I agree with Dmitry that this is definitely a question of opportunity cost. While technological advancements can definitely improve the quality of medical examinations and, consequently, one's lifespan, the cumulative exposure effects of radiation can negatively impact health. However, if a CT scan is recommended following a physician's detection of some health abnormality, then one would presumably prefer to risk the minor radiation exposure rather than not detecting a potentially severe problem.

This topic also made me think of all the other technological improvements that may be posing a risk to our health such as cell phones, laptops, and other electronics that we are constantly surrounded by. Several articles have proposed links between cell phone use and adverse outcomes like infertility and brain cancer. Yet I somehow doubt that most readers of these articles decided that they should throw away their cell phones. Similarly, I also doubt that the majority of the population would veto the research of new and improved health technologies on the basis of their potential side effects. In the case of CT scans, perhaps the solution is to investigate ways of minimizing radiation exposure while still upholding a high quality scanning capability. The major downfall of course would be funding. How to minimize health care costs while still advancing care is a difficult matter to consider especially within the U.S. framework of a weakened economy, exorbitant health prices, and massive debt.