and acquiesce to x rays only every 3-4 years. The worst thing is that although I've needed lots of dental work, none has ever been discovered through x rays, only by observation of dentists and hygienists. But that doesn't' deter them from insisting on x rays year after year.

as compared to living in a place like Minneapolis, exposes one to the additional equivalent of 30 bitewing x-rays over the course of a year?

This is more evidence that low-level radiation is more dangerous than previously thought.

always wondered if it might have been caused by repeated exposure to radiation ...

My orthodontist died of very painful stomach cancer - I wonder if it was caused from the same thing, plus breathing all those fumes...

You may be surprised at eh number of cellular changes that occur at exposures as low as 1 cGy. This dose is similar to what one would receive on a long airline flight.

There are current studies looking at the long term effects of these changes in airline flight attendants.

I used to assume the effects were very well understood.
This is also an issue for NASA sending people on long beyond-earth-orbit missions,
which will last months or years.

equation. Dentists need x-rays to determine what needs to be done. X-rays have a potential for starting neoplastic processes. Tooth problems can also lead to disease and death. So, the two things have to be balanced. So it goes with many things.

The risks are very low. The benefits of proper dental care are very high. It's a decent trade-off, but dental x-rays should be used only when needed.

azz study. Only problem is that they won't do my cleanings unless I "submit" to x-rays

just makes their job easier for the most part but is usually just a way to pad the bill

For instance, there is a lot of debate about potential negative effects of radiation exposure from mammograms for women who are genetically predisposed to breast cancer. Of course there are alternatives in this case, such as ultrasound and MRI. Unfortunately, most insurance companies will not cover these methods of screening as part of a routine check. And it is well known that earl detection of breast cancer due to prescreening results in a better chance of "cure".

As was stated above, any radiation exposure must balance risks versus benefits.

is an alternative.

With other methods available, I have no idea why there was such a backlash against changing recommendations for mammograms.

I'm pretty sure we don't need as many dental x-rays as we get, either. When balancing the risks, if we get the owner of the equipment to decide, the risk/reward ratio comes out at a different place on the continuum than where a neutral observer would put it.