<p>I have two trips coming up that will involve six different airports, several of which I know have the new (or relatively new) x-ray machines. The idea of TSA agents operating x-ray machines worries me, so I have avoided them and opted for the additional, pat-down screening. It has not been horrible; I wouldn’t really care all that much except that it takes additional time. So I am wondering, does anyone have good, trustworthy information about the machine’s safety?</p>
<p>If you get x-rays at the dentist the technician puts a lead vest on you and then hops into another room all the while telling you how safe it is. Go from there.</p>
<p>The concern is not the same as with x-rays you get. The TSA machines use back-scatter radiation, meaning the radiation only has enough energy to penetrate clothes and the surface of the skin. The official comparison is that you get 1 millirem of radiation by being alive each day and .05 millirem from the back-scatter machine. </p>
<p>The issue, meaning the actual health issue not the bull, is skin cancer. Given the low dose, the issue is likely - not absolutely but likely - limited to those people with a predilection for skin cancer, meaning a genetic predisposition and/or prior skin cancers. That is murky and what it means is murkier since most skin cancers don’t amount to much; we think of melanoma but most skin cancers are slow growing. I’ve read concerns that the dose is “on the skin” but I haven’t been able to figure out what that means </p>
<p>So what does it mean? No one knows. The hysteria is misplaced; these aren’t the x-rays you get at the doctor or in a hospital. (Some people worry about machines wildly malfunctioning but I can’t even begin to evaluate that.) </p>
<p>Other worries are more basic: risk of mutation in unborn children, risk of mutation in people with a genetic problem. I’d avoid the scanners if I were pregnant. I believe that’s policy.</p>
<p>Note that not all airports use back-scatter. Some use “millimeter waves”, which are basically radio waves - really microwaves. These may be safer. I’d avoid if I were pregnant or had a known tumor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It means that since the x-rays don’t penetrate into deeper tissues, all of the radiation is concentrated to the skin and underlying tissues.</p>
<p>here is a letter from UCSF scientists explaining more:
<a href=“http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf[/url]”>http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the dental staff wear badges that measures total radiation exposure which TSA personnel don’t wear. I always ask the TSA guys why the union hasn’t negotiated that for them. It’s funny watching them squirm for the change.</p>
<p>Why should I trust my body to guys with zero specialized education who can’t even divide by 10?</p>
<p>[TSA</a> Admits Bungling of Airport Body-Scanner Radiation Tests | Threat Level | Wired.com](<a href=“http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/tsa-radiation-test-bungling/]TSA”>TSA Admits Bungling of Airport Body-Scanner Radiation Tests | WIRED)</p>
<p>And here is an article on safety of the scanners:</p>
<p>[‘Nude</a>’ Airport Scanners: Are They Safe? | Threat Level | Wired.com](<a href=“http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/scanners-part2/]'Nude”>'Nude' Airport Scanners: Are They Safe? | WIRED)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I always opt out for a nice, friendly back rub. :)</p>
<p>^^ So do I, Bunsen. I’ve had radiation for breast cancer and figure I’m already way over my safe limit. I always opt for the pat-down.</p>
<p>I work for the federal govt., too, and have seen how they operate. Let’s just say I’m not a fan and would never trust those TSA folks with anything affecting my health and well-being.</p>
<p>Icarus, I know what dose on the skin means. The issue is that people are guessing about what effect that might have, assuming we do need to somehow measure the dosage received differently. </p>
<p>If you fly reasonably often, you get more radiation than if you were to walk through a scanner every day and not fly. I mention that to point up the issue to some people is this is yet another source of exposure: the sun, stuff around us. Some places in the US generate more exposure and not merely from radon gas trapped in a house. The general results can be calculated - exposure, expected number of cases, etc. - but that doesn’t mean squat for an individual.</p>
<p>On the whole, I’d say this is a case of people focusing on a very small risk and making it seem larger than it is. We do this all the time.</p>
<p>My mom works for the TSA and I think she can divide by 10. </p>
<p>You must be an idiot if you think you’ll get cancer or something from walking through it.</p>
<p>Then why wont the TSA allow access to the machines for independent testing?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you know this how?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. I guess for now I will continue to opt out. Maybe when an independent scientist who has tested the machines tells me what the risk is, then I’ll rethink.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The dental assistant is taking x-rays all day, so it makes sense for her (or him) to avoid even the minuscule dose that you are receiving. I think that is a good point jandjdad raises. The people who are at greatest risk that should be worried about this are the TSA employees who operate the machines. If I was flying regularly I would want to know also, rather than taking their word for it.</p>
<p>Some people may be hiding things from the scanners, so does TSA even understand how they work?
[TSA</a> body scanners’ apparent flaw raises airport security concerns - chicagotribune.com](<a href=“Travel News & Articles - Chicago Tribune”>http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/sns-201203270000--tms--traveltrctntt-b20120327mar27,0,3956193.story)</p>
<p>Then again I don’t want to stand in a longer line just to be groped either.
But airports really vary.</p>
<p>A friend of mine worked on the design/engineering of the scanners. He uses them. Works for me.</p>
<p>But I’m 57, and I got patted down for two years every time I flew because I had a metal plate in my knee. I hated it, absolutely hated it.</p>
<p>My kids choose to be patted down. They point out that they’ll get a lot more exposure than I will, over their lifetimes. It’s a valid point.</p>