Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought
#2The document was linked here before but is very detailed and interesting, even naming specific issues:
A) The large population of older travelers, >65 years of age, is particularly at risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of melanocyte aging.
B) A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesis provoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because these women, who have defects in DNA repair mechanisms, are particularly prone to cancer, X-ray mammograms are not performed on them. The dose to breast tissue beneath the skin represents a similar risk.
C) Blood (white blood cells) perfusing the skin is also at risk.
D) The population of immunocompromised individuals--HIV and cancer patients (see above) is likely to be at risk for cancer induction by the high skin dose.
E) The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to have been fully evaluated.
F) The policy towards pregnant women needs to be defined once the theoretical risks to the fetus are determined.
G) Because of the proximity of the testicles to skin, this tissue is at risk for sperm mutagenesis.
H) Have the effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus been determined?
Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought
#3The document was linked here before but is very detailed and interesting, even naming specific issues: A) The large population of older travelers, >65 years of age, is particularly at risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of melanocyte aging. B) A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesis provoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because t…
I've been told by an engineer friend of mine that the radiation dose these scanners deliver was dwarfed by the in-flight cosmic irradiation.
He didn't give me numbers, though. It would be nice if a radiotherapist (or another expert) could chime in on this topic.
----------------------------
edit: answering my own question: he's wrong.
from [1] :
>The estimated occupational effective dose for the aircraft crew (A 320) working 500 h per year was 1.64 mSv.
> Other experiments, or dose rate measurements with the neutron dosimeter, consisting of LR-115 track detector and boron foil BN-1 or 10B converter, were performed on five intercontinental flights.
> Comparison of the dose rates of the non-neutron component (low LET) and the neutron one (high LET) of the radiation field at the aircraft flight level showed that the neutron component carried about 50% of the total dose.
> The dose rate measurements on the flights from the Middle Europe to the South and Middle America, then to Korea and Japan, showed that the flights over or near the equator region carried less dose rate; this was in accordance with the known geomagnetic latitude effect.
[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...
Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought
#4That letter is from April. The FDA wrote a response last month: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitt...
The recommended limit for annual dose to the skin for the general public is 50,000 µSv. The dose to the skin from one screening would be approximately 0.56 µSv when the effective dose for that same screening would be 0.25 µSv. Therefore the dose to skin for the example screening is at least 89,000 times lower than the annual limit.
Most of the concerns in the letter are addressed. It's easy to spread FUD, but these devices are likely safe. Other organizations and governments have evaluated their safety independently.
Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought
#5Just as a general policy, I don't willingly step into superfluous machines intended to irradiate me.
Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought
#6The document was linked here before but is very detailed and interesting, even naming specific issues: A) The large population of older travelers, >65 years of age, is particularly at risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of melanocyte aging. B) A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesis provoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because t…
That's fine though. Society has already determined that 3000 people dying in a terrorist attack is much scarier than 500,000 people that die every year from heart disease. Otherwise we'd be spending money on encouraging a heart-healthy lifestyle rather than preventing someone from bringing a toothpaste-bomb onto a plane.
It's clear that if we can save 200 business travelers and vacationers from incineration, it's worth killing off a few senior citizens. Won't someone please think of the children?
(Hey, this isn't my policy. If someone asked me, "is it worth hurting someone to possibly save someone else", I would have said no. But nobody ever asks me about these things!)
Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought
#7That letter is from April. The FDA wrote a response last month: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitt... The recommended limit for annual dose to the skin for the general public is 50,000 µSv. The dose to the skin from one screening would be approximately 0.56 µSv when the effective dose for that same screening would be 0.25 µSv. Therefore the dose to skin for the example screening is at least…
"Most" of the concerns ...
... are "likely" safe.
It's a tiny line between FUD and alertness. I prefer people bring this stuff up every now and then to remind all of us to never stop questioning things.
Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought
#8That letter is from April. The FDA wrote a response last month: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitt... The recommended limit for annual dose to the skin for the general public is 50,000 µSv. The dose to the skin from one screening would be approximately 0.56 µSv when the effective dose for that same screening would be 0.25 µSv. Therefore the dose to skin for the example screening is at least…
It does not matter if they are safe (which they aren't), it matters that they be removed.
A little fud now and then is a good thing.
Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought
#9The document was linked here before but is very detailed and interesting, even naming specific issues: A) The large population of older travelers, >65 years of age, is particularly at risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of melanocyte aging. B) A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesis provoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because t…
I've been told by an engineer friend of mine that the radiation dose these scanners deliver was dwarfed by the in-flight cosmic irradiation. He didn't give me numbers, though. It would be nice if a radiotherapist (or another expert) could chime in on this topic. ---------------------------- edit: answering my own question: he's wrong. from [1] : >The estimated occupational effective dose for the aircraft crew (A 320)…
Maybe, but unless they remove radiation, they give out too much for what they are worth.
Cancer machines are bad for you, say no to cancer machines.
Re: Leading scientists say backscatter X-ray may be far more dangerous than thought
#10That letter is from April. The FDA wrote a response last month: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitt... The recommended limit for annual dose to the skin for the general public is 50,000 µSv. The dose to the skin from one screening would be approximately 0.56 µSv when the effective dose for that same screening would be 0.25 µSv. Therefore the dose to skin for the example screening is at least…
It does not matter if they are safe (which they aren't), it matters that they be removed. A little fud now and then is a good thing.
Hitler: "It does not matter if the jews are good citizens (which they aren't), it matters that they be blamed for all our problems.
A little fud now and then is a good thing."