Hide Comments Below
  • -3
  • -2
  • -1
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • off
  • Airport X-ray machines are safe for passengers, report commissioned by the manufacturers of airport X-ray machines says.



    Comment 0
    Cool
  • vote cool
  • vote uncool
  • Terms of Service Violation
  • strike inappropriate
  • not inappropriate
  • Other
  • sunlight
  • get permlink
  • Currently untagged - add relevant short tags using the box to the left

    What are tags?
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-28 17:38:54.0 login to vote score 1
    Subby, did you miss this?

    They include a Johns Hopkins University assessment in August 2010 that said a passenger would have to be screened 47 times a day for a year to exceed yearly limits of radiation set by the American National Standards Institute.

    I thought Johns Hopkins was a great Hospital.
    flashlv 1657 2012-02-28 17:39:19.0 login to vote score 0
    University / hospital


    oops.
    gahbrone 481 2012-02-28 17:42:41.0 login to vote score 1
    I've have not and will never get in an airport full body xray. You shouldn't either. If you are curious as to why I'd be happy to post my reasoning.

    note: millimeter wave if perfectly safe (it's the one that spins around you
    cardinal puff 887 2012-02-28 17:48:34.0 login to vote score 0
    Piddly little airport X-rays do not bother me. I get 100x or so the dose during the flight. Oh well.
    gahbrone 481 2012-02-28 18:01:21.0 login to vote score 3
    cardinal puff: Piddly little airport X-rays do not bother me. I get 100x or so the dose during the flight. Oh well.

    1. You are assuming the scientific geniuses of the TSA have calibrated the machine properly... and it's not like major systems like the hospitals in the VA health system (and others) have ever screwed that up before

    2. There dose intensity and dose density. The radiation dose you ge might be the same "amount" as a few flights across the country, but a flight across the country is 4+ hours. You are getting the full body scan dose in a fraction of a second.

    3. Radiation damage re: cancer risk is not deterministic it's stochastic. As it is colloquially said, "severity is independent of dose".... the only thing dose effects is the probability of having the bad outcome (cancer). But *any* amount can lead to the same equally bad outcome. unlike say acetaminophen, where it takes 4g to kill an otherwise healthy adult and anything less won't.

    These things are complex. You would be well served to not be led by ignorance.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-02-28 18:02:16.0 login to vote score 1
    Bah, I already had cancer, and you can't get it twice.
    gahbrone 481 2012-02-28 18:10:06.0 login to vote score 2
    4. backscatter xray are also "designed" only to penetrate int a few mm of your skin, they offer this a a feature! Yet, dose is calculated by BODY MASS... b/c a CT scan goes through your entire body (or section being scanned). So they are using the SAME equation to calculate the dose, even though the mass of body tissue that is actually absorbing the radiation is a tiny fraction of what the equation says it is.

    and consider this is far worse for any parts of your body directly on the surface... like your balls.
    so vote republican 6688 2012-02-28 18:16:01.0 login to vote score 0
    Bah, I already had kids, and you can't get those twice.
    code_7 6865 2012-02-28 18:23:54.0 login to vote score 3
    did they get Chertof or however you spell his name to write a glowing report on there safety as well?
    gahbrone 481 2012-02-28 18:25:16.0 login to vote score 0
    code_7: did they get Chertof or however you spell his name to write a glowing report on there safety as well?

    well done.
    gahbrone 481 2012-02-28 18:26:44.0 login to vote score 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I3JKYdGWTE&feature=related
    If you logged in, you could post here.