Does The AAPM Understand Risk?

It doesn't sound like it, based on their recent statement.

We know that every dose of radiation has the potential to contribute to carcinogenesis.  That doesn't mean every dose will.  There's simply a risk that it will.

How can they say,  "Risks of medical imaging at effective doses below 50 mSv (milliSieverts) for single procedures or 100 mSv for multiple procedures over short time periods are too low to be detectable and may be nonexistent," said the statement released by the AAPM. "Predictions of hypothetical cancer incidence and deaths in patient populations exposed to such low doses are highly speculative and should be discouraged."?

Why, using modern epidemiology to devise these risks, are the risks "highly speculative" and why should they be discouraged?  What is the AAPM offering in return for our ignoring the science??

Nothing.

With all that said, most of the time the cancer risk associated with diagnostic imaging is less than the risk of not getting the information offered by the imaging.  But not always, sometimes doctors make mistakes.