I come across all sorts of articles- this one sounds a bit alarmist though I have had a lot of radiation over the years... something to keep in mind.

 Sophisticated medical imaging techniques such as CT scans have to a  large extent replaced the traditional physical examination as the mainstay  of diagnosis. In 2006, almost 60 million CT scans were performed in the US  alone. Without any doubt, this kind of imaging has helped save countless  lives. But there is another and more disquieting side to CT scanning that  is seldom discussed. Like any imaging technique that uses ionizing  radiation, CT is capable of causing cancer.
 In an article in this week's British Medical Journal,  entitled "CT Scanning: Too Much of a Good Thing, " Steven Birnbaum, a New  Hampshire radiologist, expresses alarm over what he calls "the epidemic of  exposure to diagnostic radiation," and warns that many doctors - including  radiologists - have only very limited knowledge of the dosages involved in  medical imaging. Worse, many seem to be unaware of the potential  consequences of such exposure (Birnbaum 2007).
 The National Academy of Sciences report on the biological effects of  ionizing radiation (known as BEIR VII) offers perhaps the most thorough  and definitive scientific analysis of the risks involved in diagnostic  medical imaging. According to this report, previous estimates have  seriously understated the risks involved. "Every exposure to radiation  produces a corresponding increase in cancer risk," the report states. The  report calculates that a spiral CT scan of the abdomen exposes a patient  to a radiation dose of approximately 10 mSv, which carries with it a 1 in  1000 risk of developing cancer. The risk for women and children is a great  deal higher; for children, such a scan would carry a 1 in 500 risk of  developing cancer.
 Why has the contribution of diagnostic imaging to the subsequent  development of cancer been so trivialized by the radiology profession? One  reason is that many of the estimates of potential harm from medical  imaging have been drawn from old studies that predated the sophisticated  technology available today. However, the BEIR VII study, published in  2005, focuses specifically on current diagnostic imaging, and its  conclusions cannot be dismissed as pertaining only to older machinery and  outdated techniques.
 The principle of informed consent in medicine requires that patients  should be given full explanations of potential risks as well as the  potential benefits of any proposed intervention. Until now, it has not  been customary for patients to be told that there is any appreciable risk  inherent in medical imaging. But there is no longer any excuse for  radiologists to be unaware of these risks, nor to refrain from disclosing  them to patients.
 The efforts of Dr. Birnbaum to educate his fellow radiologists are  admirable. As he states so trenchantly in his British Medical  Journal article: "It is time that medicine in all specialties became  aware of the epidemic of exposure to diagnostic radiation and did  something about it."