Airport X-Ray Scanner Safety Risks?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neal
  • 38 comments
  • 7,071 views
N

Neal

Premium
Messages
7,727
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Messages
GTP_EvilNeal
http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/Content/X-Ray-Scanners-Public-Information

http://www.rapiscansystems.com/rapiscan-secure-1000-single-pose.html

Does anybody know if there are any safety risks with the airport x-ray scanners that have recently been installed at Manchester Airport specifically relating to pregnant women and small children? The above links are the airport's and manufacturer's information on it which says it is safe but it is still exposure to x-rays so I don't understand how they can say they bounce off an individual's skin, surely x-rays penetrate skin and soft tissue?

My wife, 2 year old son and I are due to fly from Manchester in May and we have recently had the good news that my wife is pregnant which is why we we have had increased concerns. Any input would be great but due to the personal significance of this I'd appreciate if it was based on fact rather than speculation?

Cheers

Neal
 
Last edited:
The amount it produces is extremely small so I doubt there will be any issues. If anything you should be more concerned about the low cabin pressure's effect on the baby(depending on how far along she is).

I would consult your doctor since they would know better than anyone here.
 
In Germany, there's no official clearance of this technology - mainly because it's unknown if they use "X-Ray" or microwave technology, (if the radiation is ionising or not) if it's a passive 'detector' or active 'screening'.

Or to put it in other words: German authority can't assert the risks because the technology behind the scanners isn't revealed to them.
 
She'll be 3 months by then and it's a 3 hour flight so that side of it will be fine but we will be having a scan before we go and consulting the midwife or doctor to make sure everything is ok for the flight.

The information is fairly ambiguous but it does state it is x-ray rather than microwave, I've added a link to the 1st post from the manufacturer. I would contact them direct to ask the question of the risk to the foetus but they are likely to be fairly biased so hoped some of the scientific minds here could comment of the apparent "low energy x-rays" the scanner uses.
 
I doubt you would get any straight answer.

If I were in your shoes, I'd consult a radiologist. They should at least be able to explain in detail what risks a medical X-Ray holds for the mother and the baby. Much more worth than the wisdom of the interweb ;)
 
Good point, my mum used to work in the Radiology Department at the University so I'll get here to ask some of the lecturers.

Cheers

Neal
 
1. A person would have to be inspected
1,000 times by the Secure 1000 to
receive the equivalent of one typical
chest medical x-ray.
2. In one day on Earth, a person is exposed
to 60 times more radiation than in one
inspection by the Secure 1000.
3. In two minutes of a typical commercial
aviation flight, a person receives the
same amount of radiation exposure
that they would from one inspection by
the Secure 1000.
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums it up.
If these numbers stated on their homepage are correct ( and no radiologist can help you there I'm afraid ) the scanner is absolutely safe for your unborn child.

A chest x-ray has about 0,02 - 0,08 mSv > 0,00008 mSv for the scanner. Which is less than nothing ;)

Basically your 3h flight will expose your unborn child to almost 100 times as much radiation as that scanner, again according to the information on their website.
 
This came up in a pub conversation last night. Many of my friends fly 2-3 times a week to different destinations in Asia. If they start installing these in the region that could be up to 6 blasts of radiation a week, topping out at 300+ a year. Surely that can't be good for you?
 
Cheers Max, I know all the stats do make it sound pretty harmless and I do have a background in engineering so I'm not totally irrational but that all that goes out the window where your own child is concerned!

Even when the exposure to X-rays for each scan is minuscule the risk due to cumulative exposure can’t be ruled out so confidently. Fortunately we will only be flying once out of Manchester during the pregnancy.

Even though you are exposed to many times more x-rays durring the flight itself I'm not sure I'd be happy increasing that exposure if I was beening scanned 300 times a year.
 
evilneal
Cheers Max, I know all the stats do make it sound pretty harmless and I do have a background in engineering so I'm not totally irrational but that all that goes out the window where your own child is concerned!

Even when the exposure to X-rays for each scan is minuscule the risk due to cumulative exposure can’t be ruled out so confidently. Fortunately we will only be flying once out of Manchester during the pregnancy.

Even though you are exposed to many times more x-rays durring the flight itself I'm not sure I'd be happy increasing that exposure if I was beening scanned 300 times a year.
Click to expand...

If you have genuine medical concerns, seek medical advice from a doctor beforehand. I'm pretty sure you can get a doctor's note excusing you from having to pass the scanner on medical grounds (pregnancy, pacemaker, lupus) and the HMRC folks will give your wife a pat-down inspection instead.
 
Famine
If you have genuine medical concerns, seek medical advice from a doctor beforehand. I'm pretty sure you can get a doctor's note excusing you from having to pass the scanner on medical grounds (pregnancy, pacemaker, lupus) and the HMRC folks will give your wife a pat-down inspection instead.
Click to expand...

Thanks, we will be consulting a doctor before we fly to ask about this and check everything else is ok so will get a note if they think there is an issue. The airport website says no scan no flight and doesn't mention any exclusions so I'll query that with them and ask if a doctors note would allow us to fly with just a pat down.

I know I'm probably worrying unnecessarily but I want to be sure and I’m not convinced x-rays bounce off skin even if they are low energy.
 
Famine
If you have genuine medical concerns, seek medical advice from a doctor beforehand. I'm pretty sure you can get a doctor's note excusing you from having to pass the scanner on medical grounds (pregnancy, pacemaker, lupus) and the HMRC folks will give your wife a pat-down inspection instead.
Click to expand...

This is like going to the pool with an umbrella because you don't want to get wet and then jumping right into the water.
The radiation from that scanner is insignificant compared to the radiation exposure of the flight.

evilneal
Cheers Max, I know all the stats do make it sound pretty harmless and I do have a background in engineering so I'm not totally irrational but that all that goes out the window where your own child is concerned!

Even when the exposure to X-rays for each scan is minuscule the risk due to cumulative exposure can’t be ruled out so confidently. Fortunately we will only be flying once out of Manchester during the pregnancy.

Even though you are exposed to many times more x-rays durring the flight itself I'm not sure I'd be happy increasing that exposure if I was beening scanned 300 times a year.
Click to expand...

I understand. Radiation is tricky. High doses kill your body, but everything else can cause cancer or in the case of an unborn child deformities etc. It is a onehit hypothesis. The body can repair those damages or kill affected cells but eventually that mechanism might fail.


Ask yourself if that flight is really necessary. I assume you are talking about a vacation ? If it concerns you, skip the vacation orgo somewhere by train and boat.

I'd say that the amount of radiation is not a threat to your child, but considering the way radiation affects the human body you can unfortunately never be sure. Therefore I'd recommend minimizing radiation exposure.

However - the scanner is irrelevant. So that is not your problem.

You might want to read this :

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/prenatal.asp
 
Max_DC
The radiation from that scanner is insignificant compared to the radiation exposure of the flight.
Click to expand...

Of this I am aware. However, given that the questioner is committed to the flight itself and is specifically asking about minimising any unnecessary exposure and it is possible to refuse the scanner on medical grounds, the advice is helpful and sound.
 
Famine
Of this I am aware. However, given that the questioner is committed to the flight itself and is specifically asking about minimising any unnecessary exposure and it is possible to refuse the scanner on medical grounds, the advice is helpful and sound.
Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from, but given the numbers on that website, going through the scanner once is just about as harmful as living on this planet.
So if I were him I wouldn't bother thinking about the scanner even more.

evilneal asked about the safety risks for his unborn child. I'd say regarding the scanner they are not existant.
So if at all I'd reconsider the flight itself. If they have to fly there is no reason not go through the scanner.
 
Max_DC
I see where you are coming from, but given the numbers on that website, going through the scanner once is just about as harmful as living on this planet.
Click to expand...

Indeed - it's marginally safer in terms of radiation exposure to work inside a nuclear power station than to live in Cornwall.

Max_DC
So if I were him I wouldn't bother thinking about the scanner even more.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, if he's seeking to avoid additional exposure that can be avoided, there is an acceptable procedure for him to do that.


Amusingly, children aren't allowed through the scanners. Not for safety reasons, but because the device generates a naked image of a child and that's prohibited by a whole bunch of obscenity and sexual abuse laws. So he could object to the scanner on the grounds that "I'm not letting no paedo look at my unborn child naked!". If nothing else, the Daily Mail would love it.
 
Thanks guys

Famine
Amusingly, children aren't allowed through the scanners. Not for safety reasons, but because the device generates a naked image of a child and that's prohibited by a whole bunch of obscenity and sexual abuse laws. So he could object to the scanner on the grounds that "I'm not letting no paedo look at my unborn child naked!". If nothing else, the Daily Mail would love it.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of a Russell Howard sketch aimed at Daily Mail mentality were a father to be accuses the doctor of looking at his kid who is performing an ultrasound scan of his pregnant wife. When the doctor exclaims to be a Paediatrician the man shouts paedo and punches him.

Believe it or not children are not exempt!

Will Children be forced to use the Scanner?

The use of Body Scanners is compatible with the Protection of Children Act 1978 and we are confident the introduction of these scanners is a proportionate and necessary step in enhancing security for passengers.

The Government directive authorising the use of body scanners by airports does not exempt children because this would undermine the effectiveness of these new security measures.

All Airport staff viewing the images will have already undergone a criminal record check which includes checking for offences against children.
Click to expand...

I know the total exposure from a scan is much less than experienced during the flight itself but I am unsure of the risk associated with a shorter but more intense exposure to x-rays.

I’m going to contact the airport to ask about exemptions due to medical grounds and/or pregnancy so I’ll post back here with their response.

It is a family holiday that has been paid so we have committed to the flights but I want to know what the risks are before I make a decision.
 
They're a little out of date - use of the scanners on children at Manchester was suspended before they were even introduced...
 
!!!!

Hard to believe they haven't got up to date information about it on their own website. Thanks Famine, at least I know my 2 year old won't have to be scanned.
 
Ask about him too. I believe the scanners were introduced in... hmmnnmm... Octoberish last year and I don't recall anything about them being sanctioned for use on kids.

Last I heard was in February when they were still not legal to use on kids under the 1978 law quoted - there's an exemption for prevention and detection of crime (as in, the police can make child pornography in order to snare nonces [though it's slightly less alarming than that sounds at first]), but the scanners as a technology had to be given specific exemption. Might have changed since then but I don't fly from Manchester ever (seriously - a hill two thirds of the way down the runway? Build it flat, idiots) so I haven't been keeping abreast of it.
 
Manchester's not my choice either but not that many holiday company charter flights go from Liverpool! ( 2 weeks in Skiathos the sake of completeness and bragging although last holiday was 3 years ago ;) )

I can't find an email address on their website so looks like Royal Mail will be getting some business from me to get to the bottom of this. I was going to ask about my son since you thought children should be exempt so thanks for pointing me in the right direction regarding the 1978 law.
 
The Manchester Airport site has more details that those linked above....

Following new Government security rules, passengers travelling through Manchester Airport’s Terminal 2 may be body scanned as part of the airport’s normal security procedures from noon on 1st February 2010.

Manchester Airport, which has been trialling a Rapiscan Secure 1000 scanner in Terminal 2 since October 2009, is one of two airports that have been directed by the Government to introduce the technology today. Additional scanners are also planned for Terminals 1 and 3 by the end of February.

Since the incident on an airliner bound for Detroit on Christmas Day, the UK Government has been working closely with airport authorities to develop additional security measures including introducing body scanners at larger airports.

The new security rules on body scanners, which are being introduced in addition to the current security procedures, make it mandatory for any passengers who are selected for a scan to participate. These include:

· Passengers who have requested a private search prior to or after passing through the walk-through metal detection equipment.
· Passengers who have been referred for a private search following an unresolved metal detection alarm or if the security officer believes that further investigation is required following completion of the hand search process.
· If explosive trace detection equipment causes an alarm to sound, or if vapour detection equipment has caused an alarm.
· Any passenger can also be selected at random without regard to personal characteristics for a scan.

Under the new rules, any refusal to be body scanned will result in passengers not being allowed to travel.

“We understand that compulsory body scanning is a big change for customers who are selected under the new rules. We know privacy concerns have been on our customers’ minds which is why we have put strict procedures to reassure them that their privacy will be protected”, said Manchester Airport’s Head of Customer Experience, Sarah Barrett.

“We’ve been at the forefront in the development of imaging technology for UK airports and feel we are well placed to introduce this relatively simple, safe and straightforward security process. It will enhance security for everyone, which can only be a good thing, without compromising people’s privacy. The image generated by the body scanner cannot be stored or captured nor can security officers viewing the images recognise people. Contrary to reports, the equipment does not allow security staff to see passengers naked”.

Previously, under 18’s were not allowed to participate in the body scanner trial at Manchester Airport. However, the Government has confirmed as part of the new rules that this exemption no longer applies.

Manchester Airport is providing passengers travelling through Terminal 2 with detailed information about the introduction of body scanners. The same information is also available on its website alongside video footage illustrating the process.

ENDS

Published on: 01/02/2010 09:20:51
Click to expand...
Source - http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/Content/bodyscannersintroduced

That info is a month and a bit old and seems to say that not everyone will be scanned. Only selected passengers (with the criteria given) and also says that kids can be scanned.


Regards

Scaff
 
Thanks Scaff, that answers the question on exemption for children but unfortunately it doesn’t say anything about risks to pregnant women. I knew the scans were being carried out on a random selection of passengers, as well as anyone alerted to security, so chances are my wife won’t be scanned but she’s worried and I’m not convinced it is completely safe.

My mum is asking the question to a couple of her radiotherapy lecturer friends and I’ll still query it with the airport but I have a feeling the answer will be no flight if a scan is refused regardless of any medical reasons as this has been put in place for air travel safety and the greater good. It's hard to argue with that but mistakes have been made in the past when procedures were apparently safe.

Thanks

Neal
 
I'd be more concerned about the security officers ogling your wife's breasts.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/25/uk.heathrow.scanner/?hpt=T2

I have been told that these are even safe with my pacemaker, which metal detectors were not advised to be used on, so I would assume there is not a significant amount of harm that they can do, but with developing fetuses I know there is a lot of concern regarding additional avoidable radiation. In the US people with medical concerns can request to not go through it, so your security laws might allow that as well.

Personally, I am taking advantage of being able to avoid them, but that is more of a personal political issue than fear that it could harm me.
 
Well she'll be 3 months by then so they will be getting fuller! I kind of feel sorry for the 25 year old lad, I bet he wasn't expecting the police and Gordon Brown coming down on him like a ton of bricks!

@ FK: Does a pacemaker prevent you from having a normal diagnostic x-ray? Is so but a scan is harmless that may allay my fears a little if I don't get answers from any other sources.
 
evilneal
@ FK: Does a pacemaker prevent you from having a normal diagnostic x-ray? Is so but a scan is harmless that may allay my fears a little if I don't get answers from any other sources.
Click to expand...
I get a chest x-ray every 6 months, partly to ensure that the leads are all still connected properly.

Honestly, if this were my wife and child I wouldn't be concerned medically if they had to do it but I would ask our doctor for a note stating she is pregnant (if it isn't obvious yet) and ask the officials if it is possible for her to avoid it, just to be safe. With developing cells and tissues I figure you can't be too safe.
 
A "normal" X-ray machine shows you as an entirely translucent being with bones and whatnot shown on the screen because of their higher density - what would they be looking for that would preclude the use of these, instead of the body-surface ones they've now implemented? Certainly a gun or metal wires and the like would show up on that.
 
Public'sTwin
A "normal" X-ray machine shows you as an entirely translucent being with bones and whatnot shown on the screen because of their higher density - what would they be looking for that would preclude the use of these, instead of the body-surface ones they've now implemented? Certainly a gun or metal wires and the like would show up on that.
Click to expand...
When I get a chest x-ray they wrap a lead apron around my waist. The rest is self-explanatory.
 
FoolKiller
I get a chest x-ray every 6 months, partly to ensure that the leads are all still connected properly.

Honestly, if this were my wife and child I wouldn't be concerned medically if they had to do it but I would ask our doctor for a note stating she is pregnant (if it isn't obvious yet) and ask the officials if it is possible for her to avoid it, just to be safe. With developing cells and tissues I figure you can't be too safe.
Click to expand...

I must admit I'm mostly concerned about the foetus for the exact reason that it's at such an early stage of development. We'll be getting a doctors note to say she's pregnant as she may not be showing much at all by then so hopefully if she is selected for a scan this will exempt her but I'll be asking the airport what their stance is beforehand.

The stress of being a parent?!?! :rolleyes:
 
I can only repeat that talking about the radiation exposure of that scanner and then talking a flight is rather irrational. If you are really concerned, don't fly at all. If you decide to fly, there is no need to think about that scanner.
 

Latest Posts

Back