are there any disadvantages of X-rays, other than it being a possible carcinogen?
955390
Exposure to X-rays may affect your body in multiple ways and don't even mention it when you are pregnant...
905223
The x-rays goes into body and does damage with repeated x-rays.    Just like repeated heat exposure(radiated heat) can do damage.
450415
Yes, the radiation from cancer treatments is very dangerous, but the radiation is directed in such a way that is that it will be more damaging to the cancer cells than to healthy cells.
618952
The only one I know of is that it depletes your body of vitamin C. I was told to take high doses on a day you need an xray at the dentist.
352295
I cannot answer the effects of taking prescription meds during pregnancy, but here is some info on x-rays in the 1st trimester.  Obviously the risk is different depending on the type of x-ray (the dose):\n\nNo direct evidence confirms either cancer or birth defects from exposure to diagnostic x-rays, but scientists and physicians cautiously assume that there may be some effect even from low level exposure and estimate risk from those who have had very large exposures such as atomic blast victims.   http://www.permanente.net/homepage/kaiser/pages/c5758-40813.html\nThis site has specific information regarding different types of x-rays (chest x-ray, ct scans etc): \nIn the Rocky mountain areas of Colorado, New Mexico and Utah in USA, where the natural uranium content of the soil is very high and in the presence of higher high-altitude cosmic rays, fetus of pregnant women is exposed to dose equal to that of 150 chest x-rays or 1250 dental radiographs. In these places incidence of cancer is 35 per cent lower than USA national average.  http://www.indegene.com/gyn/Jour/indJour_GYSE_Sum_01-07-2001_1.asp
678624
The greatest threat of radioactivity to life as we know it is damage to the gene pool, the genetic make-up of all living species. Genetic damage from radiation exposure is cumulative over lifetimes and generations.\n\n     Some biomedical effects of radiation are well known. If the exposure is great enough, as it was for 200,000 people in Japan in 1945 and for the clean-up crew in Chernobyl, death can occur immediately or within days.\n\n     Even low-dose exposures are carcinogenic after extended exposure (Gofman 1990). The current generation, the one in utero, and all that follow may suffer cancers, immune system damage, leukemias, miscarriages, stillbirths, deformities, and fertility problems. While many of these health problems are on the rise, individuals cannot prove either increase in "background" radiation or specific exposure as the cause. Only epidemiological evidence is scientifically acceptable to impute cause. Perhaps the most extreme outcome over time would be simply the wholesale cessation of the ability to reproduce. Radiation is a known cause of sterility (Gofman 1981).\n\n     The quality of life of vast numbers of us may be affected by the increased burden of radioactivity we all bear. Many victims of radiation sickness do not show up in the statistics because the kind of symptoms experienced, while disabling, are not as significant as childhood leukemia, or stillbirths, or cancer, or birth defects. Nevertheless, lives of countless people have been affected by radiation exposure.\n\n     Beyond the physiological effects, the mental and emotional consequences of the trauma of exposure to invisible environmental contaminants in general, and radioactivity in particular, has been documented (Vyner 1988). One can only speculate about the spiritual consequences (Schell 1982; Lynch 1995).\n\n     "Background radiation" is a measurement of the accumulated radioactivity in the atmosphere from all sources combined: the sun, the earth, and all man-made explosions, leaks, accidents, purposeful ventings, and dumpings. The term, however, implies naturally occurring radiation is of no real concern. But before the Atomic Age there were no comprehensive measurements of naturally occurring radiation, so the use of this term obscures the reality that we already live in a contaminated world, and that radiation's effects are cumulative and irreversible.
243458
There is a huge difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.  RF radiation is non-ionizing and unless you have such high levels that you could be burned by it, there is no inherent danger - just keep below the ANSI levels.  There have been tons of epidemiological tests which show that there is no causality to cancer.  Remember that light is another source of non-ionizing radiation and people don't seem too concerned about being 'bombarded' by it.
713822
in order to receive a damaging amount or radiation you would need about 600 full power chest xrs in a year so it is extrememly unlikely that there will be residual effects
544448
WebMD is a good website.  However, it is NOT true that only doctors can have an informed opinion on this.  I am a research biologist who studies cancer in my laboratory.  So, I think my opinion is valid even though I am not a Medical Doctor.  Please see my answer on your previous question for a more thorough explanation of the causes of cancer.\n\nRadiation is known to induce mutations, which can then result in cancer.  However, it is NOT clear whether the radiation dosage from power lines or cell phones is sufficient to cause cancer.  I suspect it is NOT or else we would be experiencing a cancer epidemic in America.
137313
The current use of electromagnetic radiation to treat brain tumors are gamma rays not x-rays.  gamma rays are smaller and even more energetic.  Doctors are using these rays like a knife without ever opening the skull.  They use very small amounts of gamma rays that converge on one place in the skull in order to kill the cells in just that location.  It is amazing that it is an outpatient procedure but the risk of not "getting it all" increases.
720449
It is possible that chronic problems in the thyroid/tonsils can lead to cancer later in life.  It isn't definate and I don't know if there are any statistical numbers out there to give you a percentage chance of this happening.
524027
There's a lot of studies that say it causes cancer.  Personally I think everything causes or is said to cause cancer so why worry about it.
845894
Hi Karma.  Some of the other answers make valid points, but I believe this is the information you are looking for.\n\nRadiation can CAUSE cancer by several mechanisms.  One of the mechanisms is the production of high levels of 'oxidative stress'.  Oxidative stress can damage DNA, causing mutations than can contribute to the carcinogenesis process.\n\nRadiation TREATS cancer by the same mechanism - it causes oxidative stress.  Very high levels of oxidative stress in cancer cells (and healthy cells too, which is why the therapy is so toxic) induces biochemical pathways that lead to 'cell suicide' - a process called Apoptosis.\n\nIn summary, radiation can cause cancer by causing oxidative stress that damages DNA and leads to mutations.  Radiation can kill cancer cells by causing higher levels of oxidative stress that cause so much damage to the cell that the cell's 'suicide' mechanism (apoptosis) is activated and the cancer cell kills itself.  Unfortunately, this often fails as a cancer treatment because many cancer cells have mutations in their apoptotic pathways!\n\nHope this helps you understand this interesting 'paradox'.  \n\n(P.S. You asked a very good question!  It shows you are a 'thinker'!).
918524
These are typically chemicals which do not occur naturally which increase a body's chances of developing cancer. These chemicals in some cases interfere chemically with your body's DNA and allow certain errors in transcription (which cause cancer) to occur.\n\nFiberglass for instance is a man made mineral which is considered to be a carcinogen.
402505
Technically, William Roentgen, but others have, without proof, said that they have had before him. For more info, go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray
927391
I'm very interested in becoming an radiology technologist, and from what I've heard, nowadays, the equipment is so good and improved that techs recieve little or no radiation.  There are actually little pins that techs can wear to track how much radiation they are exposed to, and like I said, with the new equipment, the pins have been very helpful in confirming the lack of exposure.
620753
Yes-I had it done to look at spots on my lungs that were hard to see due to other things in the way. It sounds scarry and looks worst to see the hospital staff in protective coverings. Its not painful in any way. Not sure what bad effects it causes-never noticed anything its been over 4 years. Didn't help me in my case-still were not sure. The fluid might make you a little warm (nothing hard to deal with. ) You must lie quietly down for a while than they scan you (open scan-not bad) Scan takes awhile. No ill affects from it. I would advise you to drink lots of water and eat fruit afterwards so your body flushes it out-just to be safe. Again I could do everything when done that I could do when I went... I was tired just from waiting so long for everything but all in all just fine. On me had a follow up right after -just a xray check. Anything else you would like to know? I didn't change colors neither.