Risk/benefit of full body scans

[Stoic]

It is reported that Gordon Brown has said that full-body scanners would be among the new technologies considered to enhance security technology at airports.

Can any well-informed person advise on the risks to infrequent passengers, frequent passengers and flight crew if they are regularly exposed to full-body scans? Is there not a distinct possibility that more people will be killed by the radiation than by the terrorism the technology is supposed to prevent?

I have this advice in mind:

The Risks of a CT Scan
As with any test that disease screening test, the risks of the full-body CT scan, (which includes exposure to ionising radiation, incorrect diagnosis, cost etc), need to be weighed against the benefit of identifying a disease such as a tumour at an early stage when it can still be treated. One of the main risks of a full body CT scan is the relatively high doses of radiation for instance conventional CT scanners expose patients to approximately 10 mSv of radiation. This radiation is about the same as 3 years worth of normal background radiation or over a hundred times that of a chest X-ray. Additional risks include the possible identification of incidental abnormalities that may lead to further unnecessary testing, which may include invasive procedures.

[Diesel_10]

British ministers have been accused of acting too slowly to introduce the scanners, which are being trialled at Manchester Airport.


By who exactly ????

[Skittles]

Hello.

I am a radiotherapy and oncology student. I have a fair knowledge of radiation and radiobiological effects etc. Unfortunately, I am unfamiliar with the methods used in airport body scanners. I severely doubt that any radiation is used whatsoever, and think that they will be some kind of 'sonar' device.

I CAN, however, assure you that they are not CT scanners by a long way. A CT scanner involves the use of a rotating X-ray tube, which can ascertain images in several planes. You are correct in saying that the dose they administer is significantly higher than the typical X-ray you receive in an ER, for example. These would never be used in this kind of situation.

Edit: Ah yes, just as I thought. They essentially use sonar. The unit emits radio waves and then detect and processes the reflections into an image form. Imagine it as a giant mechanical bat.

They emit no radiation whatsoever (at least no harmful radiation) and are perfectly safe. Your cellphone emits hundreds times more radiation than one of these things.

[sTeamTraen]

The risks are minimal: see here (http://www.examiner.com/x-29228-Health-Technology-Examiner%7Ey2009m12d30-Are-fullbody-scanners-at-airports-dangerous-Images-are-the-result-of-radiation-or-radio-waves).

For frequent flyers and pilots, the most likely radiological risk is cosmic rays (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/comsic-cosmique-eng.php).

And of course, driving to the airport is still many times more dangerous than the entire flying experience. :ok:

[A and C]

Thank you for that reply..........It is so unusual to get the opinion of a real expert on these forums

[Checkboard]

Actually, they use electromagnetic radiation in the TerraHertz range.

No more dangerous than sunlight.

[Sallyann1234]

The latest generation of machines use millimetre-wave radiation, which is non-ionizing so they do not carry the same known risk as X-rays.

There is some suggestion that the millimetre waves may have an effect on DNA, but if you are concerned about this you should avoid using or going anywhere near a cellphone, which emits similar but very much stronger radiation.

Lastly if you are at all concerned about radiation risks you should avoid flying at all, since there is a proven risk from cosmic radiation at high altitudes.

[MathFox]

As far as I know there are two types of "full body scanner" in use: One type is "illuminating" the body with millimetre waves and making an image of the reflected radio waves. Best scientific estimate is that the radiation risk is about the same as that from a GSM-phonecall of the passenger next seat in your airplane. (~Zero)

Backscatter X-ray detects reflection of radiation in a frequency band that is potentially dangerous. However the intensity of the radiation is low and can be compared to the normal background radiation you receive from minerals (gypsum walls in your home, etc.) I heard some models worked on background radiation only.

[Landroger]

Lastly if you are at all concerned about radiation risks you should avoid flying at all, since there is a proven risk from cosmic radiation at high altitudes.

Too right! Apparently flight and cabin crews on Concorde received the highest dose of all radiation workers. :eek: Even Nuclear Power station workers. If nothing else, this would have ensured the aeroplane ran out of crews before it wore out. In the end, of course ...... :sad:

Roger.

[Skittles]

The estimated average annual exposure of a Concorde crew member on North Atlantic routes, based upon 700 flying hours a year, 560 of them at over 50,000 feet, is 0.65rems0.65 rem is nothing really. As a radiation worker in the UK I'm allowed 2 rem a year. In America you're allowed 5 rem. That said it's higher than your average worker, but it's definately not the highest dose of all radiation workers.

In terms of passengers, although the radiation intensity was significantly higher on concorde than any other commecial aircraft, you have to bear in mind that the flight times were reduced by huge amounts. In the end the radiation dose was actually less than a standard flight over the same distance.

[Piltdown Man]

The biggest risk posed by full body scanners is the false belief that this technology will now prevent the exploding underpants brigade et al from getting through thus deflecting what should be the true focus of security - the denial of boarding to those who pose a threat. Scanners at security checkpoints provide no more than an instantaneous snap shot of an individual at a specific location. But the histories of threatening us leave an indelible trail which is detectable, if we care to look. And while we are discussing scanners, they don't look inside you. I once had a girlfriend with "strange" habits who... And Prince Mohammed bin Nayef could give you a graphic briefing on what happens if you let some sorts of people get too close to you.

"Underpants Man" had sufficient markers against him to make him interesting to security staff, yet they chose to ignore these markers and let him fly. This begs the question, why are we wasting time so much time and effort collecting data for the morons in our security services? So my suggestion is dump the security we have, forget the scanners and concentrate on looking for the bad guys. Until we do, my money will still be on the bad guys.

PM

[Tamazi]

More dogs on the job - better than any machine.

[Skittles]

Piltdown man, perhaps you could volunteer for the proposed agency which would constantly track the activities of every single person who uses airline travel. All you'd need to know is mental hisory, religious status, familial and friendly associates, country of origin, previous military involvement......

Since the security personnel are all morons, I'm sure you'd be able to do a much better job.

[glad rag]

"Underpants Man" had sufficient markers against him to make him interesting to security staff, yet they chose to ignore these markers and let him fly. This begs the question, why are we wasting time so much time and effort collecting data for the morons in our security services? So my suggestion is dump the security we have, forget the scanners and concentrate on looking for the bad guys. Until we do, my money will still be on the bad guys.



Despite what some, perhaps connected via employment, may think, the above is totally correct.

[sTeamTraen]

"Underpants Man" had sufficient markers against him to make him interesting to security staff, yet they chose to ignore these markers and let him fly. This begs the question, why are we wasting time so much time and effort collecting data for the morons in our security services? So my suggestion is dump the security we have, forget the scanners and concentrate on looking for the bad guys. Until we do, my money will still be on the bad guys.
By "security" here, do you mean the intelligence services, or the people at the gate? If you mean the former, I sympathise: the guy should never have got past check-in. If the latter, I don't think it's very reasonable to expect the people scanning the hand luggage and working the metal detector to know whether any particular well-spoken, clearly-educated, young black male with a valid boarding pass should be singled out for extra treatment.

And if it turns out that you can be checked through to the US from Lagos, with boarding cards for the onward trip issued at that point, then the Americans have seriously dropped the ball. Transiting passengers have been identified as a more likely source of terrorism for a long time. US airlines have screeners on the ground before check-in at FRA (as I found to my mild discomfort last year when I checked rather too many boxes for their liking), and I presume at AMS as well, but it's all a waste of time if people can get airside on Nigeria Airways.

[Piltdown Man]

The "system" is everyone whose job it is to prevent the bad guys from getting on planes. The "heros" who man the magic arches are just as culpable as the faceless ones who have the data and make the policy. Its their system, the one they charge you and me for whether we like it or not and worse, whether it works or not, which it plainly doesn't. At upwards of €20 per head direct charge I expect more for my money and that clown Brown looks like he's getting ready to piddle (or should it be gush) more away.

PM

[Diesel_10]

The western democracies seem to be hell bent on ensuring we are strangled to death with security. Soon it won't be worth flying - I'm not going to spend 4 hours in an airport just to hop over the channel on a 1 hour flight.

We have mitigated the risk to such a point that any further 'measures' will ensure more airlines go bust, more airports get closed etc. etc.

The 'terrorists' can win just by sitting back and inventing another wacky 'bomb plot failure' and bingo the Dow falls, the Footsie falls.

Methinks they have got very clever. :eek:

Cue BBC wheeling out another security 'expert' who gushes self-interest.

[stas-fan]

I am going to Ghana next week, my "tax" on the economy air fare is plus of £200. There is enough tax on one BA flight alone to start the lease for a body scanner and a shared info (database) site.

Is this like UK road tax, the money never applied to the roads?

someone in govt or a willing Journo please look into this,

[unablereqnavperf]

Maybe its time to look at the root cause's of these attacks? US forgien policy and religous hatered!

All you have to do is turn on MTV and watch one or two of the shows they're pushing out around the world. Its hardly surprising that young men and women from less privilaged backgrounds/countries get wound up! Through in the odd religous school teaching hate to its flock and bingo you breed terrorists. Add in a little CNN sensationalist reporting to the mix and you then let the leadership of the terrorist groups get their message out for free!

If the US security folk had just haulled this nutter off shot him and closed down all media coverage we would have one less bad guy to worry about, and his drivers would get no publicity for their cause which would make the whole thing pointless.

However if every little crack pot attempt at blowing up an aircraft gets as much media coverage and causes our leaders to pannic as much as they are then we are allowing the bad guys the upper hand. Increased security is definately not he right answer, its already a proven fact that all this extra nonsence at airports and the bad guys still get through.

On the other hand me with a fullytracable background and clean flying record of thirty years have to almost get undressed every time I go to work, the bad guys must be rolloing around in their caves laughing at us!

[Intruder]

FWIW, AMS is one ofthe airports where full body scanners are in operation. They are at least in the crew screening area, though I don't know if they are used anywhere else. However, any "suspicious" passenger could have easily been brought over to one of them...

[Capetonian]

This might be of interest BBC News - Moscow's full body scanners in action (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8436611.stm)

[Aerofoil]

So is our gov't looking at implementing these intrusive machines on pilots and cabin crew et al also who have to go through every day?
Surely there are people/organisations who are fighting this. I think this is a step too far especially for people who are having to go through 6 days a week! I work for an airline which employs many young girls as our cabin crew many of them as young as 18 and 19 years old and these girls are to be subjected to being seen naked on a daily basis by some person working on security who they don't know and know nothing about?! I know that most security officers are good decent people and do their job as efficiently as possible (I meet them every day i go flying) however there are bound to be 'bad egg's' amonst the many and if these people are using this system with the ability to observe young female cabin crew naked with whom they share a car park at all hours of day and night can be setting a very dangerous precedent! Aside from the cabin crew having to go through this on a daily basis I don't think any of us should have to endure this intrusive process and as someone correctly said earlier in this thread its another addition to what is already a long drawn out process of catching a simple flight.

Is there anyone who is trying to prevent these things being brought in? Or a petition etc?

[paully]

Dont forget Broon is beefing up (making travel even worse) security because it is of course the `Right thing to do` :ugh:

Nothing to do with that plonker in the white house jerking his wires of course :*