Bugging me: cancer risks of smoking and x-rays

[bktheirregular]

Having been through a large battery of medical tests sparked by a legally mandated chest X-ray, and having had my body photographed by X-rays a number of times in the last month, I'm trying to remember: didn't someone, somewhere, run a comparison between a chest X-ray and X number of cigarettes, concerning the likelihood of causing cancer?

I suppose I'm getting morbid, but I keep wondering how much time got shaved off my life from all the zapping. (And how many cigarettes I just smoked, which is depressing considering I'm a rather vehement non-smoker...)

Comments

[butterflykiki.livejournal.com]

I don't have that number, but among other things, it's apples and oranges.

You can have up to at least 50 X-rays in a year before it gets close to the limit effecting your health; most X-rays are between 2-5 sieverts. 2 sieverts is background radiation in, say, Colorado. 1 sievert is background in New York. This is why the nice radiography technician is not in the room with every person who gets one this year. She doesn't need 300 exposures. If you're getting anything less than 20, really, don't worry.

Cigarettes effect depends on individual response, something that can't be predicted/charted, but are a heckuva lot more consistently cancer-causers than X-rays are.

Oh wait! look! Right here (http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/medicaldepartments/cancercenter/prevention/preventionradiation.html). One cigarette= 1 chest X-ray.

*hugs*