Originally Posted by
Woofdog123
Honestly this goes far beyond anything I wanted from the thread (thanks to those who helped answer my question) - I already stated I don't want my daughter in any imaging machines - that is the only position I can approach this from. If CDG doesn't have imaging machines, then my problem is solved (does RUN, for that matter?).
I understand completely you not wanting your daughter in any imaging machine and you should have that right.
Originally Posted by
Woofdog123
Furthermore, in general with devices like this, the burden is on the device proponents to present long-term exposure studies, etc., to support safety of the device.
The MMW scanner uses radio energy. Like WiFi, like Bluetooth, like cell phones, like any number of other systems that are around you every day.
Where is it written that "long-term exposure studies" must be done to support the safety of such devices? Do you think that such studies were done on WiFi, Bluetooth, vehicle keyless entry? (Answer: no.)
Originally Posted by
Woofdog123
As you are no doubt aware, no such studies were done and to my knowledge aren't being done, nor were they for the backscatters (which many of the same agencies using MMW swore up and down were safe).
The studies that were done for MMW were about as follows: "The MMW scanner produce xx watts per square centimeter of radio energy on the surface of the person being scanned. Long-established safety standards for radio energy say that the limit is yy watts per square centimeter. xx is much lower than the limit of yy; therefore these devices can be used."
This is the same type of analysis that has been done for cell phones, WiFi, Bluetooth and all those other radio devices. I'm a radiocommunications engineer and I do these sort of calculations for a living. I've seen the numbers on MMW scanners (they were supplied to the FCC to assess interference to other radio systems and are on the FCC website) and done the calculations. The levels come out as being several orders of magnitude less than exposure to cell phones (which are in turn several orders of magnitude lower than the maximum exposure allowed.)
X-ray ("backscatter") is different. The long-held safety standard is that there is no "safe" limit and that any exposure should be kept to the minimum necessary for the medical purpose. Since backscatter body scanners serve no medical purpose, there is no excuse for using these on the public.
The fact that the same agency said both devices are safe doesn't make them both unsafe; it is possible for them to be right (quite possibly by accident) about one and wrong (deceitful, whatever) about the other.
Originally Posted by
Woofdog123
If this device were being used 1% as much in a hospital setting, of course, such data would have been required of the manufacturers by both the FDA and the EU counterpart entity).
Cite? Cell phones or tablets with WiFi or old-fashioned pagers used in hospitals required FDA approval? I don't think so.
Originally Posted by
Woofdog123
This is essentially where I am coming from, in terms of acting in the interest of the safety of my family and myself. I am more concerned about the backscatter example rather than fluoroscopes, however, though both are appropriate.
There are any numbers of drugs that have been approved by the FDA, gone on the market (sometimes for decades) and then been withdrawn as unsafe.
Here is a list of 35 since 1970. By your argument (and Himeno's) you should not use any medication approved by the FDA as "safe" because they've gotten it wrong before. It's much easier that way than assessing each case on its merits.
There are many good reasons to avoid the body scanner, as outlined above. But claiming that it's unsafe because it hasn't been tested to (non-existent) standards is just like airport security claiming that your 4 year old might be a dangerous criminal because she hasn't been proven otherwise. It is fear-mongering driven by "we don't know so it's better to be safe" rather than reason and logic.