Australia's plain-English guide to medical imaging
About us  ·  Editorial policy
RadiologyScan All topics
Home  ›  Topics  ›  Radiation safety  ›  Radiation
Radiation safety

The long-term risks of medical imaging

For scans that use radiation, the only long-term concern is a very small possible increase in cancer risk. Here's how that risk is estimated and kept in perspective.

RE
Written byRadiologyScan Editorial
Last reviewed 8 Jul 2026 4 min read
The long-term risks of medical imaging
Quick answer

For scans that use ionising radiation (X-ray, CT, nuclear medicine), the only long-term concern is a very small possible increase in lifetime cancer risk — and at the low doses used, this hasn't been clearly demonstrated; it's estimated cautiously from higher-dose situations. Ultrasound and MRI have no ionising-radiation risk. For any single needed scan, the benefit almost always outweighs this small theoretical risk.

 Key takeaways

  • The long-term concern is a very small possible increase in cancer risk.
  • At low imaging doses, this risk hasn't been clearly demonstrated.
  • It's estimated cautiously from higher-dose exposures.
  • Ultrasound and MRI carry no ionising-radiation risk.

When it comes to the long-term risks of imaging, it helps to separate the scans that use radiation from those that don’t.

Only some scans carry a radiation risk

Ultrasound and MRI use no ionising radiation, so they carry no radiation-related long-term risk.[2] The discussion of long-term risk applies only to scans that do use radiation — X-ray, CT and nuclear medicine.

A small, theoretical cancer risk

For those scans, the only recognised long-term concern is a very small possible increase in lifetime cancer risk from the radiation dose.[2] Two points keep this in perspective:

  • At the low doses used in most imaging, this increase has not been clearly demonstrated — it’s hard to detect against the roughly 1-in-2 lifetime cancer risk we all carry anyway.
  • The risk is estimated cautiously, by extrapolating down from situations involving much higher doses (such as atomic-bomb survivors). This deliberately errs on the side of safety.[2]

Higher-dose studies (like CT) carry a larger estimated risk than a simple X-ray, which is why they’re justified more carefully.[1]

Benefit almost always wins

For any single, genuinely needed scan, the benefit — a correct diagnosis, the right treatment, avoiding something worse — almost always outweighs the small theoretical risk.[1] The risk matters most across populations and repeated scans, which is why imaging is used thoughtfully rather than routinely.

Frequently asked questions

Will a scan give me cancer?

For a single needed scan the risk is very small and theoretical — at low doses it hasn’t been clearly shown, and the benefit almost always outweighs it. Ultrasound and MRI carry no such risk.[2]

Why is the risk described as “theoretical”?

Because at the low doses used in imaging, an increase in cancer hasn’t been clearly measured. The risk is estimated cautiously from higher-dose exposures, erring on the side of safety.[2]

Are non-radiation scans completely risk-free?

They carry no radiation risk. Ultrasound and MRI have excellent safety records; MRI has its own precautions (metal, the magnet) but no ionising-radiation risk.[2]

About this article. General information only — not personal medical advice; always follow the guidance of your own doctor or imaging centre. Last reviewed 8 Jul 2026. See our editorial & review policy.

Sources

  1. RadiologyInfo.org (RSNA & ACR) — Radiation Dose from X-Ray and CT Exams — www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info/safety-xray
  2. RANZCR / InsideRadiology — Radiation risk of medical imaging — www.insideradiology.com.au/radiation-risk/
RE

RadiologyScan Editorial

Written and edited by RadiologyScan Editorial

Our articles are written in plain English and fact-checked against Australian clinical sources. How we work →