> Yeah, I've read all the arguments about harm, and I just don't buy it.
"I have no medical background whatsoever but I do not buy undisputed medical science."
> I'd get a CT scan every year if I could convince someone to sign off on it
20mSv of unnecessary ionizing radiation exposure a year, what could possibly go wrong? That whole-body CT scan is equivalent to getting at least EIGHTY chest x-rays, and ten times what a uranium miner receives in a year, and well within the range where an increased risk of cancer is noticeable in epidemiological data.
Case and point why this tool should not be generally available.
"I have no medical background whatsoever but I do not buy undisputed medical science."
> I'd get a CT scan every year if I could convince someone to sign off on it
20mSv of unnecessary ionizing radiation exposure a year, what could possibly go wrong? That whole-body CT scan is equivalent to getting at least EIGHTY chest x-rays, and ten times what a uranium miner receives in a year, and well within the range where an increased risk of cancer is noticeable in epidemiological data.
Case and point why this tool should not be generally available.