Not really. A round trip transatlantic flight hits you with ~0.06 to 0.1 mSv and a chest x-ray is on the order of up to ~0.02 to 0.1 mSv, so roughly similar. There's a reason x-ray techs stand behind a wall, you have a VERY small chance of DNA damage with each exposure and for most people that doesn't matter because you don't fly that often or get that many x-rays but if you do it all the time, your bound to have a high energy particle smash into the wrong part of a cell's DNA. This isn't an effect of cumulative small doses but rather rolling the same dice many times.

▲ leonidasrup 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

There are thermal baths with quite high concentration of radon.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180306-a-spa-where-pati...

Most exposed are not the visitors, but the thermal bath workers.

"Workers and visitors in thermal spas are exposed to radiation from radon and short-lived daughters. Radon concentrations in the premises of a thermal bath in Budapest were investigated; high radon concentrations (up to 7.15 kBq.m-3) were found in some rooms. Bronchial dose and effective dose equivalent values were estimated for the staff and the visitors. In some cases the effective dose was about or in excess of 20 mSv annual limit for the workers. Doses for the visitors were about 4 mSv per year, but exposure of the public from radon is still outside the scope of the system of dose limitation."

https://academic.oup.com/rpd/article-abstract/56/1-4/319/310...

There are few places on Earth with high natural background radiation:

Ramsar, Iran (the maximal estimated dose-rate received by inhabitants is 80 mSv/year

Kerala (India), Orissa (India), Guarapari (Brazil), Yangjiang (China)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12402632/

https://academic.oup.com/jrr/article/65/Supplement_1/i32/792...

▲ varjag 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You do get DNA damage all the time, just very few of them lead to cancerous growth. So it would make sense the risk goes linearly up with exposure.

	▲	colechristensen 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		You also evolved in a world with radiation and have repair mechanisms in place so it makes sense that the "realized" damage is not necessarily linear.

▲ thehappypm 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This isn’t exactly correct. Cancer is not (typically) caused by a single DNA mutation, but multiple accumulated errors.

▲ colechristensen 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You have to be up to date on the exposure of a "chest xray" because tech improvements have considerably changed this in our lifetimes.

	▲	manarth 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		And cultural references can be dramatically and wildly off. `"Plant director Bryukhanov reports no more than 3.6 roentgen, which I'm told is the equivalent of a chest x-ray, so if you're overdue for a check-up…" – HBO Chernobyl` https://xkcd.com/radiation/