Went for a physical, and part of that included a chet x-ray. I turned down the x-ray since I didn't see any need of getting exposed to unnecessary radiation. The doctor and the tech both said that the radiation from an x-ray is very low and that flying in a plane exposes you to much more radiation.
I came hone and googled this, and it does seem that flying does in fact expose you to radiation.
Have there been studies done on frequent flyers and cancer rates?
Went for a physical, and part of that included a chet x-ray. I turned down the x-ray since I didn't see any need of getting exposed to unnecessary radiation. The doctor and the tech both said that the radiation from an x-ray is very low and that flying in a plane exposes you to much more radiation.
I came hone and googled this, and it does seem that flying does in fact expose you to radiation.
Have there been studies done on frequent flyers and cancer rates?
For a typical cross-country flight in a commercial airplane, you are likely to receive 2 to 5 millirem (mrem) of radiation, less than half the radiation dose you receive from a chest x-ray. People in the United States receive an average of 360 mrem of radiation per year from natural and man-made radiation sources, which includes cosmic radiation exposure during commercial flights.
From a medical perspective, choosing whether or not to get a chest x-ray depends on other factors, as the radiation dose is not significant, essentially 2 cross country flights worth. Ask your doctor why he wants to get an x-ray. Certain factors would make this a more reasonable test. First, if you smoke, your risk of lung and other cancer is significantly higher, and a baseline or surveillance x-ray might be indicated. Have you had a positive skin test for TB? Then an x-ray is certainly indicated, and in the States is essentially required. Do you have any other worrisome lung symptoms? How old are you? These and many other factors play into the decision. Most doctors don't routinely get screening chest x-rays without some other reason.
From a medical perspective, choosing whether or not to get a chest x-ray depends on other factors, as the radiation dose is not significant, essentially 2 cross country flights worth. Ask your doctor why he wants to get an x-ray. Certain factors would make this a more reasonable test. First, if you smoke, your risk of lung and other cancer is significantly higher, and a baseline or surveillance x-ray might be indicated. Have you had a positive skin test for TB? Then an x-ray is certainly indicated, and in the States is essentially required. Do you have any other worrisome lung symptoms? How old are you? These and many other factors play into the decision. Most doctors don't routinely get screening chest x-rays without some other reason.
The reason why they wanted an x-ray is because it's a head to toe executive physical. They charge $3 or $4k and they check everything. I do it every year. I don't smoke and am young (30's) so I passed on it. Get this: my cholesterol is a bit high, so they wanted to do a ct to check out my arteries! I declined that too. I'm not even overweight (very lean and slim) and have no family history. Docs these days throw around too much radiation imo.
The reason why they wanted an x-ray is because it's a head to toe executive physical. They charge $3 or $4k and they check everything. I do it every year. I don't smoke and am young (30's) so I passed on it. Get this: my cholesterol is a bit high, so they wanted to do a ct to check out my arteries! I declined that too. I'm not even overweight (very lean and slim) and have no family history. Docs these days throw around too much radiation imo.
The doc won't get sued for cancer from throwing around the rads. They will get sued for missing a rare diagnosis that they could have gotten had they thrown around the rads. Thus the actual risk/benefit to the patient doesn't match up with the pressures on the doctor.
Programs: UA 1K (EX-CON), SPG Gold, AA Lifetime Platinum, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 5,420
It's a truism that all radiation exposure is cumulative over your life, but that doesn't mean that there are exposure levels below which you probably shouldn't worry about it.
You asked about frequent flyers and cancer rates. Consider something much worse: in-flight crew members. The average crew member has far more exposure than virtually any frequent flyer, and there are hundreds of thousands of them just in North America at any time that do it as a full-time profession, and this has been going on for decades. Any such dangers should be well understood, well studied, and well documented by now.
It's a truism that all radiation exposure is cumulative over your life, but that doesn't mean that there are exposure levels below which you probably shouldn't worry about it.
You asked about frequent flyers and cancer rates. Consider something much worse: in-flight crew members. The average crew member has far more exposure than virtually any frequent flyer, and there are hundreds of thousands of them just in North America at any time that do it as a full-time profession, and this has been going on for decades. Any such dangers should be well understood, well studied, and well documented by now.
