Ionising radiation stands as an indispensable protagonist in the narrative of medical imaging, underpinning diagnostic evaluations and therapeutic interventions across an array of medical conditions. However, this protagonist poses a paradox - its inestimable service to medicine coexists with an undercurrent of potential health risks, primarily DNA damage and subsequent oncogenesis. The narrative of this comprehensive review unfurls around this intricate enigma, delicately balancing the indispensable diagnostic utility against the non-negotiable commitment to patient safety.In this critical discourse, the intricacies of ionising radiation are dissected, illuminating not only its sources but also the associated biological and health hazards. The exploration delves into the labyrinth of strategies currently deployed to minimise exposure and safeguard patients. By casting light on the scientific nuances of X-rays, computed tomography (CT), and nuclear medicine, it traverses the complex terrain of radiation use in radiology, to promote safer medical imaging practices, and to facilitate an ongoing dialogue about diagnostic necessity and risk.Through a rigorous examination, the pivotal relationship between radiation dose and dose response is elucidated, unravelling the mechanisms of radiation injury and distinguishing between deterministic and stochastic effects. Moreover, protection strategies are illuminated, demystifying concepts such as justification, optimisation, the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principle, dose and diagnostic reference levels, along with administrative and regulatory approaches.With an eye on the horizon, promising avenues of future research are discussed. These encompass low-radiation imaging techniques, long-term risk assessment in large patient cohorts, and the transformative potential of artificial intelligence in dose optimisation. This exploration of the nuanced complexities of radiation use in radiology aims to foster a collaborative impetus towards safer medical imaging practices. It underscores the need for an ongoing dialogue around diagnostic necessity and risk, thereby advocating for a continual reassessment in the narrative of medical imaging.