Comment by rustyhancock

> 3 scans for a 1 year old? Strongly associated with cancers later in life. 5 scans of a 50 year old? Less so.

Someone being born with no legs is strongly associated with them using a wheelchair in later life.

Why are you giving a one-year-old three CT scans? For shits and giggles? Or because you think they might have cancer?

> I don't think LNT is accurate

There's excellent reason to think LNT is accurate: at low doses, almost every cell is exposed to at most one radiation event. The dose affects how many cells experience a (single) event, but does not affect the level of damage to those exposed cells. Linearity naturally falls out of this.

To abandon linearity you have to imagine some sort of signalling system (not observed) that kicks in at just the dose we're talking about (not lower, not higher) to allow exposure to one cell to affect other cells.

There's also no good evidence that LNT is wrong. The typical things that are pointed to by anti-LNT cranks are cherrypicked, often involving interim results from studies the full results from which do support LNT, which is evidence it was statistical noise.

I think the bigger point you are making is that the 50 year old is also more likely to have developed cancer.

Maybe a full body MRI once a decade is fine until your 30s, then once every 5 years until 50, then once ever 2 years beyond 50.

The test should scale with the probability of cancer.