Should my baby go through a full body scan?
November 16, 2010 10:14 PM Subscribe
I will be travelling with my 20 month old son next week. Should I take him through the full body scanner, or request alternative screening? I'd love answers from anyone with particular expertise in this area.
It's my understanding that the millimeter wave scanners are not particularly dangerous (please correct me if I'm wrong about this; I'd like to have as much information as possible). However, I'm concerned about going through the backscatter X-ray scanners at the airport with my 20 month old. I know that the radiation exposure is very low, but I have read a couple of articles claiming that the radiation dose is concentrated in the skin, so it could potentially be more damaging that the TSA is letting on.
My instinct, as his mom, is to be extra cautious and not expose my child to ionizing radiation unless it's necessary (and in this case, it isn't). But I'm also wondering just how risky this would be. Assuming he gets two X-ray scans this time, and we'll probably fly once or twice a year, as we have since his birth, should I be worried? Should I err on the side of caution and opt out of full body scans for my son?
If it matters, he has been through millimeter wave scanners before, between the ages of 4 months and 10 months.
It's my understanding that the millimeter wave scanners are not particularly dangerous (please correct me if I'm wrong about this; I'd like to have as much information as possible). However, I'm concerned about going through the backscatter X-ray scanners at the airport with my 20 month old. I know that the radiation exposure is very low, but I have read a couple of articles claiming that the radiation dose is concentrated in the skin, so it could potentially be more damaging that the TSA is letting on.
My instinct, as his mom, is to be extra cautious and not expose my child to ionizing radiation unless it's necessary (and in this case, it isn't). But I'm also wondering just how risky this would be. Assuming he gets two X-ray scans this time, and we'll probably fly once or twice a year, as we have since his birth, should I be worried? Should I err on the side of caution and opt out of full body scans for my son?
If it matters, he has been through millimeter wave scanners before, between the ages of 4 months and 10 months.
I'm planning on opting my kids out.
In addition to having concerns about the safety of the devices, I don't really want some tsa dude looking at naked pix of my daughters.
posted by leahwrenn at 12:34 AM on November 17, 2010
In addition to having concerns about the safety of the devices, I don't really want some tsa dude looking at naked pix of my daughters.
posted by leahwrenn at 12:34 AM on November 17, 2010
If you're afraid of x-ray radiation, don't fly. From Wikipedia:
posted by effugas at 1:38 AM on November 17, 2010 [6 favorites]
The Health Physics Society (HPS) reports that a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.05 μSv (or 0.005 mrems) of radiation; American Science and Engineering Inc. reports 0.09 μSv (0.009 mrems). At the high altitudes typical of commercial flights, naturally occurring cosmic radiation is considerably higher than at ground level. The radiation dose for a six hour flight is 20 μSv (2 mrems) - 200 to 400 times larger than a backscatter scan. According to U.S. regulatory agencies, "1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure".[11]This has nothing to do with health.
posted by effugas at 1:38 AM on November 17, 2010 [6 favorites]
MsKim is correct. Children under 12 will not be subjected to these searches. If you're traveling alone with him, however, and you have no one to pass your child to as you elect what you will do for yourself, you may wish to place a call into the TSA about the procedures they have in place to insure that you can either secure your child in his stroller/carseat/carrier and the pat down will happen next to it or other alternative method.
posted by zizzle at 2:52 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by zizzle at 2:52 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
Just FYI, I was researching this a few weeks ago and found this interesting article.
A recent study showed that just one x-ray in childhood increased the risk for B-cell ALL.
Agreed with others that it is a good point that there is radiation involved in all flights of any significant distance, but I also agree with you that if I have a choice, I'm opting out (for myself and any potential kids). I get enough x-rays accidentally at work, I'm not going to get any more than I have to.
posted by treehorn+bunny at 3:52 AM on November 17, 2010
A recent study showed that just one x-ray in childhood increased the risk for B-cell ALL.
Agreed with others that it is a good point that there is radiation involved in all flights of any significant distance, but I also agree with you that if I have a choice, I'm opting out (for myself and any potential kids). I get enough x-rays accidentally at work, I'm not going to get any more than I have to.
posted by treehorn+bunny at 3:52 AM on November 17, 2010
I view the backscatter as one of the largest radiation experiment (about) to be conducted on an entire population. My mother as a child had xrays in shoe stores (you could see the bones in your feet - cool!) and at the doctors office where they thought it would help asthma if a patient stood infront of an x-ray machine for a while. She passed away last month from cancer.
Needless to say, I won't be participating in this particular experiment, nor will my 2 year old daughter.
posted by zia at 3:59 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
Needless to say, I won't be participating in this particular experiment, nor will my 2 year old daughter.
posted by zia at 3:59 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I read this letter the other day from biochemists at UCSF that makes me uneasy about the x-ray backscatter machines. They claim that the right tests haven't yet been done. The same is not true about the millimeter machines. Perhaps opting your child out till the safety has been proven might be a good idea.
posted by kms at 4:10 AM on November 17, 2010 [11 favorites]
posted by kms at 4:10 AM on November 17, 2010 [11 favorites]
The letter that kms links is interesting. A quote:
The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, thiscomparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest Xrays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high.
posted by davar at 4:40 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, thiscomparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest Xrays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high.
posted by davar at 4:40 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm preggers and opted out because I rank these machines right up there with the shoe-fitting fluoroscopes zia mentioned. After he is born, I will continue to opt both of us out. Even if the machines are "proven" safe, they still send naked pictures to a stranger in a back room somewhere (as do the MMW machines) -- no, thank you, not my son.
Also, in regards to hal_c_on's point about the gloves, you may request that the TSA agents change to a fresh pair of gloves before examining you, your stuff, or your child. They might roll their eyes at you, but they usually comply.
posted by somanyamys at 5:10 AM on November 17, 2010
Also, in regards to hal_c_on's point about the gloves, you may request that the TSA agents change to a fresh pair of gloves before examining you, your stuff, or your child. They might roll their eyes at you, but they usually comply.
posted by somanyamys at 5:10 AM on November 17, 2010
I'm usually not TOO paranoid about this stuff, but I have severe reservations about something which constitutes a medical device being utilized on large volumes of people without prior medical review/approval (somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but they've basically determined "this won't kill you", not "a panel of docs from a few major research institutions says it's totally safe", right?).
posted by julthumbscrew at 6:39 AM on November 17, 2010
posted by julthumbscrew at 6:39 AM on November 17, 2010
Can we back off on the TSA agents as perverts talk? They probably don't want to be there any more than anyone else.
I'm going to have to side with science here- you get more radiation sitting in the plane. Do we even know if the scanner has enough strength (and the right wavelength) to even penetrate the dead skin layer of our bodies?
"In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high."
Not entirely accurate, as a normal x-ray exposes that skin to all of the radiation- all the radiation that goes through the body first must go through the skin.
posted by gjc at 7:06 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm going to have to side with science here- you get more radiation sitting in the plane. Do we even know if the scanner has enough strength (and the right wavelength) to even penetrate the dead skin layer of our bodies?
"In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high."
Not entirely accurate, as a normal x-ray exposes that skin to all of the radiation- all the radiation that goes through the body first must go through the skin.
posted by gjc at 7:06 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
It should be noted that the pilots union doesn't want their members be subject to the new scans over safety concerns.
posted by thewalledcity at 7:25 AM on November 17, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by thewalledcity at 7:25 AM on November 17, 2010 [3 favorites]
I'm going to have to side with science here- you get more radiation sitting in the plane.
Personally I can't see the validity of the position that "the science" is actually done on this question, seeing that actual scientist continue to question the safety of these imaging techniques.
A phrase like "you get more radiation" doesn't really have much meaning. "Radiation" isn't a simple quantitative element you can simply compare as if you were comparing the impact of ingesting varying amounts of lead from two different sources of tap water. Personally I suspect the dangers, particularly with infrequent exposure, are negligible. But again, the people raising concerns about this are not all fringe-opinion types. It is reasonable to have concern and to avoid the technology.
posted by nanojath at 7:41 AM on November 17, 2010
Personally I can't see the validity of the position that "the science" is actually done on this question, seeing that actual scientist continue to question the safety of these imaging techniques.
A phrase like "you get more radiation" doesn't really have much meaning. "Radiation" isn't a simple quantitative element you can simply compare as if you were comparing the impact of ingesting varying amounts of lead from two different sources of tap water. Personally I suspect the dangers, particularly with infrequent exposure, are negligible. But again, the people raising concerns about this are not all fringe-opinion types. It is reasonable to have concern and to avoid the technology.
posted by nanojath at 7:41 AM on November 17, 2010
TSA's "Just go ahead, it's fine"
+ "Scientific" statements on the internet like "you get more radiation sitting in the plane"
- Actual scientific evidence from research studies done by institutions NOT affiliated with companies that make the machines
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
= I'll be skipping it for the time being, thanks.
posted by coupdefoudre at 8:27 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
+ "Scientific" statements on the internet like "you get more radiation sitting in the plane"
- Actual scientific evidence from research studies done by institutions NOT affiliated with companies that make the machines
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
= I'll be skipping it for the time being, thanks.
posted by coupdefoudre at 8:27 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Not entirely accurate, as a normal x-ray exposes that skin to all of the radiation- all the radiation that goes through the body first must go through the skin.
No, no, no, no, no. You're totally misunderstanding the argument, here. If the energy passes through the entire body, that means that only a fraction of the energy is dissipated by interactions (absorption or scattering) with tissue. In the backscatter technique, all of the energy is dissipated in scattering interactions with molecules in the skin. This is the source of concern: the actual energy dissipated by skin tissue in a backscattering configuration may be significantly higher than that dissipated by skin tissue in traditional transmission x-ray techniques. It's the interactions underlying the energy dissipation (e.g. inelastic Compton scattering) that can lead to potential chemical damage to biomolecules.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:01 AM on November 17, 2010 [3 favorites]
No, no, no, no, no. You're totally misunderstanding the argument, here. If the energy passes through the entire body, that means that only a fraction of the energy is dissipated by interactions (absorption or scattering) with tissue. In the backscatter technique, all of the energy is dissipated in scattering interactions with molecules in the skin. This is the source of concern: the actual energy dissipated by skin tissue in a backscattering configuration may be significantly higher than that dissipated by skin tissue in traditional transmission x-ray techniques. It's the interactions underlying the energy dissipation (e.g. inelastic Compton scattering) that can lead to potential chemical damage to biomolecules.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:01 AM on November 17, 2010 [3 favorites]
The whole thing is a scam, Michael Chertoff is the lobbyist for the company who makes the scanners.
posted by rhizome at 10:22 AM on November 17, 2010
posted by rhizome at 10:22 AM on November 17, 2010
It seems to me that not enough testing has been done to give us the facts about the possible health risks of these machines. That said, if the pilots don't want to go through them, why would you do it to your child -- or yourself? I would opt out.
posted by Paris Elk at 11:43 AM on November 17, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by Paris Elk at 11:43 AM on November 17, 2010 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Thanks for all the answers. I'm not so worried now that I know they won't be scanning children. It looks like there isn't a lot of research on the safety of these particular devices, so I'll probably opt out myself.
posted by lexicakes at 12:17 PM on November 17, 2010
posted by lexicakes at 12:17 PM on November 17, 2010
I am not a physicist nor a radiologist. I do however have intimate knowledge of how the FDA approves devices (a knowledge admittedly only tangentially relevant here). The short version is: no one has enough information nor has there been time enough to even develop the right set of stats (nor is there likely ever to be) to determine the health consequences of these devices.
posted by digitalprimate at 5:46 PM on November 17, 2010
posted by digitalprimate at 5:46 PM on November 17, 2010
The safety of these devices is dubious. They're probably fine, assuming they do what they claim. Everyone seems to be focused on the numbers is missing the real risk: These are new devices run by new software and/or TSA people. Software fails and has killed by bad radiation dosing in the past. TSA agents are not trained in X-ray imaging or radiation safety.
There's no way in hell I'm getting in one of those things.
posted by chairface at 2:15 PM on November 18, 2010
There's no way in hell I'm getting in one of those things.
posted by chairface at 2:15 PM on November 18, 2010
« Older Regular expression book with problems? | loinclothed drummer on a fourwheeler is taunting... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by MsKim at 11:05 PM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]