I think this is a classic example of headline number being scare of a factual report. Yes. this number is in the report. No, it's not black-and-white "ban CT scans"<p>The number of cancers found, the number of cancers attributed to the CT radiation dose, the number of OTHER cancers found, and dealt with, it's a far more complex story.<p>They try to say this in the report:<p>> <i>That's based on some assumptions and historical data from high radiation events, but if right, it would put CT scans on par with other significant risk factors for cancer, like alcohol consumption, at least at a population level.</i><p>So, if we're going to target CT scans as a risk, lets start with returning to prohibition. one.. two.. three..<p>> <i>"To empirically quantify lifetime risk would require decades-long follow-up studies of very large populations," the authors admit.</i><p>Admit is again headline-ese. It's just a pretty straightforward thing: epidemiology on risk in these matters has to weigh up many many things.<p>What about Radiation hormesis?