msimons

Would never have any kids going thru a scanner.

Children's CT Scans Pose Cancer Risk
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000....html?mod=e2tw

"This paper confirms that radiation, even in relatively low doses, does lead to risk" of certain cancers, said Alan Craft, emeritus chair at Newcastle University and an author of the paper. "There is no safe dose."

choijw

Let's be clear, this is a medical CT scan, approximately 2-20mSv each.
An x-ray is 0.1mSv each. So the longer the CT scan, the more radiation one is exposed to.

-The average radiation exposure in the UK is 2.6mSv/year (from natural sources in the Earth).
-The full body x-ray scanner at the airport is 0.00025mSv each (super short, low power).
-In the air, one is exposed to additional ~0.004mSv/hour (cosmic radiation from sun).

So the answer is... don't let your kids fly on airplanes. Or take medical CT scans. Or take x-rays when they go to the doctor or the dentist.

studentff

No, the answer is don't subject your kids (or yourself) to ionizing radiation without there being some benefit that outweighs the risk. Flying on airplanes allows one to travel. Medical CT scans are great for diagnosing some conditions which are far more serious than a small (or even substantial) increased cancer risk. The risk of medical x-rays is less than the risks and complications of leaving broken bones untreated. Dental x-rays are worth a miniscule risk to avoid the pain and health issues of rotting teeth.

The unique thing about the airport is that there is no benefit whatsoever to the individual passenger (kid or adult) for going through the NoS. I know I'm not a terrorist, therefore scanning me does nothing for me. It may make some nervous nellie in the line "feel safer," but no way am I exposing myself to additional risk from ionizing radiation to make an unthinking total stranger "feel safer."

Other than the (fairly rare in the US) forced x-rays by customs, immigration, and/or law enforcement to search for drugs/contraband, the NoS is the only instance I'm aware of where we ask someone to submit to ionizing radiation for the alleged benefit of someone else.

choijw

I certainly agree that NoS is not as effective as claimed and does not make me "feel safer". However, the amount of radiation in CT scans are a different order of magnitude than the amount of radiation one is exposed to in the air on an airplane or on the ground at a NoS (approximately the amount of radiation in ~3-4 minutes of a flight).

I suggest the OP moves to a location with the least amount of radiation from natural sources within the Earth and far away from any high-voltage EM waves (electricity) as both have been linked to cancer as well.

nabco

+1

nabco

Another +1 Well said

onlyairfare

Each medical imaging procedure is ordered by a licensed medical professional who has carefully considered the risk of the procedure as opposed to the benefit to be obtained.

The actual medical procedure is performed by licensed professionals with years of training, using carefully calibrated machines subject to regular inspection by various health and regulatory authorities in order to assure public safety.

TSA employees have minimal training in the use of radiation, their equipment is subject only to annual inspection, and at that, not by unbiased third parties. There has been no independent evaluation of the effectiveness or safety of AIT as used by TSA, while numerous medical authorities have legitimately and convincingly questioned its safety. The government's own agents have provided evidence of the ineffectiveness of AIT.

We should not be using known carcinogenic ionizing radiation when there safe and effective alternatives available.

choijw

Dentists have been known to provide annual dental x-rays since it is covered by insurance. (recommended for adolescents every 3 years or so due to high brain tumor risk from x-rays) Every time I've gone to the dentist, I've never had the x-ray done by the dentist or a radiologist. It was always a dental assistant. Not that I don't doubt their credentials but all you need is a 2 year degree....

Still agree that NoS is not effective. I try to avoid them. I want people to have perspective and realize that environmental radiation is often higher than many sources of radiation from NoS or x-rays (but NOT CTs).

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

one idiotic person attempting to harm a plane (that is, one of the less bright ones) might just get caught by the body scanner (the smart ones are the ones we need to worry about).

So the risk to your children's life is not worth catching the one stupid terrorist?