How high is the risk of cancer from CT scans?

I found this article on multiple sites (although all of them not-exactly-unbiased, since they were radiology service type sites).

This radiation dosage chart is helpful for visualizing relative radiation exposure levels.

There is a risk however it is pretty small. The average person has a 23% chance of dying from cancer. CT scans increase that risk by about .3%. Obviously the more scans you have the more the risk increases.
However if you look at the benefits CT scans speed up diagnosis dramatically and in healthcare speed of diagnosis is dierctly linked to likelyhood of survival. The ED in the hospital I work at has its own CT scanner and patients with major trauma are scanned within about 15 minutes of arrival. The result of this is the local murder rate has dropped by over half not because less people are getting shot (actually more people are) but because we save more people.

I just had CT’s from my head to my pelvis that I did not know they were going to do my whole upper body, I did not realize until the bill arive. It makes me sick. So many people dismiss me as being paranoid, but after looking at charts like what @gorillapaws linked and others, I still am so very pissed off about the radiation. I am disgusted I was not given the option to refuse the head, stomach, and pelvis.

Some CT’s deliver less radiation than others. You need to have something like 5 head CT’s to have the same increased chance of cancer and radiation as 1 stomach CT.

I am glad now for every time I have refused an “xray” at the airport or dental xrays.

Sorry to multiple post, but this makes me so angry. This article says only 9% of ER doctors know CT’s can cause increased cancer risks. Seriously? How can anyone not know a lot of radiation exposure can increase cancer risk? Forget about whether it is a marginal risk or high risk, they just think the xrays are a nothing? I am trying to find some charts I have seen before that show CT’s of the brain deliver the equivalent of about 8 months of normal background radation we get daily, and I think stomach is 5 years worth. Those numbers are out of memory, so not to be heeded as the gospel. I am having troule finding one of those tables.

@JLeslie: There are certainly legitimate issues but the figures that you quote come from a 2004 study. There was also not a footnote with the correct details of the study either.

Here’s the site mentioned in the article: http://www.radiologyinfo.org/ which calls itself “The radiology information resource for patients.”
.

@gailcalled All legitimate points. My point is, doctors all the time say an xray delivers very little radiation, don’t think about it. I had a nurse say to me, “nonmedical people worry because they don’t know enough about it.” Do you know how many stupid nurses there are? I know many who are fantastic and smart, but really, how many doctors do you know who are not up on new information about stuff in their field? Too many. Her attempt at reassurring me she is a smart cookie does nothing, and she was condescending to me. I have zero confidence she has done any real research, and she is just paroting what she has been told.

People who work in xray wear radiation badges to monitor their exposure. Because it is exposure to radiation that can be dangerous if too much over time. It is just simple logic. One CT might barely increase a cancer risk, but over time multiple ones add up.

@JLeslie “One CT might barely increase a cancer risk, but over time multiple ones add up.”
I may be misinterpreting the data from the chart I linked, but it looked like you would need 10 CT’s annually to hit the “Lowest annual does where increased lifetime risk of cancer is evident.” I interpret this to mean that you can have several/year and really have no increased risk.

It behooves all patients these days to become a 50% partner with their doctors. I always do the research myself and show up at my appointment armed for bear, but without the growl.

@gailcalled I agree without the growl. I seek doctors who are interested in learning the new info, there are some out there, who will help me determine if it is a valid study or piece of information for my circumstance. I rarely come in with such information, it’s not like I walk in every time with print outs frm the internet. I wind up growling when they have bad attitudes or are idiots. Well, growl is the wrong word, I wind up realizing they don’t really give a shit, and change to a new doctor. Many doctors are great at studying, learning, and passing a test, but they don’t think in an out of the box way, or even extrapolate something on their own, they wait to be told what they are supposed to think. I mean really, does it surprise you for instance that HRT has some possible negative side effects? Does it surprise you that any drug has some possible side effects long term? The seem to want to think everything is safe. Not all of them, but too many. And, if there is no “proof” that something hurts patients, they assume it is safe, but sometimes one can be prudent just by applying some logic to a situation in the absence of proof. Seems obvious to me that CT’s should be avoided unless necessary. If someone is thought to have cancer, well of course we need to know. But, my situation in the hospital, I didn’t need a full body scan, that is ridiculous. I am very upset about it.