Really... fixating on the risk of cancer at all is a mistake. As other commenters have said, it's about balancing the risk with the value. Instead, we should fi

Really... fixating on the risk of cancer at all is a mistake. As other commenters have said, it's about balancing the risk with the value. Instead, we should find a) How much radiation one might on average incur due to medical reasons b) How many years of life that causes us to lose on average (or per capita) c) How many years of life the average person gains due to the use of this technology. As long as c - b > 0 (in a real way) we don't really have a problem here. We have an optimization to make. I don't see any evidence here that c - b <= 0. I also don't see any evidence that c - b > 0. Any other point seems moot.