Airport X-Ray Scanner Safety Risks?

[FoolKiller]

I can only repeat that talking about the radiation exposure of that scanner and then talking a flight is rather irrational.

And the irrational worries of parents-to-be often lead to being more cautious than necessary. Pregnant women on flights has gone on without consequence for decades. Full-body security x-ray scanners have been in common use for less than a year.

While my wife was pregnant artificial sweeteners using the stevia plant began to gain grocery shelf space. When we asked around about their safety for her and the baby we were told by multiple doctors and pharmacists, "There is nothing in it that should cause problems, but the testing on pregnant women is not completed yet." We didn't use it.

 

[Neal]

FoolKiller has summed it up perfectly. Parents to be, even second time round, are perhaps overly cautious but only because they want to protect their child.

I am concerned about the effects of the scan so want to learn more about it and then make a rational decision about taking the flight. It would be irrational to just cancel the flight because of a fear of the unknown so I'm looking into as many sources as possible to find out more about it. It is a new a new unproven procedure so it may not be easy getting a definitive answer but hopefully I'll be able to find out enough to make reasoned decision.

 

[Max_DC]

And the irrational worries of parents-to-be often lead to being more cautious than necessary.

I know and that's a good thing.

Pregnant women on flights has gone on without consequence for decades.

Says who ? The problem is that there is a certain rate of congenital malformations, growth disturbances etc
It is not that easy to determine the reasons. Maybe flights increase that risk. They probably do. The question is, if they do so significantly. A raise from 5% to 5.0001 % hardly matters in reality, so it would rather be an academic aspect.

Full-body security x-ray scanners have been in common use for less than a year.

While my wife was pregnant artificial sweeteners using the stevia plant began to gain grocery shelf space. When we asked around about their safety for her and the baby we were told by multiple doctors and pharmacists, "There is nothing in it that should cause problems, but the testing on pregnant women is not completed yet." We didn't use it.

Now I agree with the second part. But you can hardly compare a specific food product, like artificial sweeteners ( or trans fat acids ) with this case.

Because food or drugs interact in very complex way with your body. It's hard to predict the influence of new and unknown products on a human body.
That's why it is rather healthy to avoid suspicious food ( especially if you are pregnant ) and stick to well known products instead.

But in this case we are talking about radiation. The method is new, but the effects of radiation is related to the dose and time of exposure. From what I understand this technology uses non ionising radiation with less than 5,0000*10-5 mSv. As the company says : 1000 times less than a standard chest x-ray.

Intercontinental flights however will expose you to a radiation dose 0,01 mSv ( London - LA according to a link I just searched ).

Now that comes pretty close to a chest x-ray ( 0,02 - 0,08 mSv ).

According to this http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/prenatal.asp link that amount of radiation shouldn't be a problem.

Statistically speaking it probably isn't, but I understand that parents worry anyway ( especially if you thik about the onehit hypothesis - theoretically one small exposure can cause huge damage ).

But no matter how you look at it - the airport scanner is irrelevant when talking about radiation.

It may be a psychological threat - new and unkown technology - but apart from that I don't see a problem. Especially since the unborn child is protected by the body of the mother. From what I understand - after having read a few articles about those scanners - their effects are superficial. I don't see how these terahertz frequencies could effectivly penetrate deeper areas of the body and do harm in any way.

FoolKiller has summed it up perfectly. Parents to be, even second time round, are perhaps overly cautious but only because they want to protect their child.

I am concerned about the effects of the scan so want to learn more about it and then make a rational decision about taking the flight. It would be irrational to just cancel the flight because of a fear of the unknown so I'm looking into as many sources as possible to find out more about it. It is a new a new unproven procedure so it may not be easy getting a definitive answer but hopefully I'll be able to find out enough to make reasoned decision.

I see. I pretty much said all I wanted to say in the answer to Foolkiller, so you might want to read that.
The scanner is not your problem. If at all - it is the flight itself.
( Btw, since you can't know that - I'm pretty much at the end of med school, so I'm not just quoting some articles on the internet ).
I'm by no means an expert for radiation or pregnancy risks, but I don't see how that scanner could do any harm to an unborn child.

 

[Neal]

Hi Max

Thanks for the info, it is appreciated especially coming from someone with a medical background. I wasn't intending to be critical about your suggestion not to fly if I have worries, I was just making the point I want to know more before I make a decision. I really don't want this thread to turn into an argument as it is such an emotive issue and one which is obviously very personal to me.

I know the total expose due to the scan is fairly insignificant compared to the flight but as you say the onehit hypothesis could be more significant which is what I'm more concerned about. What you have said about the terahertz frequencies being unlikely to penetrate the deeper ares of the body is exactly the kind of confirmation I was looking for so thanks for spending the time to find this out.

Cheers

Neal

 

[Famine]

I'm by no means an expert for radiation or pregnancy risks, but I don't see how that scanner could do any harm to an unborn child.

I don't either, and I'm a molecular biologist (translation: if it alters DNA in any way, including damaging it, I'm supposed to know).


The reason transatlantic flights have relatively high radiation exposure is because of the cruising altitude. The transatlantic corridors have a flight altitude of 32,000 to 36,000ft - six to seven miles - and all that air is an insulating layer. Think of your exposure standing next to a source compared to standing seven miles away...

Given that neal is flying from Manchester for three hours (I'll guess at Sharm el-Sheikh or the Canaries), he'll be in an airway rather than a corridor, and airways have a flight ceiling of 26,000ft - five miles. Reduction in altitude by 5/7s is equivalent to a reduction in exposure, by the inverse square law, of about a half. This makes the approximate exposure, given the much shorter flight time, about 25 times the amount delivered by the scanner.

So, the scanner becomes a much more significant source (no pun intended) in terms of the overall exposure (4% compared to 0.5%). But it's still an insignificant amount and I agree that the possibility of harming anything at all is vanishingly small.

 

[Neal]

It's Skiathos (Greece) so you're not far off, I've just checked and it's actually a 4 hour flight but I'd assume it's still at airway rather than corridor altitude so that doesn't increase the in-flight exposure significantly.

It does appear that the risk due to the scanner is negligible so hopefully I'll get the same conclusion when I hear back from the radiography lecturers we've asked at Liverpool Uni.

Thanks for everyone's help with this 👍

 

[Famine]

Yes, that's airway.

 

[cyberman]

As a long time pacemaker user I will require medical evidence that they are safe before I subject myself to this proceedure. Where are the studies showing this things are safe? did not the authorities say thalidomide was safe?

Unfortunately there is a poor understanding of the the new scanners, which I must admit was expected.

There are two types of scanners we will have to endure at the airport; the millimeter-wave scanner and the ‘backscatter’ X-ray scanner. Both emit ‘high-energy’ radiation and are dangerous.

Body scanners have revolutionized the practice of medicine and has saved many lives, but we must question the government’s mandate to have people endure high-energy radiation in a non-life-threatening situation. We must protest the use of full-body scanners on children and young adults as they are at greater-risk of developing brain tumors and cancer from these machines. Cancer and tumors especially in the young will likely increase as more body scanners are being installed on a nationwide scale. There is just no “safe” dose of radiation, 50% of America’s cancers are radiation-induced.
People with medical implants such as pace-makers should also avoid electromagnetic pulse generating body scanners as they can significantly alter the waveform of the pacemaker pulse.

The millimeter wave scanners emit a wavelength of ten to one millimeter called a millimeter wave, these waves are considered Extremely High Frequency (EHF), the highest radio frequency wave produced. EHF runs a range of frequencies from 30 to 300 gigahertz, they are also abbreviated mmW. These waves are also known as tetrahertz (THz) radiation. The force generated from tetrahertz waves is small but the waves can ‘unzip’ or tear apart double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the DNA that could interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication.

Clothing and organic materials are translucent in most millimeter-wave bands. Perfect for detecting metal objects on subjects at airports, but not so great at picking up low-density materials such as plastic, chemicals or liquid which were some of the items used by the underwear bomber."


My question is, Will the full body scanner effect my pacemaker in any way?

I am a member of a 10,000 strong pacemaker forum and we want answers, from qualified practiciners, imagine this, I turn up at the airport, I'm selected to go through the scanner, if I refuse I don't fly (No exceptions) so reluctantly I go through,my pacemaker reacts, do I stop, turn around and go back to the hospital to have the implant readjusted, or carry on and spend my time out of the country waiting for something to happen and then attend a local hospital (At who's expense?). If I am realy lucky to be selected on the return journey it may just fix my implant.

 

[Famine]

As a long time pacemaker user I will require medical evidence that they are safe before I subject myself to this proceedure. Where are the studies showing this things are safe? did not the authorities say thalidomide was safe?

Broadly, yes. And it is. In fact it is still used today - but being pregnant is a counterindication for use. It wasn't known, until the effects of thalidomide, that drugs taken by an expectant mother could pass the placental barrier and affect the foetus. Now it is...

Unfortunately there is a poor understanding of the the new scanners, which I must admit was expected.

Wait... a poor understanding amongst whom?

Body scanners have revolutionized the practice of medicine and has saved many lives, but we must question the government’s mandate to have people endure high-energy radiation in a non-life-threatening situation. We must protest the use of full-body scanners on children and young adults as they are at greater-risk of developing brain tumors and cancer from these machines. Cancer and tumors especially in the young will likely increase as more body scanners are being installed on a nationwide scale.

Why?

You can't cite "a poor understanding" then claim you know what the effects will be!

There is just no “safe” dose of radiation

And yet we're all exposed to a 6 counts per second, 2.5 milliSieverts per year radioactive field.

Quick comparison - a backscatter scan gives up a dose of 50 nanoSieverts, the equvalent of 137 days of normal, everyday exposure. An increase of a nanoSievert magnitude has been calculated to cause an increase in cancer incidence by a factor of 10^-10 (that's 1 additional cancer per ten billion people - there's only 6 billion people on Earth and not all of those pass through Manchester Airport).

50% of America’s cancers are radiation-induced.

Additional note - medical scans account for about 0.5milliSieverts per year (the equivalent of 2 and a half months' exposure) and background radiation as caused by human activity is 5 microSieverts - another 7 days' exposure.

The 50% figure is misleading too. Most of those are made up of BCCs/SCCs/melanomas caused by sunburn. Technically radiation, yes, but not quite the same thing... It also says nothing about fatalities through cancer - most fatal cancers have nothing at all to do with radiation (lung, breast, prostate - for radiation to penetrate to these areas, you'll need a lot of exposure to highly-ionising radiation, and everything on that path will be affected too).

People with medical implants such as pace-makers should also avoid electromagnetic pulse generating body scanners as they can significantly alter the waveform of the pacemaker pulse.

Yes, like PET and MRI scanners. Not X-Rays. Arc-welding is more dangerous to pacemaker patients than a backscatter X-Ray. Hell, listening to an iPod is more dangerous.

My question is, Will the full body scanner effect my pacemaker in any way?

No.

I am a member of a 10,000 strong pacemaker forum and we want answers, from qualified practiciners, imagine this, I turn up at the airport, I'm selected to go through the scanner, if I refuse I don't fly (No exceptions) so reluctantly I go through,my pacemaker reacts, do I stop, turn around and go back to the hospital to have the implant readjusted, or carry on and spend my time out of the country waiting for something to happen and then attend a local hospital (At who's expense?). If I am realy lucky to be selected on the return journey it may just fix my implant.

I will give the same advice I gave evilneal. If you're concerned, go to your doctor well before you fly and seek a medical exemption certificate. If he won't give you one, go to a different doctor. If they still won't give you one, you should take this as a sign that they might know what they're talking about.

If you get one and are selected to be scanned, present the certificate and you will be given a lovely pat-down in private instead.

Don't just ship up at the airport and go "I'm not going in that thing, it might set off my pacemaker!". You won't be flying and you will be left out of pocket, as refusal of security procedures classes as a breach of contract on your airline ticket.