You asked for it: Independant Proof
Jul 1, 2013, 3:37 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
You asked for it: Independant Proof
"WASHINGTON, DC - A new report by an independent task force commissioned by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), has found that people absorb less radiation from airport X-ray backscatter scanner than they do while standing in line waiting for the scan itself."
More at the link below:
http://www.eturbonews.com/35763/radi...much-do-we-get
More at the link below:
http://www.eturbonews.com/35763/radi...much-do-we-get
Jul 1, 2013, 4:04 pm
#2
Moderator: Information Desk, Women Travelers, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Programs: AA Gold
Posts: 15,662
Warning pop-up when you attempt to view the report on the Association of Physicists in Medicine's website.
And a second time in a colored box on the front page of the report.
And a third time on the second page of the report.
From the summary:
So I'm standing in the scanner for, what?, 15 seconds and I receive a dose that's 11.1 nSv. It would take me seven times as long (1.8 minutes) to get the equivalent dose if I were not in the scanner.
Another quote, from page 3:
From page 9:
Personally I'm smaller in both weight and stature.
From page 10:
Oh, joy. So I'm smaller than the average American, so I'm actually receiving a larger dose?
And a second time in a colored box on the front page of the report.
And a third time on the second page of the report.
DISCLAIMER: This publication is based on sources and information believed to be reliable, but the AAPM, the authors, and the editors disclaim any warranty or liability based on or relating to the contents of this publication.
The AAPM does not endorse any products, manufacturers, or suppliers. Nothing in this publication should be interpreted as implying such endorsement.
The AAPM does not endorse any products, manufacturers, or suppliers. Nothing in this publication should be interpreted as implying such endorsement.
For a standard man of 178.6 cm (510) tall and 73.2 kg (161.4 pounds), the
effective dose from a single-pose, two-sided scan was determined to be 11.1 nSv (nSv = 10–9Sv) and the skin dose to be 40.4 nGy (nGy = 10–9 Gy). This effective dose is equivalent to 1.8 minutes of background dose received by the average individual in the U.S. in 2006 and is approximately equivalent to 12 seconds of naturally occurring dose during an average flight.
effective dose from a single-pose, two-sided scan was determined to be 11.1 nSv (nSv = 10–9Sv) and the skin dose to be 40.4 nGy (nGy = 10–9 Gy). This effective dose is equivalent to 1.8 minutes of background dose received by the average individual in the U.S. in 2006 and is approximately equivalent to 12 seconds of naturally occurring dose during an average flight.
Another quote, from page 3:
1.1 What This Report Does and Does Not Address
It is not the goal of this report to either advocate or discourage use of these systems.
It is not the goal of this report to either advocate or discourage use of these systems.
The energy-corrected air kerma measurements at reference point averaged for all tested units was 0.046 µGy with a standard deviation of 0.003 µGy and a range of 0.04 µGy to 0.052 µGy. This average exposure value, corrected for distance to the phantom entrance plane, was used for
all PCXMC calculations. The default adult Cristy phantom representing a “standard man” has a height of 178.6 cm (5 feet, 10 inches) and a weight of 73.2 kg (161.4 pounds). As this underestimates the average size of the adult population in the United States, the average heights and weights for an adult U.S. man and woman over age 20 were obtained from the 2003–2006 National Health Statistics Report produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and also used as input data for dose estimation.
all PCXMC calculations. The default adult Cristy phantom representing a “standard man” has a height of 178.6 cm (5 feet, 10 inches) and a weight of 73.2 kg (161.4 pounds). As this underestimates the average size of the adult population in the United States, the average heights and weights for an adult U.S. man and woman over age 20 were obtained from the 2003–2006 National Health Statistics Report produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and also used as input data for dose estimation.
From page 10:
Note also that larger-size subjects receive somewhat smaller doses, and smaller subjects receive larger doses, even when accounting for their respectively smaller and greater distances from the scanner face due to their different thicknesses. This is not due to variation in machine exposure, but is a result of the different absorption patterns due to differences in tissue mass of the scanned subjects (absorbed dose is energy absorbed per unit mass). A similar phenomenon is experienced in medical x-ray procedures where smaller patients receive more dose for a given machine output as a result of their smaller size/mass.
Jul 1, 2013, 4:41 pm
#3
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 591
The independence of this group is dubious. AAPM is headquartered in the DC area for a reason - they are government and big corporate shills. Who butters their bread to the tune of $10 million plus per annum? A quote directly from their website:
"To best represent medical physics, the AAPM has worked to establish a close and cooperative working relationship with numerous government bodies and organizations including the Congress, federal and state agencies, related professional societies and a range of medical providers, corporations and suppliers."
Wow, that's a truly independent bunch.
"To best represent medical physics, the AAPM has worked to establish a close and cooperative working relationship with numerous government bodies and organizations including the Congress, federal and state agencies, related professional societies and a range of medical providers, corporations and suppliers."
Wow, that's a truly independent bunch.
Jul 1, 2013, 6:33 pm
#5
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 729
Um, why should I be irradiated AT ALL by a device that violates my Constitutional rights, generates too many false positives to be effective, and was purchased en masse without public input or a real cost-benefit analysis? What does your "independent" study say about that?
Jul 1, 2013, 7:51 pm
#7
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
Well, I guess I won't need to opt out next time I come across one of those things in an airport...
Oh, wait - there aren't any in the airports of America any more, are there?
Well, I guess that settles it.
Oh, wait - there aren't any in the airports of America any more, are there?
Well, I guess that settles it.
Jul 1, 2013, 7:58 pm
#8
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Laguna Niguel, CA
Programs: AA PLT, 1.8mm
Posts: 6,988
did the independent report (sorry, I didn't read it; just too boring) mention that the harmful effects of radiation are cumulative ?
One isolated small dose may be statistically insignificant. But what about many of us who are (were) exposed to that small dose multiple times every week ? The human body doesn't detoxify radiation as easily as it does alcohol.
One isolated small dose may be statistically insignificant. But what about many of us who are (were) exposed to that small dose multiple times every week ? The human body doesn't detoxify radiation as easily as it does alcohol.
Jul 1, 2013, 8:56 pm
#9
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Jul 1, 2013, 9:01 pm
#11
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
did the independent report (sorry, I didn't read it; just too boring) mention that the harmful effects of radiation are cumulative ?
One isolated small dose may be statistically insignificant. But what about many of us who are (were) exposed to that small dose multiple times every week ? The human body doesn't detoxify radiation as easily as it does alcohol.
One isolated small dose may be statistically insignificant. But what about many of us who are (were) exposed to that small dose multiple times every week ? The human body doesn't detoxify radiation as easily as it does alcohol.
Given your theory on the concept someone who is 100 years old should be glowing and toxic to the touch. The human body is pretty good at throwing off minute amounts of radiation, otherwise we would all have real problems.
Jul 1, 2013, 9:03 pm
#12
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
No, they actually tested systems in use in airports as well as test systems. Then they wrote the report. Read it, its a fairly interesting report if you have any scientific curiosity.
Jul 1, 2013, 9:20 pm
#14
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,172
Jul 2, 2013, 3:42 am
#15
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
You should have read the report. Standing in your house you get as much radiation in 1.8 minutes as a single scan by the backscatter systems. Once you are on the plane and flying, it only takes 12 seconds to get the same dose.
Given your theory on the concept someone who is 100 years old should be glowing and toxic to the touch. The human body is pretty good at throwing off minute amounts of radiation, otherwise we would all have real problems.
Given your theory on the concept someone who is 100 years old should be glowing and toxic to the touch. The human body is pretty good at throwing off minute amounts of radiation, otherwise we would all have real problems.
I'll offer a crude analogy. If I stand and take hits from a BB gun to a cumulative total energy of 414 ft-lbf it is not the same as getting hit by one 45 ACP 230 gr. Federal Hyrda-shock with exactly the same energy at 830 ft/s.
It discredits the report that scientists would do this.