Nude-O-Scopes deliver radiation dose 20 times higher than first thought, warn expert
Jun 29, 2010, 1:21 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Nude-O-Scopes deliver radiation dose 20 times higher than first thought, warn expert
Airport body scanners deliver radiation dose 20 times higher than first thought, warns expert
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...#ixzz0sGtCGdU1
The controversial use of full body scanners in airports could lead to an increase in skin cancers, according to leading scientists.
They say that the low level beam does deliver a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin - one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body - that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated....
...The most likely risk from the airport scanners is a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma, according to the academic.
They say that the low level beam does deliver a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin - one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body - that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated....
...The most likely risk from the airport scanners is a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma, according to the academic.
Jun 29, 2010, 1:53 pm
#3
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,952
Spotty "research" by the TSA? No surprise there.
I hope the lawsuits start rolling in, both against the agency and against the individuals responsible for their placement in airports.
I hope the lawsuits start rolling in, both against the agency and against the individuals responsible for their placement in airports.
Jun 29, 2010, 2:19 pm
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Kansas | Colorado Native
Programs: Amex Gold/Plat, UA *G, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott LT Gold, NEXUS, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 21,597
Never would have guessed that TSA would lie.. I'm so shocked!
Another reason why I will always opt-out.
Jun 29, 2010, 2:34 pm
#7
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,952
Jun 29, 2010, 3:38 pm
#11
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Jun 29, 2010, 4:11 pm
#12
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,444
In the US, you can opt out and get groped instead. In the UK, where that article comes from, you have the choice of going through with it or simply not flying. It is beyond unacceptable.
Jun 29, 2010, 4:23 pm
#13
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
If I am not mistaken in the UK individuals are selected to go through the scanner. They cannot force people with physical limitations through it, i.e., if one is in a wheelchair and cannot stand, or is wearing a sling or a cast. Ergo, when traveling through airports in the UK come prepared with an arm sling or a cane or even ask for a wheelchair assist.
Jun 29, 2010, 6:50 pm
#15
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
Precious quotes: "The Civil Aviation Authority, Department for Transport and Health Protection Agency insist that the technology is safe and say their tests show it would take 5,000 trips through the scanner to equal the dose of a single chest X-ray."
But the dose of a single CXR is distributed over the entire chest, not concentrated in the top 1-2 mm. What is the precise exposure? Remember: skin dose is a big concern in fluoroscopy, not total dose.
More physics for the bored.
Radiation dosimetry is measured in a variety of ways. Dose is the energy absorbed in matter by ionizing radiation as it travels through. (Units rads, rems, Gray, Sievert and the respective milli- micro- prefixes)
Exposure (X) is the way the amount of radiation is measured for x-rays in the energy range these machines use. It is measured in air, and provides an idea of the amount of actual radiation is emitted by the machines. Once we have exposure and the operating energy we can get a good idea of the biological dose and where that dose is being deposited.
Second quote: "Under current regulations, up to 5,000 scans per person per year can be conducted safely."
No. We do not know how many can be conducted safely. But under "current regulations" 5000 scans per person per year can be legally conducted. I don't know UK regulations, but in the US, assuming the same ICRU threshold, which have been reduced on successive occasions, the regulations may permit a certain threshold, but we must also get that dose in conformity with the principle known as ALARA. As Low As Reasonably Achievable. In the states that is considered 10% of the regulatory limit or if applied to the above comment, only 500 scans/person/year.