the real problem is patients who fear or avoid medical/dental xrays.  
Knowing whether or not you have an actual infection/pathology is MUCH more important than avoiding some miniscule, almost none existent dose of radiation.   the amount of energy and time it takes to convince patients to take a simple xray when they come in excruciating pain is absolutely nonsensical. 

That said, I will continue to operate by the ALARA principle.  But ALARA for me just means to avoid using imaging willy-nilly.  if there is ANY reasonable benefit to be gained from a diagnostic film, we take the radiograph 

 X rays being less harmful than lack of knowledge doesn't mean x rays are harmless.

There may also be actual harmless methods that are overlooked, even for bullshit financial reasons.

Don't be misleading 

 under a certain biologic threshold, there is a dose of x-rays that is harmless 

 At this point idk if you're talking about real x rays or like a strain of cannabis  

 dose of radiating ionisation measured in Sieverts (or rather microsieverts - µSv).   

 I'm sure 1 nanosievert is perfectly safe but there are too many medical professionals who care more about convenience than safety and will manufacture and use machines operating at unsafe levels 

 no, there are not.  Our diagnostic radiography equipment is  so over-engineered and redundantly safe that it would not be possible to create a meaningful amount of radiation from them. 

 The problem is that the staff are trained to care TOO MUCH about the imagined dangers.  It is a waste of valuable time and resources.  

 My favorite strain of weed is therac-25, you heard of it? 

 that was for radiation therapy, not diagnostic radiography.  I have been careful to only talk about diagnostic imaging.  Also, that unfortunate event is from almost 40 years ago.  

Yes, I have heard about it MANY times in the countless radiation safety courses that have interupted my clinical time.  This is my point 

 Good cameras don't need redundantly safe over-engineered preventative measures against emitting harmful radiation. Today is not the day to find out why yours have so many 

 ok, to be clear we are talking about radiographs.  not cameras 

 Same thing 

 they are simiilar but no, that is incorrect.  they are not the same.  cameras are for photographs.  Radiographs aren't the same. you are reaching here if you think they are.  I have never once heard of a medical radiography device be referred to as a camera.  

there is an important distinction between a visible light source that a camera uses and the ionising radiation made by an x-ray tube 

 The first camera made heliographs

The important distinction is that your camera can make a cell rebellious ser 

 what are you talking about.  why do you keep changing the topic.  we were talking about medical radiographs 

 Your medical radiograph can cause cancer 

 (Btw ALARA to me, just like the 'precautionary principle' is illogical/meaningless nonsense ... apparently I *do* have some strong opinions on this 😄)