<p>“It is called environmental exposure, and an airplane does not have a built-in source of radiation by design”</p>
<p>Sure it does. When they build a plane with a pressurization system designed to operate at 37,000 feet, they are designing a radiation exposure system. The fact that the radiation comes from the sun and not the airplane doesn’t change the fact that the airplane is designed to take humans out of the thicker atmosphere and into the radiation. It can’t serve its purpose without doing that.</p>
<p>If I design a giant magnifying glass for people to lie under to get a quick tan, and they die of skin cancer, I don’t think I’m off the hook by saying “It was just environmental exposure, not my design.” My design, by design, increases exposure to environmental risks. It could not work without increasing that exposure. But it wouldn’t come under the FDA unless I advertised it for some medical purpose.</p>
<p>it begins … As the Transportation Security Administration’s deployment of backscatter X-ray machines at airports draws increasing public resistance, four University of California researchers say the ionizing radiation used in these devices pose serious health concerns. In early April of 2010, the researchers—all medical and biology specialists— wrote the White House’s science and technology assistant, John Holdren, expressing “urgent” concerns</p>
<p>When I see 510(k) approval data and all related documentation (certification and training of the personnel who is supposed to run the devices, calibration and maintenance schedule to maintain the radiation within the limits of the specs, etc.), I will make my mind about whether I would be OK going in one or not. For now, we are being human guinea pigs in an unprecedented governmental experiment.</p>
<p>Busdriver, you would be even more surprised that Michael Chertoff who advised the government on the air travel security issues is on the advisory board of the makers of Rapiscan - ding-ding-ding!</p>
<p>Hanna: no, it does not have an *internal SOURCE *of X-rays intended to deliver a dose of radiation to a human body. Source and shields are different species.</p>
<p>I’m not talking about a shield. I’m talking about an exposure-magnifying machine. It’s a third category, and a lot more similar to a source than a shield.</p>
<p>Where were the FDA tests about flying? Where’s the randomized clinical trial of people who do and don’t take long-haul flights? Apparently you are OK with being a guinea pig in that experiment.</p>
<p>I also noticed that the spiritualist CEO of this company, Deepak Chopra, just went on a very important 10 day trip to India.</p>
<p>I am sure that we will soon get enough information about the safety of these machines from physicians and scientists. We have too many cancer risks already.</p>
<p>I have to say… I am a little skeptical of one group of MD’s crying foul on this one.<br>
Now, if many more credible scientists from around the country raised questions that would be worth listening to.
Anyone know if the San Fran 4 have an agenda?</p>
<p>“Where were the FDA tests about flying? Where’s the randomized clinical trial of people who do and don’t take long-haul flights? Apparently you are OK with being a guinea pig in that experiment.”</p>
<p>There’s plenty of data out there from flight attendants and pilots exposed to short/long haul flights, if you care to dig it up.</p>
<p>Perhaps the Johns Hopkins Medical schools should consult with the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory??</p>
<p>The position of many physicians (MD’s) is that there is no ‘safe’ amount of radiation exposure and that is probably true. However we need to keep this all in perspective - we are exposed to radiation through the environment and the choices we make every day. One has to make a reasonable comparison. Pilots choose to fly and are exposed through flight. They are now being asked to expose themselves to a teeny bit and they balk.
These machines have been around since 2007. The order to make them nationwide was handed down a year ago. That is being implemented and now there is an outcry?
sounds fishy to me… just sayin’</p>
<p>I agree. If the possibility for an adjustment — say screening in a private room with a female agent — is made available to religious Muslim women, it should be available to anyone who asks for it regardless of gender or religion. </p>
<p>We should probably anticipate going to the airport three hours early, maybe more.</p>
<p>Frankly I don’t see any easy answers. Private rooms are not without problems either. If you are asked to go into a private room with a same-sex inspector, what guarantees that you wouldn’t be treated inappropriately or that you wouldn’t accuse the inspector without cause? As an example, recording police interrogations and video cams on policy cars is a two-way street - these measures protect both the police, and the subject being interviewed. Perfect privacy is automatically a “he said he said” environment. </p>
<p>The measures they’ve devised aren’t perfect. I hope they find a better approach or at least a better application. In the meantime, as a frequent flier I would personally rather be embarrassed than be dead.</p>
<p>“One has to make a reasonable comparison. Pilots choose to fly and are exposed through flight. They are now being asked to expose themselves to a teeny bit and they balk.”</p>
<p>Here is the question, and I’m sure the accurate answer will come out sooner or later. Is it really a teeny bit, comparable to a couple of minutes of extra flying time, or is it a teeny bit concentrated in a hazardous way? I don’t care about a little bit of extra, minor amounts of radiation, and didn’t understand why my union was making such a big deal about it. But if there are serious, potential risks, that this kind of exposure is different than what is being portrayed, wouldn’t we all like to know? Because that is the gamechanger.</p>
<p>I wonder how much busier the airports will be at the locations where intensive screening is not going on. Living in the Atlanta area, it seems it would be better to drive the extra couple of hours and fly out of Birmingham. What is the tipping point of hours required for screening as opposed to driving/train/bus? Is the best choice to risk radiation exposure to be viewed nude, or subjected to an invasive search without just cause? Cancer survivors, children, frail elderly people - does anyone feel more secure when the searches are this random? No doubt that many of the TSA screeners are not happy with what they are required to do, but even one that is enjoying their new-found power is one too many. Is there a good solution to this problem? This entire thread saddens me.</p>
<p>And does that make any sense? Some airports have tighter screening - some don’t. Would it be that hard for a terrorist to determine that the smaller less urban airports have less screening and go there? This just makes no sense at all to me. Whatever security measures are put in place should be uniformly applied across the nation. </p>
<p>Honestly, between the TSA and the bed bugs, I am happy to be staying at home this holiday.</p>
You decide. Do you want ‘medical advice’ or informed knowledge on what your exposure it.
If you want medical advice - that would be never to step foot in an airplane (in flight) or talk on your cell phone.</p>
<p>Medical advice is not the be all end all. Medical advice has caused many cancers from frivolous use of diagnostic radiation.</p>
<p>The director of the local airport (Top 10 in boardings) said this morning that he had no doubt that airport security and local police could provide effective screening for passengers and that his problem with the TSA is that they decide on the rules, they enforce the rules and then they measure the effectiveness. He said the TSA has no accountability to anyone.</p>