Publications overestimating the medical and ecological sequels of a slight anthropogenic increase in the radiation background have been reviewed recently with examples of different organs and pathological conditions. The overestimation contributed to the strangulation of atomic energy. The use of nuclear energy for electricity production is on the agenda today due to the increasing energy needs of humankind. Apparently, certain scientific writers acted in the interests of fossil fuel producers. Health risks and environmental damage are maximal for coal and oil, lower for natural gas, and much lower for atomic energy. This letter is an addition to previously published materials, this time focused on studies of cataracts in radiation-exposed populations in Russia. Selection and self-selection bias are of particular significance. Apparently, the self-reporting rate correlates with dose estimates and/or with professional awareness about radiation-related risks among nuclear workers or radiologic technologists, the latter being associated with their work experience/duration and hence with the accumulated dose. Individuals informed of their higher doses would more often seek medical advice and receive more attention from medics. As a result, lens opacities are diagnosed in exposed people earlier than in the general population. This explains dose-effect correlations proven for the incidence of cataracts but not for the frequency of cataract surgeries. Along the same lines, various pathological conditions are more often detected in exposed people. Ideological bias and the trimming of statistics have not been unusual in the Russian medical sciences. It is known that ionizing radiation causes cataracts; however, threshold levels associated with risks are understudied. In particular, thresholds for chronic and fractionated exposures are uncertain and may be underestimated.

Currently there is a great acceptance in medicine and dentistry that clinical practice should be “evidence-based” as much as possible. That is why multiple works have been published aimed at decreasing radiation doses in the different types of imaging modalities used in dentistry, since the greater effect of radiation, especially in children, forces us to take necessary measures to rationalize its use, especially with Cone Beam computed tomography (CBCT), the method that provides the highest doses in dentistry. This review was written using such an approach with the purpose of rationalizing the radiation dose in our patients. In order to formulate recommendations that contribute to the optimization of the use of ionizing radiation in dentistry, the SEDENTEXCT project team compiled and analyzed relevant publications in the literature, guidelines that have demonstrated their efficiency in the past, thus helping to see with different perspectives the dose received by patients, and with this, it is recommended taking into account this document so as to prescribe more adequately the complementary examinations that we use on a daily basis.