A new study weighing in on the controversial issue of whether “backscatter” X-ray security scanners at airports pose radiation risks has dismissed the potential threat.
As Bloomberg reports, the study, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, has found that the body scanners, which are used to detect explosives, expose travelers to just 0.1 microsievert of radiation.
By comparison, one dental X-ray provides 50 times more radiation, and an abdominal CT scan, 200,000 times more. In addition, going through an airport scanner contributes only 1 percent of the amount of ionizing radiation a traveler is exposed to while flying at high altitudes.
“I’m convinced that the radiation dose is so low that I go through and I bring my children through,” said lead author Dr. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the University of California, San Francisco. “There are lots and lots of things to worry about. The radiation from these scanners is not on the list any longer.”
The study calculated the risk of cancer to be minimal. Over the lifetimes of a group of 100 million people taking an average of 7.5 flights per year, the authors estimated, six additional cancers would be caused.
The airport scanners have sparked controversy because of privacy as well as health concerns, and were the subject of a U.S. House subcommittee hearing this month. The deployment of the scanners was accelerated by a Christmas Day, 2009 incident in which a passenger on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit tried, but failed, to detonate a bomb hidden in his underwear.
Some experts said they hoped the study would put the health controversy to rest. “There really should be no concern,” said the University of Michigan’s Dr. Ella Kazerooni. “I would hope a piece like this would eliminate people’s concerns.”
However, questions have been raised about why radiation-emitting scanners are used when airports also have millimeter wave scanners, which do not emit radiation and pose no known safety risks. Critics also have questioned whether travelers could be endangered by operating or maintenance errors by Transportation Security Administration staffers or contractors.
Related Post:
Radiation Safety Expert Questions Use of Airport X-Ray Scanners
Full-Body Scanners in Airports to be Rechecked for Radiation
One way to prove to the public that x-ray body scanners are totally safe would be for one of the proponents of the scanners, maybe Michael Chertoff for example, to volunteer to go dose-for-dose with the flying public. I get scanned with 0.1 microsieverts, Chertoff gets 0.1 microsieverts, Joe bloggs gets scanned, Chertoff gets another 0.1 microsieverts. Jane Smith gets scanned, Chertoff gets another 0.1 microsieverts. For some members of the public, this will help to convince them that the scanners are safe. For other people who don’t think the scanners are safe it still might sweeten the deal of going through the scanner a bit. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander” after all. The IATA predicts that there will be 2.75 billion airline passengers in 2011, and if 10% of them get scanned at 0.1 microsieverts, that is a total dose of 27.5 Sieverts this year. The lethal whole-body dose for a human is roughly 5 Sieverts. Any scanner proponents care to volunteer?