- #1
ndnkyd
- 6
- 0
Anyone know the radiation levels that are output by the full body airport scanners? I am not looking for a relative amount, but a quantitive amount. If you do not know, please don't answer.
ndnkyd said:... If you do not know, please don't answer.
drizzle said:
Who would if one doesn't know the answer to your question?
Never would happen on this forum. He must be thinking about some other forum.lisab said:I don't know.
Wikipedia said:A dose of under 100 rems is subclinical and will produce nothing other than blood changes. 100 to 200 rems will cause illness but will rarely be fatal. Doses of 200 to 1000 rems will likely cause serious illness with poor outlook at the upper end of the range. Doses of more than 1000 rems are almost invariably fatal.[4] See radiation poisoning for a more complete analysis of effects of various dosage levels.
The claimed 25mrem is a little bit optomistic - it's the equivalent dose assuming that the energy is averaged through the entire body. Since the energy here is concentrated in the skin the effective dose may be 3-4x higher.Mathnomalous said:So... people opting out of the scanner are being irrational? 25 microrems sound like a better deal than some TSA dude touching my junk
Moonbear said:...but so long as TSA is a government agency, without a search warrant, I'd argue none of these searches are legal without the passengers consenting to them.
fss said:Use of an airline flying in US airspace constitutes consent to a security screen. Legality of security screening has been challenged and does have limits (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204556804574261940842372518.html"), but the congressional mandate of the TSA to search for explosives and weapons has not been successfully challenged in court.
Gokul43201 said:At 25 microrems, you are exposed to less than a tenth of the radiation that you would absorb just by sitting for an hour in a plane flying at 25,000 feet.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/env_rpt/aser95/tb-a-2.pdf
300 mrem = Average yearly dose to people in the United States from all sources of natural background radiation
OmCheeto said:Ha ha! I just realized that if you opt out of the scan for the grope, and it delays you more than 45 minutes, you'll have received more natural radiation than the scan would have yielded.
CRGreathouse said:Think about that one a bit...
Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation present in sunlight is an environmental human carcinogen.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WXH-4B6CP1T-5&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F15%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a13c4f10eced3a784f084c41cdca71ed&searchtype=a"
OmCheeto said:But I should add that age old rule; "Wear sunscreen".
NobodySpecial said:Children are being admitted to hospital suffering from rickets (vitamin D deficency) because of paranoia about skin cancer ;-)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7995128/Vitamin-D-health-warning-for-the-children-who-shun-the-sun.html
Casualty departments are dealing with dozens of emergency cases where infants are having seizures as a direct result of not getting enough vitamin D, which is essential for healthy teeth and bones.
In one case, a baby suffered brain damage after a fit.
...
Mr Michie analysed the cases of 17 babies and infants treated at Ealing Hospital for a severe lack of vitamin D between 2006 and 2008. He found many experienced a delay in walking, a problem last common in Victorian times.
Cancer Research UK is considering changing it guidelines concerning sun exposure because of the problem.
Instead of advising people to stay out the midday sun completely, it may suggest that a few minutes exposure could be healthy.
wiki on H.G. Wells; The Time Machine said:Later in the dark, he is approached menacingly by the Morlocks, pale, apelike people who live in darkness underground, where he discovers the machinery and industry that makes the above-ground paradise possible. He alters his theory, speculating that the human race has evolved into two species: the leisured classes have become the ineffectual Eloi, and the downtrodden working classes have become the brutish light-fearing Morlocks.
Always thought that Wells had those the wrong way around - he probably needed to get out more!the leisured classes have become the ineffectual Eloi, and the downtrodden working classes have become the brutish light-fearing Morlocks.
The short answer is no. The scanners used in airports, specifically the millimeter wave scanners, emit a very low amount of radiation. They are designed to only penetrate the skin by a few millimeters, making them safe for use on humans.
Airport scanners use either millimeter wave technology or backscatter X-ray technology. Millimeter wave scanners emit low-energy radio waves that are reflected off the body and create an image. Backscatter X-ray scanners use a small amount of X-rays to create an image of the body's surface. Both types of scanners are considered safe and have been tested extensively for any potential health risks.
There is currently no evidence to suggest that there is a limit to how many times a person can go through an airport scanner. The amount of radiation emitted by these scanners is so low that even frequent travelers do not need to worry about any potential health risks.
Yes, pregnant women can go through airport scanners without any concerns. The amount of radiation emitted is considered safe for both the mother and the developing fetus. However, if a pregnant woman has concerns or would like to avoid going through the scanner, they can request a pat-down instead.
Yes, if a passenger does not want to go through the airport scanner, they can request a pat-down instead. This involves a TSA agent using their hands to check for any prohibited items. It is important to note that the pat-down process is also considered safe and has been thoroughly tested for any potential health risks.