A group of scientists from the University of California-San Francisco is worried that a new generation of airport security scanners could present a cancer risk, NPR reports. But skeptics say people flying at 30,000 feet are already bombarded by cosmic rays, so a brief trip through an X-ray machine on the way to the plane is a drop in the radiation bucket.
After the "underwear bomber" incident on Christmas, the Obama administration ramped up deployment of advanced scanners that can spot explosives or weapons, NPR says. Some 1,000 new machines will be in use by the end of next year, roughly half of which are X-ray back-scatter scanners. The machines, which can look beneath passengers' clothes, expose passengers to ionizing radiation for about six seconds.
So far, much of the concern about the scanners has come from privacy advocates -- the scanners produce a detailed image of a person's body without clothes. But David Agard, a biochemist and biophysicist at UCSF, says they may present a health risk, too. He wrote a letter last month to Obama science adviser John Holdren, asking for a more thorough review of the scanners' potential health risks.
"Ionizing radiation such as the X-rays used in these scanners have the potential to induce chromosome damage, and that can lead to cancer," Agard says in the letter.
The scanners' potential harm comes from the low energies at which they operate. Most of the energy is delivered to the skin and immediately underlying tissue, Agard writes. If the dose were distributed throughout the entire body, it would be safe, but a targeted dose to the skin is too high, he says.
Certain people might be at a particularly high risk of cancer from radiation exposure, including the elderly; a small percentage of people with DNA anomalies, who represent about 5 percent of the population; HIV and current cancer patients; and children, Agard says.
But the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Army Public Health Command and researchers at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory have said the machines are safe, according to the Transportation Security Administration.
NPR quoted an FDA radiation specialist who said the scanners put out far less radiation than what passengers get from cosmic rays. He told NPR one screening would be equivalent to spending four minutes in the air.
But Agard attacks that assumption, too, saying cosmic rays and chest X-rays are absorbed by the whole body. X-ray scanners that deposit their energy into the skin represent a different dose, targeted to a certain area, and their effects are not as well understood, he says.
David Brenner, head of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research, also expressed concern about the scanners during a recent a congressional hearing. He said the government should invest in millimeter-wave scanners, which have no known radiation risks. They produce images using radio waves rather than X-rays, and the TSA says the images are comparable in quality to the X-ray scanners. The cost is comparable, too, according to NPR.
The government has prepared a response to Agard's concerns, but he hasn't gotten it yet, according to NPR. Agard says further studies are needed.
"After review of the available data we have already obtained, we suggest that additional critical information be obtained, with the goal to minimize the potential health risks of total body scanning," he writes.
Frequent traveller may face health problems.
Backscatter Wave Scanners use very weak x-rays at a dose of less than 10 microrem per scan (0.001 mSv). For comparison it would take;
80 airport security scans to equal 1 day of natural background radiation
200 airport security scans to equal the radiation from a 7 hour flight
1000 airport security scans to equal one chest x-ray
Above info copied from www.xrayrisk.com
X-ray dose from the scanner, according to this article, is targeted at the skin and only the skin. An average day's "background" radiation is felt by the entire body.
Assuming by natural you mean, before the time of cell phones, car radios, CB's, Satellite radio broadcasts, Bluetooth, WiFi, and all manner of other electromagnetic spectra broad casts generated by man; you'll have to factor in a current days "background" dose of Electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
Then compare those levels affecting only the skin (clothing on/clothing off for a good comparison). From there you can get a more accurate general idea of how increased radiation exposure will effect the mean population.
This will of curse be disregarding the folks suffering from cancer, (already on radiation treatment), individuals more prone to skin cancer, persons with comprimised immune systems (which are sparingly giving regular chest X-Ray due to the cellular damage that the body can no longer deal with).
If this analysis has been done, and being that a public safety decision has been made based on this analysis; then the report along with experimental set up and equipment used should be made available for further review. That way more people can review, understand, and bring forth any concerns in an informed and educated manor.
So far, much of the concern about the scanners has come from privacy advocates -- the scanners produce a detailed image of a person's body without clothes. But David Agard, a biochemist and biophysicist at UCSF, says they may present a health risk, too. Hmm.. That's a little troublesome.
- Glenn Douglas
We really are a Web Style firm and have just started developing for andriod and are really excited about this. Thanks for the http://www.teslaenergyplan.com/rss.xml
Alteril is widely regarded by many people as the ideal solution for lack of sleep. Here we review Alteril and how it can bring your life back to normal again.
No More Canker Sores for a healthy living. Our products are widely regarded by many people as the ideal solution for curing Canker Sores. Here we talk about the best ways of dealing with Canker Sores and how it can bring your life back to normal again.
Genuinely awesome! I could access the longer trial and worth it! Maintain up the good function... http://mindexercisesiq.typepad.com/blog/