"Radiation Risk Low with Whole-Body Airport Scanners"
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60553920100106
Yeh, but add this to what we already take in and what do we get? Now this is a topic that will really drive you crazy (not that I have a long ride to crazy status). Because you can't stop there...you need to know what rads we take in anywhere.
Here's an idea to make this new security step more efficient....airlines and gov security can combine their efforts....up the rads for the full body scan to provide medical grade exam and give a copy to the airline customer when they pick up their bags at the other end of security. We pay for it anyway! We might as well get something more out of it....like a medical check up while we're being frisked, etc.
No, this idea is not covered by insurance...silly you....it's only a premium for our inconveniences. And no guarantees of quality outcomes...this is just a toy in a Cracker jack box...which you can't take on the plane either.
What a world we're living through! BTW, does anyone know if our rad markers show up on this scan? I haven't read much about the details. I know that I don't set off the machines when I go thru with my metallic markers in my breast.
I'm not flying anytime soon so I didn't dig deep for the info.
Comments
-
Blundin -
I have the same question about the airport scanners. Of course they say the radiation risk is low; they also said that for CT scans a while back. But do they really KNOW? I don't know what other options there are for people in our positions. I certainly don't want to add more radiation to the huge doses I've already have.
I have surgical clips in my axilla and it's never shown up on metal detectors but I don't know what will happen should I have to walk through a scanner.
Ugh...one more thing to worry about.
E
-
I think this is going to be a real problem Given that radiation is cumulative, someone who flies one or two times a month on business could be subject to a huge amount of radiation over even the period of a year. And yes, no one really knows. Can't you see the headlines in about 10 years "Airport screening suspected as cause of increasing cancer diagnoses". I'm even considering having a prophy mast because of having so many mammos -- past, present and future.
-
I am flying in 3 weeks and I am wondering how my prosthesis will show up on the scanner. I think they will see it and then pull me aside for futher check.
Does anybody know how it will show up?
-
Lindasa --- "10 years from now....." ain't it the truth! I think I should be glowing by now with all of my exams!
Pickle141 -- I think the article said that the scanner looks only to the skin. I remember thinking ... sure then, the terrorists need only to find a way to use body cavities....like drug smugglers.
This is crazy!
-
I'm not sure if it will show up or not. I know an implant won't but I wondered about a prosthesis. I also wondered if people who have colostomy bags etc would be checked as well.
-
My understanding is that a prosthesis will show up...and I believe I read somewhere that breast implants will show up too.
I assume that one would be pulled aside with a prosthetic unless the operators have been given guidance to ignore such things if they can determine that's what it is and not something else!...and I'm expecting that I would be pulled aside with the titanium plate in my wrist. Perhaps that will distract from noticing that one boob is bigger than the other!
-
Yes, I have read as well that breast implants will show up although I don't know if this applies to sub-muscular implants or only implants used for breast enlargement that have been placed above the muscle. Hopefully it's the latter, otherwise I won't be a very happy camper. The fact that I've had breast cancer and have one breast that is all implant, and an implant in my other breast, is nobody's business. If all implants show up, regardless of placement, while I suspect that agents will be shown how to identify breast implants used for enlargement, I wonder if those of us who've had reconstruction with full breast implants will be pulled over because this wouldn't be something that the agents would be used to seeing.
And yes, I've also read that colonoscopy bags will show up. Talk about something that isn't anyone's business! I'm pretty sure that prostheses will show up too.
-
Oh great -- nothing like some idiot security person wanting to inspect your prosthesis. Are you flying into the US Pickle? I wonder if it is only international flights out of Canada that will be subjected to the scan. This is absolutely ridiculous. If someone can hide explosives in their underwear they can hide them in their bum or wherever. I can see it now -- enemas before boarding...
-
My argument with a lot of the security stuff is that it is reactive and not proactive. Someone tried to sneak something in his shoe? Now we will inspect shoes. Someone tried to bring liquid explosives on board? No one can bring any liquids.
There was an interview recently with the head of security at Ben Gurion Airport in Israel (I think the interview was in the Toronto Star but I'm not sure). He said that the most imporant thing security people at Ben Gurion are taught is to look people in the eye while talking to them. I've flown out of Ben Gurion Airport countless times and the security is the easiest to get through. It's also probably the safest in the world. I think the last time a plane was hijacked out of here was sometime in the 70's - and no, that's not an exaggeration.
Sorry, I know that's OT, but every time I read about some new security screenings I think about my aunt. She was pulled aside for an extra check. Yeah, a typical terrorist, in her late 80's and in a wheelchair, but every 7th, or 10th, or 16th passenger had to be pulled aside. Yeah, right.
Climbing off my soapbox now.
Leah
-
Here's the TSA page about the scanners. Note that they are optional and that they are putting some privacy-protection measures in place (such as they are).
http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/imaging_technology.shtm
Having lymphedema and traveling as I do with my arms wrapped like plump sausages and wearing both prosthses and a foam-stuffed compression vest that resembles nothing so much as a suicide-bomber vest, I'm used to being singled out for "special attention."
It's a great "teaching moment," and I try to have information with me about lymphedema compression garments and wraps so the security folks will be more comfortable with any lymphedema Sisters who may come after me.
How's THAT for pro-active!
Leah, I like the idea about the security folks being taught to look people in the eyes -- there's so much more to detecting trouble than mere technology!
Be well!
Binney -
binney, only you could make it a teaching moment. Good for you. You're great.
Hugs to all.
-
Apparently, there are two main types of whole-body scanners being used for security purposes: backscatter X-ray scanners, and millimeter wave scanners.
The "backscatter X-ray scanners" are the ones that beam "low-level" X-rays at a traveler and collect the rays that scatter upon impact. I have seen the backscatter X-ray method described as using "high-energy X-rays," which supposedly scatter rather than penetrate skin, and "low-energy X-rrays", that have insufficient energy to penetrate skin. The TSA website (http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/castscope.shtm) says backscatter X-rays can penetrate 1/4 inch before they get scattered. That makes it sound like they do penetrate skin (albeit slightly). You'd think the people promoting or defending the device could get their stories straight!
There also seems to be disagreement about the amount of radiation associated with backscatter X-ray scans. The TSA (http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/imaging_technology.shtm) says the amount of radiation from backscatter X-ray screening would be about the same as spending 2 minutes on a commercial airline flight. In contrast, an administrator with the U.S. Customs service was quoted in another article as having said the amount of radiation in a backscatter X-ray scan is equivalent to the exposure experienced on a two-hour airline flight: http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci1117044,00.html. That's a huge difference. A scan company website claimed the amount of radiation was just "10 microrems" (that's 0.010 millirems), compared to "up to 600 microrems" of natural exposure per day for someone living in Denver and "up to 500 microrems" per hour for commercial airline flights (http://www.securityprousa.com/rase10.html).
Here's an example of a backscatter X-ray image from http://access.nscpcdn.com/gallery/i/w/wnew_new_airport_xray/xray1.jpg. You think they'll be able to tell if you've had a mastectomy, or you're wearing a breast prosthesis?
The other type of whole-body scan is the "millimeter wave scan." It uses electromagnetic waves ("harmless radio waves"), which, when reflected from the body or other objects, are captured to create a 3-D image. The EMF exposure during a millimeter wave scan has been described as 1/10,000 the amount of exposure when using a cell phone.
Here's an example of some millimeter wave scan images from the TSA website: http://www.tsa.gov/graphics/images/approach/mmw_large.jpg. Pretty graphic, eh?
Although there is some concern about exposure to radiation and radiofrequency waves with these techniques, the main concern seems to be the privacy issue. One company's website says its scanner "offers a clear alternative to an intrusive strip search." Another security site says, "If you are still concerned about the radiation, ask if you can receive a pat down or strip search instead."
Oh. So the alternative will be a strip search? We should note that these whole-body scanning devices are already being used at dozens of airports in the U.S., and dozens more will be getting them in the near future (mostly as a result of the "underwear bomber"). They're not just being used on international travelers, though. They're being used in general screening at the airports' TSA checkpoints. Look at the TSA website for a list of the U.S. airports that have the devices.
Most of the airports that already have the scanners are using them for "secondary screening." That's when the walk-through detector and hand wands detect something that can't be resolved. So, some airline passengers are being offered a whole-body scan as an alternative to a pat-down search. Others are being required to go through the whole-body scan if they're "selected" for secondary screening. Keep in mind that pat-downs may become much more intrusive because someone was able to board multiple flights while hiding incendiary materials in the crotch of his underwear.
While most of the airports that have the whole-body scanners are using them for secondary searches, some are not. The TSA website lists 6 U.S. airports as already using them for "primary" screening. That would be everybody.
Already, I can see the miles piling up on my car's odometer.
otter
-
Thank you Otter, I was confused about the radio waves versus x-rays stuff I was reading.
-
Sure, lots better than a strip-search. You're "virtually" stripped instead but don't even have the usual legal protection of this being done by someone of the same sex. I have a feeling the privacy issue will come up more and more. Shoes are one thing, complete stripping is another.
The guy who brought the explosives on board on Christmas was already on a list of those to be watched carefully. He bought a one-way ticket in cash. He should not have been permitted to board. Security measures are worthless if they're not followed.
Leah
-
Any screening techniques are only as effective as the human beings doing the screening. That's the reason El Al has such an amazing safety record, IMO.
How many times have we gone through airport security and noticed that the "screeners" barely pay attention to us, or to our carry-on luggage. Too many darn times.....
-
When I was stationed in Turkey, every time I flew, I was put in the line for women and patted down by a woman--boobs, crotch, everywhere. Between that and the militia bearing M-16s everywhere, I felt pretty darn safe, and only a little inconvenienced. It's just the way it was. I was way more annoyed at them emptying out my carry-on, then me having to stuff it all back in quickly. Once I just layered the top of my bag with tampons and kotex. That really flustered the male screener!
Anne
-
2tzus, there was a brief (very brief) time during the "no liquids" phase after the attempted shampoo-bombing a few years ago, in which the TSA said silicon breast prostheses had to be transported in checked baggage. The reasoning was that the fake boob was filled with a gel, and a gel was a liquid, and liquids could not be taken into the passenger cabin. (I guess full bladders were exempt from that ban.)
Once things settled down a little and the "3-ounce rule" went into effect (liquids in 3-ounce containers; with only as many as could fit into a 1-quart zip-lock bag), there was still some question about silicon breast prostheses.... Did they need to go into the zip-lock bag? Did they need to be declared and shown to the TSA inspector? Could they be carried on at all?
In the end, the TSA decided not to ask women to produce their fake boobs for show-and-tell at the TSA checkpoint. Turns out, someone pointed out to the TSA (duh!) that a breast prosthesis is a medical device, prescribed by a doctor for treatment of a medical condition. And, medical devices receive some degree of "waiver" in the whole inspection process. Even so, some women put their silicon prosthesis (or prostheses) in their carry-on luggage, at the very top, just in case they need to explain things. That has made for some interesting (humorous) incidents when the carry-on bag containing the fake boob(s) is opened for hand-inspection....
otter
-
This link was posted on the "Clinical Trials/News" forum today. Apparently, the "millimeter wave" scanner can detect an implant in a reconstructed breast. The author of this article was pulled aside for additional scrutiny when the scanner saw something odd: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/06/my-left-breast-put-fancy-tsa-scanner-to-the-test/
What's really odd is that the TSA claims this scanner is only looking for metallic and non-metallic objects under clothing, outside the body. It's not supposed to "see" anything that's beneath the skin. So, the TSA said, the woman must have had something else under her clothing that the scanner saw, that necessitated the hands-on palpaption she was treated to, after the scan. But, she said, all she was wearing was a cotton tank-top under a cotton turtle-neck -- not even a bra.
<sigh>
otter
-
When I flew with my drain to a conference back in October, I packed a set of nail clippers forgetting they had a knife as well. Guess what, the scanner caught that, and they searched the luggage. They didn't search me at all.
I really don't worry about the privacy issue. Imagine bodies get b-o-r-i-n-g after the first few thousand. I do worry about missing my plane.
-
As a nurse, I can certainly agree with the idea that bodies get boring. LOL
-
Please, DON'T BELIEVE. Radiation is radiation and whenever possible, we should avoid it.
"US scientists are warning that radiation from controversial full-body airport scanners has been dangerously underestimated and could lead to an increased risk of skin cancer - particularly in children. "
I WILL NOT GO THROUGH A SCANNER. I DEMAND MY GOVERNMENT TO COME UP WITHALTERNATIVE WAYS TO DETECT EXPLOSIVES, ETC. SCANNERS VIOLATE MY PRIVACY AND EXPOSE ME TO RADIATION.
-
Please fly with other airlines than I fly.
And for a first post, this is a really far out subject to induce you to join and post. Like a fool, I clicked on the link (hope no virus!) and it's an Aussies thrill/kill site---ya, know the kind: what ever it is, is a gov't plot to take us over and rule us. But this time from down under. It did include Foxsports tho.
-
I am going to bump this thread because of the "enhanced" screening methods the TSA began using earlier this month.
As of November1, 2010, AIT (advanced imaging technology, a.k.a. "whole-body scanners") is/are being used for primary screening at more than 70 airports in the U.S. There are presently around 400 scanners in use -- either the backscatter X-ray type or the millimeter wave type. The TSA plans to have more than 1,000 scanners in place, serving all the major airports in the U.S., by the end of 2011.
"Primary screening" means some or all of the passengers who would otherwise have walked through a metal detector will be directed instead to stand in the AIT device and be scanned. The scanners use X-rays or radiofrequency waves to "see" through people's clothing, producing an image that looks ghostly but is basically a nude body. At this point, the TSA still does not require airline customers to go through the scanners -- people can choose to "opt out." However, if you decide to "opt out" and not be scanned, you will be subjected to an "enhanced pat-down." This new-style pat-down entails the agent using the front (palm) of his/her hand, plus the fingers, to explore places where no one but your spouse or doctor typically goes.
There are other circumstances, besides an "opt-out", in which a passenger might be subjected to an enhanced pat-down. Some people who have already gone through the scanner unscathed will be chosen at random (or seemingly so) to also receive an enhanced pat-down. Some people who are lucky enough to be permitted to walk through the traditional metal detector instead of being scanned, will be sent for a thorough pat-down if the metal detector beeps. (Apparently, they aren't just wanding people anymore.) And, if there is anything suspicious, unclear, or indeterminate, on the image from the scanner, the person will be subjected to a pat-down.
There's another thread about this same subject, over on the "No Reconstruction" forum. There, we've been debating whether or not the whole-body scanners are able to "see" a breast prosthesis (breast form), and what would happen if they did. We're pretty sure the answer to the first question is "yes". And, as per the new screening protocol, if something looks awry in the whole-body scan, that person gets pulled aside for an enhanced pat-down.
I am sorry I am so fixated on this. I find the whole situation abhorrent, and I WILL NOT FLY on a commercial airliner if at all possible, until the situation improves.
As for the original subject of this thread: groups representing the pilots for two major airlines in the U.S. have advised their pilots to "opt out" of the whole-body scanners and choose the enhanced pat-down instead. They are concerned about cumulative radiation pilots would receive from going through the scanners every day, plus the radiation they get anyway, just from being in the cockpit at 35,000 feet. The TSA insists there is no danger, and they cite several "trustworthy" sources. But, they refuse to release data from testing that might show how much radiation is received by the skin of someone going through the backscatter machines. Also, the public health folks point out that, although individual risk might be low, the risk at the population level might not. In other words, even if very few people would get cancer from the scanners, some would, because there is no safe level of radiation exposure. So, how much is too much?
otter
-
I don't have breast cancer, but was born with Poland's Syndrome on my right side. I chose not to have reconstructive surgery and wear a prosthesis. I'm concerned about what will show on the full body scanners and what I will have to go through in order to fly. This is a very private issue for me. My immediate family and doctors are aware of my condition, but it is not something that I talk about to others. It would be very embarrasing, uncomfortable and degrading for me to travel without my prosthesis or to have to reveal it in a public place. My husband and I have discussed this and depending on where things go I may never be able to fly again.
-
Otter, I totally agree with you that I do NOT want any additional radiation. At my local airport, they have both but I have only had to go into the wave scanner several times. (Whew). I am picking up a letter from my rad onc telling them to wave me not scatter me so we will see what happens when they pick me to be scatter-scanned. I travel monthly and more sometimes. Next trip is 12/1 - 12/6 so I will let y'all know what happens.
Not looking forward to being groped and you can bet I will get my stuff from the belt and turn on the video on my phone.
-
I have decided that anything work related that is a reasonable train ride from my house I will be taking the train.
I'd be happier if we just surrendered and went to nude flying--cabin for men, cabin for women, strip before you board, check all the clothes together and get them at the other end.
Slightly more seriously, What I care about more than me is my monsters--9, 10.5 and 13. Okay we don't have the cash to travel as much as we used to but still, now that all the airports seem to be installing these, its inevitable that my kids will be exposed. And I just don't really trust the authorities who say there is no problem with the amount of zaps--THEY ALWAYS say that--its never a problem with anything they expose us to until WHOOPS it is. My husband can remember the smell of the DDT from the truck that used to go through his neighborhood spraying for bugs. We both laugh and wonder what longterm impact that had. 10 years ago a co-worker did zaps for DCIS--a lower grade than mine---and she had 2x the number of treatments because at the time, thats what they thought was necessary. What are the odds that in 10 years they will say "whoops, guess we didn't need as much backscatter or whatever as we thought."
But by then, how much pointless radiation will my kids have been exposed to? And what is the alternative? Having your kids groped by some TSA person? Look at how that was for adults--I heard a report about an adult male airline pilot who was so shaken up by the "search" aka grope that he couldn't fly the plane. How can I put my kids through that?
What bothers me the most is that there is no proof or reason to believe it will make things any safer. As someone aptly noted, how often are they chitchatting as you go through and not even looking at your face? And yet, we must follow the rule and pull the old ladies out of line for the pat down because d@ mn it, she is person 9 today and today 9 is the number. Personally, I think the guy who smuggled the stuff in his crotch and then set himself on fire did more to protect my safety in the air than any of this: think about it--he set his "junk" on fire and lived. .. . how many men are willing to risk THAT scenario????
vent over. . . sort of. . . .
-
Madalyn, I am with you on this 100%. The question is, what will we all do about it?
-
Otter, VERY good point about the pilots! The amount of radiation they would receive flying at those levels would be very high. And THEY have to be groped too??? I can't imagine an American (or Canadian) pilot willing to blow himself up!
I think the scarier concept is that though they check us pretty thouroughly now the entire world knows that the packages are NOT scanned!!!! Stuff that is mailed, couriered, etc do NOT get scanned. That is the scariest thing I've heard about flying!! Not everyone is willing to blow themselves up by strapping on explosives or loading their luggage. How much easier it is to just mail the bomb!!! So, so scary! It was the explosives that were sent from Dubai and were caught in London, that were aimed for Chicago that started this whole issue.
I think scanning the packages that don't have people travelling with them (and even those that do!) would be a lot better use of their time than a cheap feel!!!
I must admit though, it's more common to see a "new Canadian" at the scanners....how do we don't there isn't a whole network of terrorists in place to let everyone go at once????
-
My husband heard some pilot talking on the radio about the grope/scan issue. the pilot pointed out that if he wanted to do some terrorist act, why would he need to smuggle in anything? After all, he is flying the d#$% plane!!!!!!! All he needs to do is steer down.
duh!
barbe1958, I agree completely. I watch the giant cargo ships coming in and out of the harbor from my office. None of them are checked. Why not?
-
I'm flying 12/1, and I'm very upset and scared.
I think , I will come back 12/13 and will never fly again.
It is just impossible to believe - be pat down, like in prison or get extra radiatio, and be seen not by doctor, but some uneducated folks.
People in airports just didn't do there job and now everybody punished.
Shame! And anyway here is million ways for terrorists to do what they want and we're not protected at all. When we went on a cruise- my 80 years old mom was chosen for check up...
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team