Radiation Concerns About Airport X-ray Scanners

[Clintonio]

[citation][nom]sandrah[/nom]One more example of people in the media talking out their rears without knowing what they are talking about, seeing as i've worked for two companies that build x-ray security equipment I know what is true about them, and the backscatter x-ray systems that they do use to scan people do cause the low radiation exposure the manufacturers stated, and if someone did in fact have a sensitivity to x-ray radiation then it wouldn't be the body scanner that would cause the problems but the airplane flight itself as you are exposed to significantly higher amounts of radiation from the sun having less atmosphere to protect you when flying as high up as aircrafts do.[/citation]

Look at it another way;
Millions (more?) of people fly each day. Let's say over a year a few hundred million people go through an airport. I'd say the average amount of scannings would be at least double that (I've already been through 12 airports this year).

For now, let's guess that there are 600 million scans per year. I have no idea, I'm just throwing out numbers.

Now, let's say that the chance of it causing cancer is 1% (very very high), then we have 6 million cancers. High right? Say 0.1%, then we have 600,000 cancers, 0.01%? 60,000. 0.001%? 6,000. 0.0001? 600. 0.000001? 60. 0.00000001? 6.

That'd be per year.

How many people died of terrorist attacks on planes in the past 10 years? Around 3000.

So yeah, that number is pretty high. But still, if the chance of causing cancer is one in 100,000 and there are a lowly 600 million scans a year, it would still be unjustified over the period of 10 years.

Then let's not even get started on the cost...

 

[eddieroolz]

Honestly, I'm not worried about this whole body scanner thing.

 

[Gin Fushicho]

Yet another reason I don't like those things. I would have left on a trip 6 months ago if not for those.

 

[anamaniac]

I'd just drive across the border, but even that security is insane.

Congratulations, you've successfully kept me in my own country. Good job. No chance I'd go jihad in another country now, it's too damned inconvenient.

 

[andyp363]

[citation][nom]twisted politiks[/nom]That is definitely a concern, as I am not one for radiation. But as far as the "pictures". GROW THE F**K up people. everybody in the entire world either has a penis, or boobs and a vagina. Not that I would back our government in this, but if I need to be scanned, even completely naked, so that I know the plane I'm getting on won't blow up, kill me, and many other passengers, including children, then I'm all for it. Who care's if they can see my genitalia.[/citation]

You make it sound like there are thousands of terrorists just waiting for the order already waiting in the airport. Out of how many thousand flights how may have been blowen up and attempted blowen up? yeah you hear of a couple a year or so but the estimates are there are 18 million flights per year. but that would give you a 0.0000000222% (based on 4 flights per year get bombed) that the flight your on is going to suffer a terrorist attack
Probably about the same chance as you geting cancer from one of those machines

 

[bad_code]

[citation][nom]skit75[/nom]Why are these even being used on people if there are so many unanswered questions about the long-term effects of this technology? I'm sure the dosage is smaller in these but every other time I have had an X-ray done, I've been given a lead blanket for protecting sensitive areas and the technician(s) leave the room entirely which does little to comfort me in what is to be widespread use of these machines.[/citation]

$ Some company is making money on them. I am going to guess they have scientists that have measured the radiation so they know the amount of exposure to each person. The problem is, these scientists work for a company that they own or are employed by the company directly and our government trust them to give them accurate data. Really the companies see $ and want their customers (share holders) to be happy.

Maybe I am just being to pessimistic, but I've seen too much stuff to believe that it is really safe. Heck they used to think DDT was good for you.

 

[LLJones]

Until people stop letting big business and Big Brother run their lives, this will keep happening. So be prepared for more and more invasive electronic scanning in the name of SECURITY. Those of you who capitulate to this are really the ones to blame.

A little history. I can remember in the 70's watching plane after plane be hi-jacked and watching the drama unfold while eating dinner and watching the evening news.

What was to be done about this horrible trend that was going on?!

1: Well, it was suggested that a security door be put on the entrance to the cockpit. This was fought tooth and nail by the airlines as to expensive and would add to much weight.

2: It was then suggested that an air Marshall be put on every flight. OMFG the Gov. screamed, do you have any idea how much that would cost???!!!

3: OK then, how about we make the main luggage hold use bomb proof cases for the luggage. The airlines again screamed. See#1

4: All right then, how about this, we arm the pilots? WHAT???!!! arm the pilots, their there to fly a plane, not fight terrorists the unions shot back (ha-ha).

So what happens? We have a Lockerbie happen as the final straw, and what happens, by all the gods and saints that ever were and ever will be, the airlines are forced into using bomb proof cargo containers. Still, all other suggestions are are being fought.

Then we have the Towers, now suddenly it not happening on the other side of the world, it's in your hometown. And again one of the biggest miracles ever to happen,walking on water was nothing compared to this one, we have secure doors to the cockpit and an air Marshall on every flight.

But none of these things could be done according to the airlines and our Gov., both of whom we know would never lie to us and always have our best interests placed firmly in the center of their hearts.

As for arming the pilots, do you really think the pilots who went down taking all lives with them didn't at least once think, if I only had a gun? Or, given a second chance, wouldn't opt to carry one?

So can we please quit having stupid articles like this one posted. Big Brother/business has you completely protected so shut up and keep grabbing your ankles. Again, this has been a problem since at least the 70's. Thumbs down may now commence.

 

[slaphappy]

I for one am willing to admit that if I had access to an x-ray scanner like this, and some perfect 10 model walks through and I get to see everything in all it's grainy black & white glory, I'd probably love it. Women have a strong right to be concerned here because there are enough hornballs out there among us who probably would jerk it to these images.

 

[slaphappy]

[citation][nom]LLJones[/nom]bla bla bla....[/citation] Do you realize what would happen if you fired a gun through the window or an airplane at 35,000 feet? Go look up something called explosive decompression. One single bullet penetrating the side of an airplane could easily cause that entire section of the airplane to break apart sucking out 10 passengers with it, along with all the oxygen and an immediate emergency decent on behalf of the pilot. Thats assuming the pilot isnt already dead for taking a shot at a terrorist. What do you think a SUICIDE terrorist is going to do if someone pulls a gun on him, put his hands up and surrender? Get real. If he doesnt immediately blow himself up right there, he will take any means to kill the pilot before ruining his plan. And of course lets not ignore what happens if that same bullet which goes through the body of the plane hits a fuel tank or an engine.

Another typically naive gun toting redneck completely failing to think 2 seconds beyond the moment of firing his weapon.

 

[balister]

[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]You're really quite confused for someone in the X-Ray industry. The ozone layer is in the higher end of the atmosphere, not lower. Also, X-Rays are not blocked very well by the atmosphere, and UVA and UVB rays are not nearly as dangerous. But, of course, in an airplane, you have the airplane blocking the rays. People don't generally walk out on the wings, so are better protected in flight than being outside in their yards. So, it's a bogus argument. Ionizing radiation is very bad, and can cause cancer, that's a fact. Any changes caused by it are bad, and can lead to health problems. Considering how many people have died from security issues, and how many people will be exposed to this nonsense every year, the cure is probably worse than the disease.[/citation]

First off, the skin of a plane isn't going to stop that much in the way of X Rays and Gamma Rays, these do reach the surface of the Earth. The difference is, you have 60 some odd miles of atmosphere between you and a lot of the radiation. Secondly, the closer you are to Earth, the thicker the atmosphere becomes giving you better shielding from radiation sources that are Exo-Earth.

Given that, he's right. The less atmosphere between you and the sun, the higher incident radiation you receive, this is a fact of life. Depending on the energy of the incident X-Rays and Gamma Rays, the more air you put between you and the source, the less the dose you take. Case in point, a Cobalt 60 source, for every 40 feet of air between you and the Cobalt 60 source, the amount of incident dose is cut in half. Now, not all X-ray and Gamma ray radiation is going to diminish the same way as the Gamma rays that come off Cobalt 60, but it is a known fact that air will lessen the dose your receive the further you are from the source. So flying in a plane, you are getting a higher dose of radiation than standing on the ground.

Now, I can verify the other comments on how much dosage someone will take from these scanners as I don't know what their actual dose rate equivalent is, but you do take higher doses of radiation when flying in a plane than you do from standing on the ground.

And by the way, Ozone is there to stop the higher energy Gamma Rays and Cosmic Rays (a misnomer as Cosmic Rays are really high energy particles like Protons, various quarks, and the like). Ozone will help some against lower energy X Rays and Gamma rays, but that isn't what it's mainly there to stop.

And before you go asking where my source is, I'm a Nuclear Engineer by schooling (what I got my Bachelors in) and learning about radiation dose and dose equivalent was part of the degree program (along with a number of other things, but that's neither here nor there).

 

[LLJones]

Do you realize what would happen if you fired a gun through the window or an airplane at 35,000 feet? Go look up something called explosive decompression. One single bullet penetrating the side of an airplane could easily cause that entire section of the airplane to break apart sucking out 10 passengers with it, along with all the oxygen and an immediate emergency decent on behalf of the pilot. Thats assuming the pilot isnt already dead for taking a shot at a terrorist. What do you think a SUICIDE terrorist is going to do if someone pulls a gun on him, put his hands up and surrender? Get real. If he doesnt immediately blow himself up right there, he will take any means to kill the pilot before ruining his plan. And of course lets not ignore what happens if that same bullet which goes through the body of the plane hits a fuel tank or an engine.

Another typically naive gun toting redneck completely failing to think 2 seconds beyond the moment of firing his weapon.

First let me state that it obvious that I am dealing with someone who is vastly my superior in intelligence and someone who has superhuman cognitive abilities. I only hope I can defend myself against such a great person.

1: You managed to miss the entire point of the post. Have i p'od some people, you bet. Maybe they will put up a fight against such thing as X-ray tech. There are those that will have no problem letting the Gov. do whatever to keep them "safe". If the Gov. and airlines had acted when this was a problem IN THE 70's AND THE STATED SUGGESTIONS WERE PUT FORTH, then the chances of 9/11 would have been greatly reduced or prevented.

2: The person managed to board the plane with explosives strapped to their body. You'll have to post back and let me know how that scenario can be realized.

3: Bullets on planes. Again, you are a person of phenomenal IQ. For reasons I can't even begin to comprehend, you ruled out the Glaser safety slug. Would you care to explain why a bullet that can't even pass through drywall yet has good stopping power was excluded from your list.

4: Bullets passing into the fuel tank. Again, you seem to feel that is is better to have penetration than stopping power. So please explain that again, I missed it.

5: As you made an assumption about me from reading my post, let me return the favor, you are a ill informed, complete and absolute twit.

The moderators can feel free to pull my posts.

 

[Guest]

A cross country airplane flight results in a dose of approximately 4 mrem per trip. Routine chest x-rays result in about 10 mrem per film. If you are worried about the exposure in this scanning device (0.002 mrem), perhaps you should reconsider getting on the plane...

"Significant increases in the numbers of cancers have only been seen in populations who received large doses of radiation (over 100,000 millirem) in matters of seconds, minutes or hours. A millirem (mrem) is a unit of radiation exposure. Studies have not found increases in cancer in populations who received doses less than 100,000 mrem (especially when the radiation dose was delivered over a lifetime)."

http/www.uihealthcare.com/topics/medicaldepartments/cancercenter/prevention/preventionradiation.html

 

[slaphappy]

[citation][nom]LLJones[/nom]LLJones...[/citation] If there is a bullet which can be safely discharged from a firearm to completely incapacitate someone without damaging the structural integrity of the plane in any way, then I'm all for it. I'll go look up this "glaser safety slug" bullet to see how reliable something like this could be, but even then, ultimately I see no benefit to having a single armed "air marshall" as the environment is simply too ineffective for him to operate, that being surrounded by 300 passengers in a tiny aisle with no clear line of sight.

Planes are fragile machines, and flying is actually rather risky once you start throwing monkey wrenches into the mix. The best solution will still be preventative, we simply must find a way to stop these people from boarding. To be honest, the x-ray machine is a pretty rock solid concept, if not for it being monitored by burger flipping wendy's employees who will probably miss everything anyway. We issue pat downs and use metal detectors for the exact same reasons as an x-ray machine, to detect that which cannot be seen by the naked eye. The end goal is the same. Well the terrorists keep taking it to the next level, so we simply have to adapt.

Without a weapon theres really no chance anyone can bring down a plane, so rather than fighting fire with fire and turn planes into flying battlefields, we need to stop the fire at it's source, before the plane ever leaves the ground.

 

[Guest]

OMG..

Its WAVELENGTH not EXPOSURE. Mrems DO. NOT. MATTER.

Same reason there is ZERO (go look it up) radiation right next to a cell tower, and why a bluetooth is safer next to your ear than a cell phone.

Radiation decay is in an inverse relationship to wavelenth. It is fast decay, short wavelength radiation that is particularly bad for you. You know, like x-rays and atom bombs. The replicating DNA damage and resulting cellular mutation happens quickly, and can result from a SINGLE exposure.

Yes, short decay, long wavelength light (from the sun, for example) can cause cancer, but it takes years of exposure.

 

[UmeNNis]

Fuck the Federal Government.

'nuff said.

 

[punny_g]

[citation][nom]LLJones[/nom]First let me state that it obvious that I am dealing with someone who is vastly my superior in intelligence and someone who has superhuman cognitive abilities. I only hope I can defend myself against such a great person.1: You managed to miss the entire point of the post. Have i p'od some people, you bet. Maybe they will put up a fight against such thing as X-ray tech. There are those that will have no problem letting the Gov. do whatever to keep them "safe". If the Gov. and airlines had acted when this was a problem IN THE 70's AND THE STATED SUGGESTIONS WERE PUT FORTH, then the chances of 9/11 would have been greatly reduced or prevented.2: The person managed to board the plane with explosives strapped to their body. You'll have to post back and let me know how that scenario can be realized.3: Bullets on planes. Again, you are a person of phenomenal IQ. For reasons I can't even begin to comprehend, you ruled out the Glaser safety slug. Would you care to explain why a bullet that can't even pass through drywall yet has good stopping power was excluded from your list. 4: Bullets passing into the fuel tank. Again, you seem to feel that is is better to have penetration than stopping power. So please explain that again, I missed it.5: As you made an assumption about me from reading my post, let me return the favor, you are a ill informed, complete and absolute twit.The moderators can feel free to pull my posts.[/citation]


I 2nd that, the man is a twit or rather i would leave the "W" out, obviously been watching too much hollywood movies...

 

[UmeNNis]

[citation][nom]slaphappy[/nom]Do you realize what would happen if you fired a gun through the window or an airplane at 35,000 feet? Go look up something called explosive decompression.....[/citation]

"The term explosive decompression refers to a rapid drop in air pressure itself and does not imply a cabin or fuselage exploding due to a rapid pressure change. Using a high-pressure airplane and several scale tests, the television program Mythbusters examined the belief that a bullet shot through the hull of an airplane will cause it to "explosively decompress" outwards, sucking chairs, baggage and people out of the hole. The program's tests indicated that fuselage design does not allow this to happen. " Wikipedia

 

[NuclearShadow]

People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. - Benjamin Franklin

 

[slaphappy]

[citation][nom]UmeNNis[/nom]"The term explosive decompression refers to a rapid drop in air pressure itself and does not imply a cabin or fuselage exploding due to a rapid pressure change. Using a high-pressure airplane and several scale tests, the television program Mythbusters examined the belief that a bullet shot through the hull of an airplane will cause it to "explosively decompress" outwards, sucking chairs, baggage and people out of the hole. The program's tests indicated that fuselage design does not allow this to happen. " Wikipedia[/citation]
Just go watch some youtube videos then. The FAA conducted experiments which demonstrate a full scale human replica being sucked right out the tiny porthole window. Not to mention the loss of oxygen and rapid decent required to stabilize the cabin. Furthermore, if a bullet can pass through the body of the plane, it can certainly enter the wing/engine and cause greater damage.

It's usually pretty bad when a piece of metal goes spawling through a 50,000 rpm turbo fan engine. Guns on airplanes are just plain stupid.

 

[LLJones]

To Slaphappy,

I'm glad we agree kind of. If all of the safety protocols had been put in when the aviation industry realized what was going on(again in the 70's), then I personally don't think 9/11 would have happened. Let's assume you want to fly a plane into a structure, you know that it will be next to impossible to get a gun on board,so you are limited to say an edged weapon and there is a saying about bringing knives to a gun fight, you also know that you will under no circumstance be able to get into the cockpit, there will be an armed and very well trained air Marshall on board, the pilot will be armed and just possibly one of the flight crew could be armed as well. If you make your move, and hopefully you guessed right so the air Marshall is in front of you and not behind you, the first thing everyone is going to do is duck for cover. This leaves only you and the Marshall standing.

I know a lot can happen but after sizing everything up, you would probably try to think of some other way to destroy your target. The idea was to make it to difficult to pull off. However, with 4 or 5 people as was the case, you would stand a better chance but still, you would not get into the cockpit. It would be a cold hard fact that people would die, but the plane would not be taken over.

Explosives.In retrospect I will give you that point. I can see how someone could smuggle explosives onto a plane. There would be nothing anyone could do, on second your alive, the next, not so much. You would have to wait for the prime time or your plan would inflict minimum damage. Again, you never took control of the plane. Once this had happened, there would be explosive detectors installed in airport security and that would be that.

As some are talking about losing an engine, I will try to close this out on a light note.

The Captain announces that #1 of the four engines had failed, the arrival delay will be about 30 min. The passengers moan. A few minutes later the Captain says that #2 engine has failed and the delay will be about an hour, they moan louder. The Captain announces that #3 of 4 engines has failed and the delay will be about 2 hours. Before anyone can say anything a passenger hollers out "If we loose one more engine we'll be up here all bloody day!"

Have a good one