I would never consider being wrong and unable to learn why to be beneficial, but to each their own.
		
		
	 
lets put an end to this, okay? you didnt tell me where i was wrong, tho.
i do believe theres been a simple misunderstanding.
i was talking about long term issues and the lack of data. i was told we do have the data and was pointed to an article that, as you just said yourself, doesnt offer any data or insight in that matter. i disagreed  (consensual to your position).
	
		
	
	
		
		
			No one is disagreeing about the possibility.
		
		
	 
alright then.
concerning xrays and smoking:
my intention was to show that stuff that, at first, seems to be harmless, can have devastating effects (which would only become relevant over time). admittedly in a too general or vague fashion.
it took more than 10 years to scientifically associate xrays with cancer (in an article from 1908, if i remember correctly - will try to find the correct year).
quite a long time if you bear in mind, that skin tissue damage was already reported shortly after the groundbreaking discovery (by röntgen himself, i believe).
tobacco companies did not reveal their results, true.
in the 1960s ppl kind of started to change their mindset as scientific proof of oncogenic effects made its way to the public.
similar results were known years before. there had been studies and tests (mice and rat models in most cases).
it still took decades to understand how smoking affects our health. but the ruthless tobacco companies are only partially to blame (well, for the biggest part, surely  

  ).
medical science did not manage to understand whats goin on. physicians did not manage to prevent massive societal damage.
mainly because the positive effects of smoking were more obvious.
luckily the laws of drug administration and medical device technology changed over time.
still we use xrays way more than we need/should and ppl still smoke (statistically significant increase in women).
would you agree?