Airport security scanners for people who've had radiation treatment

[alphamommy]

I haven't flown in some time, so I haven't had to pass through the new scanners at the airport.

I've had radiation to treat cancer twice, and I'm concerned about the radiation from these machines being too much for my system. I haven't had a chance to speak with my Radiation Oncologist about this, but I thought some other Intercotees might know something about this.

I don't have plans to fly soon, but I'd like to know more about whether they would be bad for me. I don't see my doctor again until June, so I'll ask him then.

Thanks!

[Ed]

There's been a lot of attention to this new technology, most of it negative, despite extensive scientific evidence to the contrary.

I'd suggest you check this page from the TSA website which explains the system and its safety.

[ElenitaB]

Tammy, I'm in a similar situation (though I've only gotten rads once not twice). As far as I understand we get way more radiation from a CT scan than we do from the TSA equipment. The best thing is your current plan and that is to ask your radiation oncologist. I, for one, would appreciate if you reported back.

[CanadianWDWFan]

I am a Nuclear energy worker and because of this I am interested in keeping my radiation dose as low as possible. I asked the Radiation Protection department about these scanners and was told that the dose was low enough that I didn't have to worry about it. The dose I would receive from these scanners would not add to my dose limits. They didn't give me the dose numbers, since they didn't have them, but told me that compared to a chest x-ray it was substantially lower.

We account for our dose in milliRems and the dose, after looking around a bit, from the scanners is in microRems. It is on the magnitude of a thousand times less than what the medical diagnostic machines give out.

[cer]

There was a health program on the radio and they reported that the radiation from these scanners was so low that you would have to go through 1,000 times to equal the same radiation you get from a dental x-ray.

But, don't take my word for it. In your situation, I would definitely look into it further.

[alphamommy]

Thanks for all the replies!

Like I said, I plan to ask my doctor, but I don't see him again until June. I will report back for anyone else interested.

Thanks again!

[brivers222]

cant you just opt for the hands on approach to nullify the radiation threat all together?

[PirateLover]

I took the "enhanced" pat down when faced with going through the scanner. It was fine. Just last month it came out that there was a "math" error and that there is 10x more radiation than originally announced. They are still saying that it is a "safe" amount, but I don't like the whole thing for a number of reasons.

The pat down took maybe an extra 5 minutes because they had to get a female TSA worker to perform it. The guy manning the scanner however was extremely rude to my traveling party when we said we wanted the pat down. I probably should've reported him because he flat out lied, saying we'd have to wait 30 minutes or more, then he separated everyone and wouldn't let me wait with anyone in my party, even though I knew TSA policy was otherwise. Thankfully I could still see the other members of my party in the distance, otherwise I would've gotten pretty upset.

[BrerGnat]

I'd honestly go the pat down route. I don't like that the scanner safety has been questionable. In addition, they say that since the scanners don't penetrate like an x-ray, they are unsure as to how much they might damage soft tissues (the dermis layer). There is speculation that they can do a lot of cell damage to tissues that usually are not that affected by standard x-rays.

The pat down seems like a better way to go, IMO. If I ever get selected, I'll opt for the pat down vs. the machine.

[Ed]

Just last month it came out that there was a "math" error and that there is 10x more radiation than originally announced.

Source ? I haven't seen anything that made that claim.

[kakn7294]

I don't have the answer for you but you can always opt out of the scanners and have a manual pat-down instead if you so choose.

[CanadianWDWFan]

Source ? I haven't seen anything that made that claim.

I agree with Ed. Everything that I have read and seen about the dose from these scanners is that it is still in the microrem range. You will get more dose actually flying to your destination than you will get from these scanners.

I can understand the OP's concern, as is mine, is to keep your dose limits low as possible. Your questioning attitude is perfect. Arm yourself with all the facts and information you can find, talk to your Doctor and make an informed decision.

[PirateLover]

Source ? I haven't seen anything that made that claim.

I heard it on a local radio news report. I just googled it and came up with this article http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...sa-scans_N.htm
Upon reading the article it seems that much of the error was attributed to record keeping math error.

I agree with Ed. Everything that I have read and seen about the dose from these scanners is that it is still in the microrem range. You will get more dose actually flying to your destination than you will get from these scanners.

Agree with what? That I made it up? I said in my post that they are saying the levels, even if they were as high as reported, are still safe. I wasn't trying to scare anyone I was just sharing what I had read. As you said it's up to the individual to do their research and make their decision. For me, I choose the pat down.

[CanadianWDWFan]

Agree with what? That I made it up? I said in my post that they are saying the levels, even if they were as high as reported, are still safe. I wasn't trying to scare anyone I was just sharing what I had read. As you said it's up to the individual to do their research and make their decision. For me, I choose the pat down.

Where did I say that you made it up? If you read my post all it said is that I agreed with Ed's point on everything that I had read pointed to millirem doses.

After reading the article you linked to. It was interesting to see that the dose was 10x less that what was published. The article states that the technicians took ten surveys and then posted the average as the total of the ten surveys without dividing by ten. So it was actually the sum of ten surveys.

I still stand by what I said, knowledge is power. You researched it and read up on it and made your choice. An informed choice is the right choice.

[Ed]

No harm, no foul. But just to clarify...

PirateLover had stated "and that there is 10x more radiation than originally announced."

If you read the article cited, it says that the radiation figures were 10x higher than expected.

Quoting the article:

"Numerous independent tests have confirmed that these technologies are safe, but these record-keeping errors are not acceptable," he said. For instance, "the testing procedure calls for the technician to take 10 separate scans" for radiation levels, "add them up and then divide by 10 to take an average. They didn't divide by 10," Kimball said.

Just to keep the math simple, let's use simplistic figures and say TSA was expecting a reading of 10, but the reports came back showing a reading of 100. There's where the "10x higher than expected" came from. Had the technician not forgotten the last step in the process, and had divided his/her total of ten readings by ten to get an average, the figure would have been exactly where expected - - 10.

{{Edit - - looks like Brian and I were typing at the same time.}}

[PirateLover]

Where did I say that you made it up? If you read my post all it said is that I agreed with Ed's point on everything that I had read pointed to millirem doses.

Right, but the part that you chose to quote was where he asked me for a source which is why I got a bit defensive.

And my original statement was based on the news report that I heard. Either I misheard it or it was misrepresented in the original report because after I read the article I linked to I realized the "math error" was probably on the part of the technicians not a misrepresentation of the original data as I had thought. I did not mean to misinform.

[MNNHFLTX]

Read an interesting article on the Harvard Reviews of Health News website regarding radiation exposure through airport scanners. I have always heard the amount was low, but this paragraph surprised me:

"Understand that radiation exposure is impossible to avoid. For example, the radiation exposure associated with having an airport scan is:
30,000 times less than the average person in the U.S. gets from natural radiation sources (such as cosmic rays) in one year
1,300 times less than a mammogram and 1,000 times less than a chest X-ray
30 times less than flying in an airplane at 30,000 feet for an hour
6 times less than sitting in Grand Central Terminal in New York City for an hour (due to radiation from granite walls there)"

So even if the amount is 10 times more than originally thought (which I don't believe is the case), it sounds to me like there are other sources of radiation exposure that are even more of a concern.

[Ed]

So even if the amount is 10 times more than originally thought (which I don't believe is the case), it sounds to me like there are other sources of radiation exposure that are even more of a concern.

Bingo !!