not MRIs.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. CT’s use ionizing contrast and MRI’s these days (especially for head things, breast things, and pelvic organ things) are given with the contrast gadolinium, a toxic heavy metal that doesn’t fully leave the body and can cause long term issues. Some people become incapacitated after just one dose, others after several doses as it builds up.

“Incapacitated after just one dose” is highly, highly rare. Many people need breast MRIs with contrast every year and do just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.independent.co.uk/health-and-wellbeing/mri-scan-injection-oxalic-acid-b2732737.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawJqgtVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHsnxScux-bytPLWcDl7uR5_Es_oQqJFCS3qGd0M3i9rMq55QHQVrLFA9vR4B_aem_0EVSOigVeoYyxEhenMNViQ

That is about MRI and not CT scan.

Correct. Someone posted that MRI’s are safer but the contrast used with MRI’s causes some people a lifetime of problems.

Those are mostly used in CT not MRIs.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. CT’s use ionizing contrast and MRI’s these days (especially for head things, breast things, and pelvic organ things) are given with the contrast gadolinium, a toxic heavy metal that doesn’t fully leave the body and can cause long term issues. Some people become incapacitated after just one dose, others after several doses as it builds up.

“Incapacitated after just one dose” is highly, highly rare. Many people need breast MRIs with contrast every year and do just fine.

DP but I assume they were talking about allergic reactions affecting blood pressure, etc.. That happens in a few cases, not exactly rare, but not that common either.