Enough Radiation Already...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enough Radiation Already...
In a few months airports worldwide will be installing the new 'Body Scanner' X-ray machines. They will subject each passenger to approximately 5 microsieverts of radiation per exposure. As an example, on a longhaul flight we absorb approximately 20-25 sieverts. Basically, we are now going to up our radiation exposure by approximately 20 -25%. This will raise the cancer expectations by approximately 10% over a lifetime. What is the AOA/company going to do (never mind the entire airline industry) to protect it's employees from this notable health threat? Surely a crewmember who is on a precleared list should be exempt from this new intrusion. Pilots already have a much higher incidence of skin cancers and other forms of cancer than nearly any other professional group. Do not underestimate the threat to your health that this new security procedure will represent. Now is the time to insist on proper protections for our health and welfare.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I second that
I agree with you something has to be done. I do not know of another work place where something like this would be installed and the health risks ignored. If I get a regional roster and have to go through these 10 or 15 times per month, there is no question there will be long term health risks.
Let's do the research and get some anwers before they are all installed and it is too late !!
FG
Let's do the research and get some anwers before they are all installed and it is too late !!
FG
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: England
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a start the vast vast majority do not emit any kind of ionising radiation whatsoever. They essentially use sonar (it being too late to explain more).
Secondly, your information regarding doses is catastrophically incorrect. You say that in a flight we receive 20-25 sieverts. Anything over 10 sieverts and there is a 100% death rate within 7 days. The best medical care in the world couldn't save you.
You state that during a scan we will receive a typical amount of 5 microsieverts - the actual figure is 1-5 based on studies by the European Commission and the U.N. nuclear agency. This means a maximum dose of 0.000005 sieverts per scan.
Nothing.
Secondly, your information regarding doses is catastrophically incorrect. You say that in a flight we receive 20-25 sieverts. Anything over 10 sieverts and there is a 100% death rate within 7 days. The best medical care in the world couldn't save you.
You state that during a scan we will receive a typical amount of 5 microsieverts - the actual figure is 1-5 based on studies by the European Commission and the U.N. nuclear agency. This means a maximum dose of 0.000005 sieverts per scan.
Nothing.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: HONG KONG
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you get to one of these new machines grab the plastic box and take everything off and pop it all in the box and then wave to security and ask permission to walk around the scanner.
That should ensure that you are never at risk of getting extra radiation for the foreseeable future.
That should ensure that you are never at risk of getting extra radiation for the foreseeable future.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: HK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toe Knee,
Great idea ... being charged for public indecency will probably also get your US crew visa revoked - so problem solved.
Great idea ... being charged for public indecency will probably also get your US crew visa revoked - so problem solved.
Last edited by Base Vacancy; 6th Feb 2010 at 14:04.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skittles, why confuse your opinion with the facts huh? Here is a story from Associated Press yesterday. As you can see, these new machines use 'backscatter RADIATION'. They give you a dose equivelant to 20 - 25% of a usual longhaul flight. Any more questions.
ps. AirProfit mistakenly said 'sieverts' instead of 'microsieverts' in the second mention of this in his quote. I think you could have seen his error for what it was. You were COMPLETELY incorrect in saying there is NO radiation risk. I think 20% of a longhaul flight is significant, especially if you are planning on a 30+ year career.
pps. If you say it's 'basically nothing'....then why do they say that pregnant women and children should not use the machine?
ppps. As you can see, the article states that 'frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to a raised cancer risk. So....you propose we just ignore all of that huh?
-------------
Airport Body Scanning Raises Radiation Exposure, Committee Says Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A
By Jonathan Tirone
Feb. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Air passengers should be made aware of the health risks of airport body screenings and governments must explain any decision to expose the public to higher levels of cancer-causing radiation, an inter-agency report said.
Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, even though the radiation dose from body scanners is “extremely small,” said the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety report, which is restricted to the agencies concerned and not meant for public circulation. The group includes the European Commission, International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and the World Health Organization.
A more accurate assessment about the health risks of the screening won’t be possible until governments decide whether all passengers will be systematically scanned or randomly selected, the report said. Governments must justify the additional risk posed to passengers, and should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”
President Barack Obama has pledged $734 million to deploy airport scanners that use x-rays and other technology to detect explosives, guns and other contraband. The U.S. and European countries including the U.K. have been deploying more scanners at airports after the attempted bombing on Christmas Day of a Detroit-bound Northwest airline flight.
“There is little doubt that the doses from the backscatter x-ray systems being proposed for airport security purposes are very low,” Health Protection Agency doctor Michael Clark said by phone from Didcot, England. “The issue raised by the report is that even though doses from the systems are very low, they feel there is still a need for countries to justify exposures.”
3-D Imaging
A backscatter x-ray is a machine that can render a three- dimensional image of people by scanning them for as long as 8 seconds, the report says. The technology has also raised privacy issues in countries including Germany because it yields images of the naked body.
The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Most of the scanners deliver less radiation than a passenger is likely to receive from cosmic rays while airborne, the report said. Scanned passengers may absorb from 0.1 to 5 microsieverts of radiation compared with 5 microsieverts on a flight from Dublin to Paris and 30 microsieverts between Frankfurt and Bangkok, the report said. A sievert is a unit of measure for radiation.
European Union regulators plan to finish a study in April on the effects of scanning technology on travelers’ privacy and health. Amsterdam, Heathrow and Manchester are among European airports that have installed the devices or plan to do so.
The U.S. Transportation Security Administration has said that it ordered 150 scanners from OSI Systems Inc.’s Rapiscan unit and will buy an additional 300 imaging devices this year. The agency currently uses 40 machines, which cost $130,000 to $170,000 each, produced by L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. at 19 airports including San Francisco, Atlanta and Washington D.C.
ps. AirProfit mistakenly said 'sieverts' instead of 'microsieverts' in the second mention of this in his quote. I think you could have seen his error for what it was. You were COMPLETELY incorrect in saying there is NO radiation risk. I think 20% of a longhaul flight is significant, especially if you are planning on a 30+ year career.
pps. If you say it's 'basically nothing'....then why do they say that pregnant women and children should not use the machine?
ppps. As you can see, the article states that 'frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to a raised cancer risk. So....you propose we just ignore all of that huh?
-------------
Airport Body Scanning Raises Radiation Exposure, Committee Says Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A
By Jonathan Tirone
Feb. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Air passengers should be made aware of the health risks of airport body screenings and governments must explain any decision to expose the public to higher levels of cancer-causing radiation, an inter-agency report said.
Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, even though the radiation dose from body scanners is “extremely small,” said the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety report, which is restricted to the agencies concerned and not meant for public circulation. The group includes the European Commission, International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and the World Health Organization.
A more accurate assessment about the health risks of the screening won’t be possible until governments decide whether all passengers will be systematically scanned or randomly selected, the report said. Governments must justify the additional risk posed to passengers, and should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”
President Barack Obama has pledged $734 million to deploy airport scanners that use x-rays and other technology to detect explosives, guns and other contraband. The U.S. and European countries including the U.K. have been deploying more scanners at airports after the attempted bombing on Christmas Day of a Detroit-bound Northwest airline flight.
“There is little doubt that the doses from the backscatter x-ray systems being proposed for airport security purposes are very low,” Health Protection Agency doctor Michael Clark said by phone from Didcot, England. “The issue raised by the report is that even though doses from the systems are very low, they feel there is still a need for countries to justify exposures.”
3-D Imaging
A backscatter x-ray is a machine that can render a three- dimensional image of people by scanning them for as long as 8 seconds, the report says. The technology has also raised privacy issues in countries including Germany because it yields images of the naked body.
The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Most of the scanners deliver less radiation than a passenger is likely to receive from cosmic rays while airborne, the report said. Scanned passengers may absorb from 0.1 to 5 microsieverts of radiation compared with 5 microsieverts on a flight from Dublin to Paris and 30 microsieverts between Frankfurt and Bangkok, the report said. A sievert is a unit of measure for radiation.
European Union regulators plan to finish a study in April on the effects of scanning technology on travelers’ privacy and health. Amsterdam, Heathrow and Manchester are among European airports that have installed the devices or plan to do so.
The U.S. Transportation Security Administration has said that it ordered 150 scanners from OSI Systems Inc.’s Rapiscan unit and will buy an additional 300 imaging devices this year. The agency currently uses 40 machines, which cost $130,000 to $170,000 each, produced by L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. at 19 airports including San Francisco, Atlanta and Washington D.C.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: England
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess my 3 years studying radiation oncology were wasted, since I am clearly confronted with someone of a higher intellect.
You post that from Frankfurt to Bangkok a passenger is exposed to 30 microsieverts. Since you asked whether I have any questions, perhaps you could show me how 0.1 (or even 5, the highest dose recorded, for that matter) is 20-25% of 30?
Furthermore,a lot of the machines do not use backscatter radiation (there's two types of machines).
It's amazing how pitifully condascending people can be. Perhaps next time you can do modicum of research before you reply in such a patronising manner.
http://www.rapiscansystems.com/datas...000_Screen.pdf
You post that from Frankfurt to Bangkok a passenger is exposed to 30 microsieverts. Since you asked whether I have any questions, perhaps you could show me how 0.1 (or even 5, the highest dose recorded, for that matter) is 20-25% of 30?
Furthermore,a lot of the machines do not use backscatter radiation (there's two types of machines).
It's amazing how pitifully condascending people can be. Perhaps next time you can do modicum of research before you reply in such a patronising manner.
http://www.rapiscansystems.com/datas...000_Screen.pdf
Last edited by Skittles; 6th Feb 2010 at 18:23.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skittles...you're the one being condescending. You don't answer the question. If it's 'safe' as you seem to claim, then why the warning to pregnant women and children? Furthermore, you claim that the 'vast majority' do not use radiation. A quick look at the net shows that the machines being installed in the USA all use backscatter radiation. Of course, you being the worlds leading authority on the subject means all this can be ignored....
ps. of course, let's use the manufacturers information to reassure us as to it's 'safety'. How do you spell gullible...?
ps. of course, let's use the manufacturers information to reassure us as to it's 'safety'. How do you spell gullible...?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: England
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado I assume you ignore the stall speeds of all the aircraft you fly? I assume you ignore the safety instructions on electrical appliances you purchase? Gullible to believe the manufacturers recommendations?
Constantly on this site people moan about the quality of journalism in aviation (and rightly so), yet in this thread it seems that the local rag is the equivalent of a peer reviewed publication.
In terms of women and children, given that independant bodies (not the manufacturer) have proven the tiny tiny dose administered isn't even 10% of that of a long haul flight, what exactly do I have to prove? Surely the fact that during the flight you will receive potentially 10/20/30 times more shows that it is a stupid concern?
If you are concerned about radiation affecting the pregant and children, then ban all pregnant women and children from flying. In fact ban them from living in areas which are well above sea level. Also ban them from saturated fat, the birth control pill, radio masts, power lines, weed killer, shaving under their arms, chewing gum, burnt food, mobile phones, coffee, peanuts, deodorants.....
I suggest you read beyond the press, for example the report released by Renate Czarwinski, who is head of radiation safety and monitoring at the International Atomic Energy Agency. If he and his agency say it's harmless, I'm inclined to agree with him. Then again I am apparently gullible....
Constantly on this site people moan about the quality of journalism in aviation (and rightly so), yet in this thread it seems that the local rag is the equivalent of a peer reviewed publication.
In terms of women and children, given that independant bodies (not the manufacturer) have proven the tiny tiny dose administered isn't even 10% of that of a long haul flight, what exactly do I have to prove? Surely the fact that during the flight you will receive potentially 10/20/30 times more shows that it is a stupid concern?
If you are concerned about radiation affecting the pregant and children, then ban all pregnant women and children from flying. In fact ban them from living in areas which are well above sea level. Also ban them from saturated fat, the birth control pill, radio masts, power lines, weed killer, shaving under their arms, chewing gum, burnt food, mobile phones, coffee, peanuts, deodorants.....
I suggest you read beyond the press, for example the report released by Renate Czarwinski, who is head of radiation safety and monitoring at the International Atomic Energy Agency. If he and his agency say it's harmless, I'm inclined to agree with him. Then again I am apparently gullible....
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knows it !
Skitter :
Since you got the degree maybe you can explain to the rest of us dolts what the difference between cosmic (solar) radiation and back scatter or sonar radiation is ?
You seem to be comparing apples and oranges.
The fact is, the modern scientific world has no definitive guage as to how much solar radiation is bad. They have guidelines for terrestrialy produced radiation and the resultant statistical occurence of disease. However , there has been no difinitive research done for solar. If I am wrong please point me to the studies. I am not talking about the tracking study they did in the U.S. , I am talking about a long term study of those of us exposed to solar radiation.
So despite the fact you are ok with exposing yourself, (so to speak) you cannot say what that exposure will or will not, result in. Getting an X-ray is safe, if you are not doing it twice per day, 240 plus times per year. The worry is cummulative exposure.
That makes those of us who spend a good deal of time above 350 and above 60degN, flying Lab Rats.
FG
Since you got the degree maybe you can explain to the rest of us dolts what the difference between cosmic (solar) radiation and back scatter or sonar radiation is ?
You seem to be comparing apples and oranges.
The fact is, the modern scientific world has no definitive guage as to how much solar radiation is bad. They have guidelines for terrestrialy produced radiation and the resultant statistical occurence of disease. However , there has been no difinitive research done for solar. If I am wrong please point me to the studies. I am not talking about the tracking study they did in the U.S. , I am talking about a long term study of those of us exposed to solar radiation.
So despite the fact you are ok with exposing yourself, (so to speak) you cannot say what that exposure will or will not, result in. Getting an X-ray is safe, if you are not doing it twice per day, 240 plus times per year. The worry is cummulative exposure.
That makes those of us who spend a good deal of time above 350 and above 60degN, flying Lab Rats.
FG
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skitter. Obviously your so intelligent that a mere pleb like me shouldn't even bother engaging you in a debate. So, that being the case, you go ahead and feel free to absorb all the nice little radioactive particles that you can. The rest of us will try our best to limit the same. The fact that they can't even determine whether or not cell phones cause cancer means that you, and all the other 'experts' like you really don't know squat. You still haven't answered the question: if it's so safe...why are they warning pregnant women and children to avoid the scanners...? 
