Fascinating---I appreciate you raising awareness. This information was a big update for me, so I looked for a source and found roughly the same numbers (though my numbers were 1/1000, possibly because newer CT exams seem to be slightly safer). From [1]:

> ...93 million CT examinations performed ... projected to result in approximately 103 000 future cancers ... cancer risk was higher in children ... CT-associated cancers could eventually account for 5% of all new cancer diagnoses annually.

Although keep in mind that these numbers do need context. cancer != death. That ranges from cold comfort (in the case painful chemo treatment & years of fear) to a critical factor (based on how the USA diagnoses it, approximately 6% of men will have prostate cancer that does not require treatment).

Based only on these numbers above and my prior beliefs, I would say that that either

A) CT scans are a necessary evil that haven't been adequately replaced

or

B) These numbers less problematic than one might expect, due to some quirk of the data

I generally trust the USA's medical establishment on new treatment, though I've heard that they're slow to clamp down on outdated treatments.

[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/radiati...

I appreciate you looking into the numbers to verify. The 1/1000 odds seem better, though still important.

Also, framed another way, 5% of cancer cases caused by CT scans would mean that 1 in 20 people in the cancer ward were placed there by a CT scan. Or alternatively, phasing out CT scans would prevent 1 in 20 cancer cases, with prevention being worth more than a cure for every 1 cancer patient in 20.