Why do x-ray machines increase cancer risk?

Click For Summary
X-ray machines emit ionizing radiation, which can increase cancer risk due to their ability to knock electrons off atoms, creating ionized molecules that behave abnormally in biological systems. While X-rays are a form of electromagnetic radiation, they are not visible light, and their high frequency distinguishes them from other forms of radiation. Historically, non-medical X-ray machines were used in shoe stores to check children's shoe sizes, a practice that has since been discontinued due to health concerns. Medical X-rays, however, are essential diagnostic tools that can save lives when prescribed by a doctor. Overall, while there are risks associated with X-ray exposure, their medical benefits are significant when used appropriately.
  • #31
Danger said:
Oh, man! New word of the day... :smile:
I'll be using that one, for sure.

The fact is, I just call the whole damned works EM, but I wouldn't razz someone for calling them radio waves.
That's what you get from going to a good English School, my boy. We learned to talk proper and learned a huge vocabulary. (I can refer to you a 'son' now I know about your extreme youth.)
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
What's the evidence that those shoe-fitting X-ray machines harmed anyone?
 
  • #33
“Years or decades may elapse between radiation exposure and a related occurrence of cancer, and no follow-up studies of customers can be performed for lack of records. Without such an epidemiological study, it is impossible to conclude whether this machine actually caused any harm to customers.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope
 
  • #34
According to medical physicists I've talked to, not only has their been better awareness of health concerns (you may remember <a href="http://gajitz.com/1950s-radioactive-science-kit-most-dangerous-toy-ever/"> this</a>), but also the technology for energy control, tight-beam collimating, signal processing, and more have made X-rays far safer than they once were. Apparently CT scans use 100 times less radiation than they did only 15 years ago.

At least that's a little comforting when your kid's standing in front of that screen. That, and that there are a couple on this page who have had their doses and still have sharp minds!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
sophiecentaur said:
We learned to talk proper and learned a huge vocabulary.

Oh, I knew the word already; I'd just never seen it used in such a humourously ridiculous context before. I've always lived in farming country, so aeration is a daily issue. :-p
 
  • #36
Bobbywhy said:
Who knows how much X-ray radiation they were sending through our little feet?

The feet are the least affected part of the body w.r.t. radiation. It's a question of how fast cells turn over. The faster the more effect.

That's not to say it was a good idea. Radiation that can be avoided probably should be, presuming the avoidance cost (effort, risk, etc.) is small. So wearing a hat to avoid sunburn makes good sense. Taking x-rays only when medically necessary makes good sense. Refusing to attend engineering classes at university of Toronto because one of their buildings has walls tiled with uranium glazed tiles probably is not good sense.
Dan
 
  • #37
acesuv said:
I hear they emit radiation which deionizes atoms. Is this due to the frequency of the x-ray? Is x-ray light considered radiation?

As others mentioned, ionizing, not de-ionizing.

X-rays can modify molecules, including DNA. Sometimes this means that exactly the change in DNA will happen that turns a cell from a normal healthy cell into a cancer cell.

There is a statistical component to this. If 1 million people get x-rays, some fraction will get cancers that would not otherwise be expected. And some will get cancers without the x-rays.

There is also a general health thing, since your immune system is capable of dealing with some cancer cells. That is part of the statistical thing. Your immune system catches some fraction. The more that there are the more likely some get by and make you sick.

There is also some controversy. One theory, the standard one, is that there is no lower limit to the dose that produces damage and increased risk. The risk is proportional to the dose, and the "no threshold" theory says this goes right down to zero.

Another theory, a controversial one, is that there is a threshold. Below that limit, the theory goes, no damage is done. The notion is sort of like getting a tan and then being resistant to getting a sunburn. But you should be aware that many people think this theory is wrong.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
10K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
4K