You are incorrect, sir.

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!

Maybe the TSA Employee Medical Handbook, a product of PV Publishing company.

Then show us the third-party, independent research and testing that conclusively shows that the scanners are perfectly safe.

(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.)

I didn't realize there were so many medical experts sitting in front of your computer.

Sorry, but your comment comes across as party-line toeing. No credibility at all.

pot, meet kettle

The onus is on your organization to provide the 3rd party unbiased testing. They haven't done that. Don't quote Johns Hopkins. We know how they feel about your agency. They are very publically unhappy with your bosses.

Why the TSA of course! It's cute and so innocent that he has such faith in his employers. The rest of us know better.

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.)

^^^^^^ +1000

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.

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.

Then it should be easy for you to name a single one.

No I won't. If you even tried to touch my balls I would slug you. Hard.

Thanks for doing a great job explaining the inverse square law in simple terms. Anyone who slept through high school physics should understand how x-rays work and how they are the gift that keeps on giving.

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.

Thanks for your succinct medical opinion. What does it take to get the American public to get it and to become enraged that a government agency is being reckless with their health?

...and those who'd deliberately subject others to such would be... ? Willfully negligent? Stupid? Evil? All three?

Apparently there are fewer here than there are TSA employees that think themselves medical experts. Shall we talk about the number of screeners that question passenger medical supplies and needs, some even judging what quantity is "too much" for medical need? Or perhaps the ones that think it's OK to damage ostomy bags. And then there are the ones throughout the organization that absolutely insist that the backscatter machines are perfectly safe.

Yep, sure are a lot of medical experts in the TSA....