X-ray technology used in the scanners poses a cancer risk

[trumad]

So say's the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration acknowledges that the X-ray technology used in the scanners poses a cancer risk, albeit one they say is "so low it presents an extremely small risk."

"A person receives more radiation from naturally occurring sources in less than an hour of ordinary living than from one screening with any general-use X-ray security system," writes FDA Engineer Daniel Kassiday.

That sounds reassuring, but there have been no studies to date indicating what repeated exposure to the X-rays means to frequent air travelers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20022861-10391704.html

I'm one of those frequent travelers--- I go thorough at least four security screenings a week.

[somone]

1. We should call them Chertoff's scanners

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20022861-10391704.html

In May, four scientists from the University of California San Francisco wrote to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy expressing concerns that the scanners might expose the skin to high doses of X-rays that could increase the risk of cancer and other health problems, particularly among older travelers, pregnant women and people with weak immune systems, wrote the Los Angeles Times.

Even before that, Bloomberg News got its hands on an Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety (IACRS) report, in which the agency said that pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, even though the radiation dose from body scanners is "extremely small."

The IACRS includes the European Commission, International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and the World Health Organization.

[flamingdem]

2. To me this is more important than being "seen" naked, I think the naked issue is

a red herring to distract people from the real problem with these machines, cancer!

[trumad]

3. Like I said--- I travel weekly and go through at least 4 checks a week...

if the body scanner becomes the norm, I'll go through one at least 20 times a month.

With no evidence of what this kind of exposure can do--- I sure don't feel comfortable doing it.

Oh---and I know travelers who probably double my number per week.

[jberryhill]

8. If you are flying that often, you should check the radiation dose charts

From FLYING.

[flamingdem]

12. What about the letter the scientists wrote? They have warned about ionizing radiation

from those machines plus you don't know if they are calibrated properly.

To make matters worse it's all about profit for a buddy of George Bush.

[jberryhill]

13. I am not qualified to evaluate their letter

So, what about it?

Do you have a link to it?

It looks like they are talking mainly about statistical risk.

Honey, I smoke cigarettes already.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126833083

------

Agard and several of his UCSF colleagues recently wrote a letter to John Holdren the president's science adviser, asking for a more thorough look at the risks of exposing all those airline passengers to X-rays.

...

The scientists don't all agree on the nature of the potential risks. For instance, the UCSF scientists, in their letter to Holdren, worry about effects such as melanoma, a dangerous skin cancer; immune-system problems; breast cancer; mutations in sperm cells; and effects on a developing fetus. But Brenner doubts that X-ray doses from airport scanners would cause these problems.

If you're one of those air travelers, understanding your own risk is a tricky exercise.

...

Brenner says he thinks the danger to most individual travelers is miniscule. But he worries about the unknowns when those very small risks are multiplied times something like 700 million travelers a year.


-----

However, I can opt out of the scan, and I'm not going to get traumatized out by a quick wipe of a gloved hand across my fully clothed crotch.

The Yellow Fever vaccination I got last week was more a nuisance, and I needed that for travel.

So I guess IF I am selected for screening, I'll opt out of the machine.

[MineralMan]

4. Who's Chernoff?

That's not clear from your post.

[musette_sf]

7. Chertoff

aka Skeletor:

[MineralMan]

10. Oh, OK. I get it now.

Chernoff is a very common Russian name, so I was confused. It's the equivalent of the last name "Black" in English, also a very common name.

I know who Chertoff is, of course, but that's not an easy typo to make, so I thought it might be someone else who was being referred to.

Thanks.

[somone]

9. Former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/02/group_slams_chertoff_on_scanner_promotion/

WASHINGTON - Since the attempted bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports. What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. Chertoff disclosed the relationship on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.

An airport passengers’ rights group on Thursday criticized Chertoff’s use of his former government credentials to advocate for a product that benefits his clients. “Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosive,’’ said Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, which opposes the use of the scanners.

Chertoff’s advocacy for the technology dates to his time in the Bush administration. In 2005, Homeland Security ordered the government’s first batch of the scanners - five from California-based Rapiscan Systems. Rapiscan is one of only two companies that make full-body scanners in accordance with current contract specifications required by the federal government...

and
http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/gao-no-formal-testing-for-whole-body-scanners/

[musette_sf]

5. The backscatter machines are really bad

and I have my printout of the UCSF study on them ready for my next trip.

The magnetic ones, not so bad.

But when you consider that the people OPERATING these things don't even have a two-year medical assistant certificate from Kaplan "University", and then when you also consider the recent issues with oncology radiation devices that delivered 1000X times what the software "said" it was delivering, I'd refuse ALL backscatter machines, and do my due diligence research on the magnetic machines.

[MineralMan]

11. You do have the option to opt out of those scanner screenings.

[jberryhill]

6. Then I have bad news for you

Do you know what kind of a dose above background you are getting above 20,000 feet?

http://pregnancyandbaby.sheknows.com/pregnancy/baby/Pregnancy-airline-travel-and-radiation-exposure-3815.htm

The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Space Environment Center have recently introduced an alert system that sends airlines a warning at the start of a significant solar-particle event. The alert is specifically intended to limit the radiation dose received by pregnant women who are already in the air by redirecting the aircraft to a safer altitude.


http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/21/1/003

Recent European directives require that aircrew liable to receive 1 mSv y-1 or more from their flight duties must have their exposures assessed <1>. For civilian aircrew this can be achieved by matching computer estimates of route doses with flight crew rosters to assess exposures. For military crews, however, their irregular flight patterns make computer estimates of doses impractical. Stokes and Talbot, in the accompanying article in this issue <2>, explore this problem and suggest that actual dosimeter measurements may be more easily obtained and be more reliable. In the article, these and related issues are briefly discussed and placed in the broader context of radiation protection issues for atmospheric flight.