Radiation risk low with whole-body airport scanners

Related Topics

A flight passenger steps into a full-body scanner at the security point of the departure gate at Nice Cote D'Azur International airport in Nice, southeastern France, December 31, 2009. REUTERS/Eric Gaillard

A flight passenger steps into a full-body scanner at the security point of the departure gate at Nice Cote D'Azur International airport in Nice, southeastern France, December 31, 2009.

Credit: Reuters/Eric Gaillard

CHICAGO | Wed Jan 6, 2010 4:43pm EST

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The radiation risk from full-body scanners used to improve airport security is low and unlikely to raise an individual's risk of cancer, U.S. experts said on Wednesday.

Airports in Britain, the Netherlands and Canada have said they plan to use full-body scanners to foil future terror attempts like the Christmas Day attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound flight.

The United States has tested 40 whole-body scanners as part of a pilot program started after the September 11 attacks, and this past October ordered 150 more.

There are two types of machines -- millimeter wavelength imaging and backscatter X-ray scanners. Both are used to see under clothes and identify unusual objects.

Only one -- backscatter X-ray machines -- expose individuals to ionizing radiation such as that used in common medical X-rays.

But the radiation levels are well below the threshold that could be considered a risk to an individual's health, said Dr. James Thrall of the American College of Radiology and chief of radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

"All of the concerns that we have about the medical use of X-rays really don't apply to these devices," Thrall said in a telephone interview.

"The exposure is extremely low and the energy of the X-rays is also very, very low," he said.

"When X-rays are used for medical imaging purposes, they have to be energetic enough to get through the human body. The X-rays used in the backscatter machines in airports have such low energy that they literally bounce off the skin. That is what backscatter implies," Thrall said.

WAVE SCANNERS AROUND THE U.S.

The United States has 40 millimeter wave scanners now in use in 19 U.S. airports. Six machines are used for primary screening at six airports, and 34 machines are used for secondary, or random screening, as an alternative to a pat down at 13 airports.

Millimeter wave scanners beam radio waves over the body to create a three-dimensional image.

Backscatter-type machines, which cost between $150,000 and $180,000, use low-level radiation to create a two-sided image.

Such scanners only become somewhat worrisome when they are used as the primary method of scanning passengers, said David Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center.

"From an individual's point of view, the risks are going to be small," Brenner said in a phone interview.

"If very large numbers of people would be exposed to a small risk, then you've got a population problem."

As for the actual radiation dose, he said the typical backscatter machines deliver about 0.1 microsevert of radiation. The average chest X-ray, by comparison, delivers 100 microseverts of radiation, and a chest computed tomography or CT scan delivers 10,000 microseverts.

According to the Transportation Security Administration website, the radiation dose from a single scan on a backscatter machine is the equivalent of two minutes of flying on an airplane.

Brenner said that as with medical scans, the benefits of the scan need to outweigh the risks. "If the benefit means we're safer, then that probably outweighs the potential risk," he said.

(Editing by Philip Barbara)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (7)
robbarish wrote:
What is missing from this discussion is the fact that the increased cosmic radiation dose rates at airliner altitudes gives every passenger a whole-body dose of radiation equal to that from the x-ray scanners EVERY MINUTE that they are at cruising altitude. So the dose from the scanner is totally inconsequential.

Robert J. Barish, PhD
Author: The Invisible Passenger: Radiation Risks for People Who Fly

Jan 06, 2010 7:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
itzajob wrote:
This conclusion assumes that the scanners are properly calibrated, and that the described scanners are the ones that will actually be deployed around the world.

Recently, it was extensively reported that an entire series of medical scanners in use in hospitals throughout the U.S. was improperly calibrated, causing thousands of patients to receive dangerous doses of radiation.

And if you’ve ever put your pre-digital film through a “film-safe” x-ray machine in a 2nd or 3rd world airport, you know that these machines deliver a much higher dose than those deployed in the U.S. and Europe, and that they are not, in fact, “film safe”.

Why should anyone believe that airport full body scanners will be any different from these?

Jan 06, 2010 9:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
hanleym wrote:
www.xrayrisk.com has more information about radiation and cancer risk.

Jan 06, 2010 9:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.