Full-Body Scanners: A Danger of Cancer? Still An Open Question
A couple of weeks ago, I posted a piece asking this question. It drew some comments – mostly having to do with my suggestion that, if the full-body scanners really do pose a risk, it would be better to profile Muslim travelers than to expose everyone who steps onto a plane to a dangerous dose of radiation. No one was able to reassure me that there is no danger.
I have lived long enough now to have become skeptical with regard to the claims of scientists. When I was younger, no one paid any attention to the danger the X-rays posed, and there have been unpleasant consequences – both for health workers and for medical patients. Now one group of scientists – those on whom TSA relies – tell us that it is safe: that the dose is modest, that it does not penetrate the skin, that passing through the scanners a thousand times is the equivalent of a single X-ray.
There are others, however, no less distinguished in the scientific world, who take the opposite stance. According to a story posted yesterday, four scientists at the University of California at San Francisco – with expertise in biochemistry, biophysics, oncology, and X-ray crystallography – have warned that the dosage delivered to the skin by the full-body scanners may be much greater than advertised.
Glenn Sjoden, who is a professor of nuclear and radiological engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, makes the same point. The dose radiation may not be all that large, but it is concentrated on the skin. The real question is how large a dose travelers get at the level of the skin, and no one has tested that.
Ed Nickoloff, professor of radiology at Columbia University and chief hospital physicist at Columbia University Medical Center, agrees with Sjoden. In the story cited above, he is quoted as saying, "At this point, until I knew more information, I'd tell people to take the pat-down."
Here is the question you should be asking yourself. How far do you trust the judgment of Janet Napolitano?
There are reports that today the TSA – wary of the threat of disruptions and concerned about the bad publicity that they would incur should large numbers of travelers ask for a pat-down during a period of peak holiday travel – has turned off the scanners at a number of airports.
If this is true, what does it say regarding the necessity for this species of security? Indeed, why did the pat-downs not start last December shortly after the underpants bomber landed in Detroit?
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Nov '10
Re: Full-Body Scanners: A Danger of Cancer? Still An Open Question
Just change the name from "body scanner" to "Melanoma Machine."
Janet Napolitano is a hapless idiot who looks like a gopher caught in the headlights. I would not trust her if she told me the sun would rise in the east tomorrow.
It is pretty obvious that the TSA expected the procedures to be unpopular. They did not want to give the public ten full months to get good and sore about it before the mid-term elections.
It says very plainly that this "species of security" is unnecessary and worthless. It is time to make a long overdue call to the Israelis.
Jul '10
Re: Full-Body Scanners: A Danger of Cancer? Still An Open Question
Mr. Rahe,
I suspect that to worry about the medical effects of these scans is a red herring. If we have a problem, it is in believing that things are bad for our health which are really not (Alar ring a bell?).
That said, it is a very important discussion that has been kicked off on airport security. What is the right set of trade-offs betwen security and infringement of liberty? I tend to believe that the government errs on the side of seeking goofy categorical solutions, and that we are better off listening to the collective wisdom of the citizenry.
But we do no good by obscuring that question with medical risk fantasies.
Sep '10
Re: Full-Body Scanners: A Danger of Cancer? Still An Open Question
Science and medicine is completely foreign to me, but wouldn't the radiation level be fairly easy to test? Isn't there simple instruments that could be placed inside the machine? In fact, why couldn't these be tested at Underwriters Laboratory?
I'm a frequent traveler, so radiation level is of some concern to me. As is the groping. So far I've only had to go through the full-body scanners a few times, and haven't bothered opting out. There always has been a minor pat-down even after the scanner.
Nov '10
Re: Full-Body Scanners: A Danger of Cancer? Still An Open Question
Patrick Shanahan: I suspect that to worry about the medical effects of these scans is a red herring.
But we do no good by obscuring that question with medical risk fantasies.
You have a lot more faith in the Feds than I do, Patrick. On matters concerning radiation, the government's credibility record leaves something to be desired.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Cafe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOUtZOqgSG8
Edited on Nov 25, 2010 at 8:21pmJul '10
Re: Full-Body Scanners: A Danger of Cancer? Still An Open Question
And that, sir, is as it should be.
May '10
Re: Full-Body Scanners: A Danger of Cancer? Still An Open Question
On any mass hysteria I consult Michael Fumento, given his perfect record on such past hysterias as hetero-sexual AIDS in America, Swine Flu, run-away Toyotas, SARS, and many more.
He says it's a non-issue. I trust him.
(This is not to say, however, that the scanners aren't a boondoggle, incapable of detecting what they are ostensibly aimed at detecting.)
May '10
Re: Full-Body Scanners: A Danger of Cancer? Still An Open Question
Perhaps the radiation exposure is negligible, perhaps not. Will that matter when the first TSA caused cancer case goes to court? More importantly, what happens when we get the first claims against the TSA scanner related birth defects?
Remember, it isn't the actual damages done, it is what a jury believes was done.
May '10
Re: Full-Body Scanners: A Danger of Cancer? Still An Open Question
The scientists talk about any ionizing radiation (and their comments are far more muted than the headlines suggest) being concentrated at the skin rather than diffused throughout the body as with a standard backscatter x-ray. And they are using the standard PR technique of saying that more testing is needed.
But note that there is no established relationship between ionizing radiation and melanoma- any direct link is with basal cell or squamous cell lesions (which are routinely zapped all the time; it is very difficult to kill someone with a basal cell CA),. If we knew that much about melanoma, we'd be able to cure it.
The warning applies to persons who have weakened immune systems, which is why they refer to the elderly and small children (because the dosages are concentrated on a smaller surface area). If I were taking immunosuppresants because I had had a transplant (kidney, heart, liver) I wouldn't take any x-ray.
That's why the scanners should generally be MMW instead of x-ray. But the risks are still minuscule. The exposures are very small.