|
Originally Posted by Bart
(Post 16689566)
Intelligent skepticism? OK. If you say so.
By the way, how long have you been sitting in front of your computer (assuming it's a PC or desktop)? The radiation you're exposed to in an AIT during a 6 second scan is miniscule compared to sitting in front of a computer, even far less than in front of a TV. Do you wear a smock at the computer? When watching TV? Sorry, the lot of your comments comes across as fear and superstition. No intelligence involved at all. Computer monitors and TV sets of the LCD kind produce NO - NADA - ZIP ionizing radiation whatsoever. All CRT based monitors could create x-rays, but government regulations regarding voltage used, failsafe circuits, and LEADED glass in CRTS has eliminated ionizing radiation in CRT's since the 1960's. Rapiscans produce x-rays - ionizing radiation - we don't know exactly how much, and we have no idea it's effect, as it is concentrated in the first 10mm of tissue, and doesn't pass through. 100% absorption vs 5% or less absorption in high power x-ray. Buy yourself a lead jock! |
Originally Posted by phoebepontiac
(Post 16689784)
Bart -- What is the source for your information here?
|
Originally Posted by Bart
(Post 16689566)
Intelligent skepticism? OK. If you say so.
By the way, how long have you been sitting in front of your computer (assuming it's a PC or desktop)? The radiation you're exposed to in an AIT during a 6 second scan is miniscule compared to sitting in front of a computer, even far less than in front of a TV. Do you wear a smock at the computer? When watching TV? Sorry, the lot of your comments comes across as fear and superstition. No intelligence involved at all. (And please don't lie like Blogdad Bob did when he said that Johns Hopkins declared the scanners "safe." It did no such thing and ripped the TSA a new one for saying it did.) |
Originally Posted by Bart
(Post 16689499)
I didn't realize there were so many medical experts on this board.
Originally Posted by Bart
(Post 16689566)
Intelligent skepticism? OK. If you say so.
By the way, how long have you been sitting in front of your computer (assuming it's a PC or desktop)? The radiation you're exposed to in an AIT during a 6 second scan is miniscule compared to sitting in front of a computer, even far less than in front of a TV. Do you wear a smock at the computer? When watching TV? Sorry, the lot of your comments comes across as fear and superstition. No intelligence involved at all. Sorry, but your comment comes across as party-line toeing. No credibility at all. |
Originally Posted by Bart
(Post 16689566)
Intelligent skepticism? .....
Sorry, the lot of your comments comes across as fear and superstition. No intelligence involved at all. |
Originally Posted by Bart
(Post 16689499)
I didn't realize there were so many medical experts on this board.
Originally Posted by phoebepontiac
(Post 16689784)
Bart -- What is the source for your information here?
|
Originally Posted by Bart
(Post 16689499)
I didn't realize there were so many medical experts on this board.
Originally Posted by Combat Medic
(Post 16689679)
OK, exactly how much energy does the AIT put out and at what energy level?
High-energy medical x-rays mostly pass through the body, and end up hitting the detector or film behind you. Backscatter works differently. The x-rays hit you and some percentage bounce backwards to hit the detector in front of you. This means that the bones that you see on the pictures do NOT indicate the total depth of x-ray penetration. The things you see in the picture are things that the X-rays hit and still have at least 50% of their original energy to reflect back to the detector. As a rough rule of thumb, at least 50% of the initial x-rays penetrate to the deepest levels you see in the image. 25% of the x-rays make it to double that depth. 12.5% make it to triple that depth... and on and on. The majority of the x-rays will penetrate the body, but they will not have enough energy to escape (backscatter). Instead, they are mostly dissipated within your tissues, generally through the photoelectric effect or Compton scattering. Both of these mechanisms involve knocking an electron out of an atom, i.e. they are ionizing. There is general lack of knowledge on the biological impact of these low energy x-rays, but preliminary findings seem to indicate that a dose of low-energy x-rays can be 2x or 4x as damaging as the same dose of high-energy x-rays or gamma rays. (Discussed in previous threads.) |
Originally Posted by SFOSpiff
(Post 16689734)
Well, at least that puts us all on the same level as TSA.
|
Sorry, folks, but I don't feel obligated to provide you any further information. It simply comes down to this: the AIT is safe for use. You are exposed to much higher doses of ionizing radiation during your commercial flight than you are during a six second AIT scan. There are many other common use items that expose you to higher doses of ionizing radiation.
If you don't feel comfortable with the AIT scan, then by all means opt-out. You will be patted down instead. From my perspective, I don't care which option you choose. You're going to get screened one way or the other. You're supposed to be the smart ones. Figure it out. |
Originally Posted by Bart
(Post 16691017)
It simply comes down to this: the AIT is safe for use. You are exposed to much higher doses of ionizing radiation during your commercial flight than you are during a six second AIT scan. There are many other common use items that expose you to higher doses of ionizing radiation.
My medical opinion: Opt out. |
Originally Posted by Bart
There are many other common use items that expose you to higher doses of ionizing radiation.
If you don't feel comfortable with the AIT scan, then by all means opt-out. You will be patted down instead. |
Originally Posted by janetdoe
(Post 16690200)
It only takes some basic physics knowledge to determine the penetration depth of X-rays into soft tissue and bone.
From a prior lengthy discussion: The x-rays are in the 20-30 keV range. High-energy medical x-rays mostly pass through the body, and end up hitting the detector or film behind you. Backscatter works differently. The x-rays hit you and some percentage bounce backwards to hit the detector in front of you. This means that the bones that you see on the pictures do NOT indicate the total depth of x-ray penetration. The things you see in the picture are things that the X-rays hit and still have at least 50% of their original energy to reflect back to the detector. As a rough rule of thumb, at least 50% of the initial x-rays penetrate to the deepest levels you see in the image. 25% of the x-rays make it to double that depth. 12.5% make it to triple that depth... and on and on. The majority of the x-rays will penetrate the body, but they will not have enough energy to escape (backscatter). Instead, they are mostly dissipated within your tissues, generally through the photoelectric effect or Compton scattering. Both of these mechanisms involve knocking an electron out of an atom, i.e. they are ionizing. There is general lack of knowledge on the biological impact of these low energy x-rays, but preliminary findings seem to indicate that a dose of low-energy x-rays can be 2x or 4x as damaging as the same dose of high-energy x-rays or gamma rays. (Discussed in previous threads.) X-rays can cause cancer -- period. Correlated radiation from any type of machine is much more toxic than naturally-occurring uncorellated radiation. For the non-physicists, think laser versus a flashlight. The other aspect of the Cancer Machines that make me hit my head against the wall is that these are industrial x-rays and not medical x-rays. Industrial x-rays, among other things, are used to inspect welds inside rocket engines and other high-tech hardware. Industrial x-rays were never intended to be used on living tissue. The standards the TSA so willingly quotes and the American public so willingly accepts are those intended for operators of industrial x-rays and not the targets of industrial x-rays. Anyone, including TSA clerks, who willingly subject themselves to the effects of unprotected and repeated exposeure to industrial backscatter-type x-ray radiation is somewhere between naive and reckless. |
Originally Posted by BubbaLoop
(Post 16691286)
Sorry Bart, but as an MD, I beg to differ. The total dose of ionizing radiation is not the only factor to consider here. Airport backscatter machines douse the body´s surface with radiation, which means it is all concentrated in this area (skin, corneas and the like). Furthermore, the specific kind of radiation emitted is different from that in air travel, and their long term effects are unknown as yet. Even if the doses are as low as the TSA claims, and machines are kept calibrated, estimates are that these machines will cause around 10 new cancer cases a year. I agree it is a low number, but it is not zero, and, unlike with a CAT scan or medical X-ray, passengers have nothing to gain by submitting themselves to this risk.
My medical opinion: Opt out. |
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
(Post 16691522)
Anyone, including TSA clerks, who willingly subject themselves to the effects of unprotected and repeated exposeure to industrial backscatter-type x-ray radiation is somewhere between naive and reckless.
|
Originally Posted by Bart
(Post 16689499)
I didn't realize there were so many medical experts on this board.
Yep, sure are a lot of medical experts in the TSA.... :rolleyes: |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:12 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.