Full-Body Scanners: Airports' Danger Or Necessary Security?

Airport body scanners have been a topic of concern for travellers, with many worrying about their radiation exposure. In the past, two types of full-body scanners were used: millimeter-wave scanners and backscatter X-ray scanners. While millimeter-wave scanners are considered safe, backscatter X-ray scanners were controversial due to privacy and health concerns. The backscatter X-ray scanners, which produced detailed body images, were deemed unnecessary and potentially dangerous by experts. These scanners were banned in Europe and later in the US by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) due to possible health risks, particularly for frequent flyers. However, the TSA did not explicitly acknowledge health concerns as the reason for discontinuing their use. Today, millimeter-wave scanners are widely used and are considered safe by experts, as they emit very low levels of radiation that do not penetrate beyond clothing. While some theoretical concerns have been raised about the less powerful forms of radiation emitted, the dose is extremely low and infrequent, making it unlikely to pose a significant health risk.

Full-body scanners use non-ionising radiation, which cannot damage DNA

There are two types of full-body scanners: millimeter-wave scanners and backscatter X-ray scanners. Millimeter-wave scanners, which are currently used in Canadian airports, emit extremely low-energy waves and capture the reflected energy. The waves are so low in energy that they barely penetrate deeper than your clothes. The amount of radiation emitted by these scanners is comparable to that of a microwave or smartphone and is believed to be harmful only when powerful enough to cause molecular changes.

Backscatter X-ray scanners, on the other hand, use ionizing radiation, which has the potential to cause biological damage and increase cancer risk at moderate to higher doses. However, the dose of radiation emitted by these scanners is exceedingly low, and the risk of harm is considered trivial. The amount of radiation from a single scan is equivalent to the radiation exposure from 3-9 minutes of flying.

While some experts have raised concerns about the potential cancer risks associated with full-body scanners, especially the backscatter X-ray scanners, the consensus is that the risks are extremely small and trivial. Passengers should not be concerned about their health when passing through these scanners.

The amount of radiation emitted by airport scanners is tiny

Millimetre-wave scanners emit extremely low-energy waves, delivering a small fraction of the energy of a cell phone. The scanners capture the reflected energy. The amount of radiation emitted is so low that it is not known whether there is any potential for harm.

In the US, backscatter X-ray scanners were previously used, which did emit ionizing radiation. However, these scanners were banned in 2013, and the current scanners emit far less radiation. According to Dr. Lewis Nelson, professor and chair of emergency medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, the dose of radiation from airport scanners is "so tiny that it's inconsequential".

To put it into perspective, a chest X-ray exposes patients to roughly 1,000 times the radiation of an airport scanner. The Health Physics Society estimates that airport scanners deliver 0.1 microsieverts of radiation per scan, while a typical chest X-ray delivers 100 microsieverts. Furthermore, travellers are exposed to far more radiation during the flight itself than they are from the scanners.

Therefore, while it is understandable that people may have concerns about radiation exposure, the amount emitted by airport scanners is negligible and poses no risk to human health and safety.

The radiation from airport scanners is similar to that emitted by mobile devices

The radiation emitted by airport body scanners is a topic of concern for travellers, especially in light of warnings from healthcare providers about the risks of medical X-rays. However, it's important to understand that the radiation from airport scanners is similar to that emitted by mobile devices and other everyday items.

Firstly, it's crucial to distinguish between the two types of full-body scanners used in airports: millimeter-wave scanners and backscatter X-ray scanners. Millimeter-wave scanners, which are the standard technology in US airports today, emit extremely low-energy waves, similar to those produced by mobile phones. These scanners use non-ionizing radiation, which means it lacks the energy to cause DNA damage. The waves are reflected off the body and cannot penetrate deeper than clothing.

On the other hand, backscatter X-ray scanners, which were previously used in some airports, utilized ionizing radiation, similar to medical X-rays. This type of radiation can cause biological damage at moderate to high doses. However, the dose emitted by backscatter scanners was still very low, estimated to be about 10% of a chest X-ray.

To put it into perspective, a typical chest X-ray delivers around 1,000 times more radiation than an airport scanner. Additionally, travellers are exposed to significantly more radiation during the flight itself than they are during the security screening. The radiation from an airport scanner is comparable to the radiation emitted by everyday items like granite countertops, bananas, and even the air we breathe.

While some experts acknowledge a potential, but very small, cancer risk associated with backscatter X-ray scanners, the consensus is that the radiation exposure from airport scanners is insignificant and should not be a cause for concern. The radiation dose is so low that it is challenging to accurately estimate any potential health risks.

In summary, while airport body scanners do emit radiation, the level and type of radiation are similar to that encountered in everyday life from sources like mobile devices and natural background radiation. The doses are well below the threshold for adverse health effects, and travellers should feel safe stepping inside these scanners.

The radiation from a single chest X-ray is roughly 1,000 times greater than that of an airport scanner

The radiation emitted by airport scanners is a topic that has attracted much attention and discussion. The level of radiation exposure from airport scanners is a key concern, especially when compared to other sources of radiation.

The radiation dose from a single chest X-ray is approximately 1,000 times higher than that of an airport scanner. This means that an individual would need to undergo 1,000 airport scans to match the radiation exposure of a single chest X-ray. The context of this comparison is important to understand. Firstly, the radiation dose from a chest X-ray is considered safe and medically necessary for diagnostic purposes. Secondly, the frequency of undergoing chest X-rays is typically much lower than passing through airport security. Therefore, the cumulative radiation exposure from airport scanners is still relatively low compared to other sources.

To put it into perspective, the radiation exposure from a single dental X-ray is equivalent to 50 airport scans, while a mammogram would require 1,000 airport scans to reach the same level. These examples highlight that even within the medical context, radiation doses can vary significantly depending on the procedure.

The type of radiation emitted by airport scanners is also crucial to consider. Airport scanners, particularly the millimetre-wave scanners, emit non-ionizing radiation. This type of radiation does not have sufficient energy to cause DNA damage or increase the risk of cancer. In contrast, ionizing radiation, such as X-rays used in medical imaging, has higher energy levels and can pose potential health risks at moderate to high doses. However, it's important to note that even ionizing radiation from airport scanners is at such a low dose that its potential for harm is uncertain.

The risks associated with airport scanners are minuscule compared to the radiation exposure during air travel. The radiation dose from a single airport scan is equivalent to the radiation received during one to three minutes of flight time. Therefore, the additional exposure from the scanner is negligible compared to the overall radiation exposure during the flight.

In summary, while the radiation from a chest X-ray is significantly higher than that of an airport scanner, it is important to consider the context of frequency and the type of radiation involved. Airport scanners, especially millimetre-wave scanners, emit non-ionizing radiation that does not pose a significant health risk. The radiation exposure from air travel itself is a more significant contributor to overall radiation dose.

Airport scanners are safe for pregnant women and babies

Pregnant women can be understandably concerned about the potential effects of airport security scanners on their unborn child. However, according to medical professionals and official sources, airport scanning procedures that use metal detectors are considered safe for pregnant women and their babies.

Firstly, it is important to note that the radiation emitted by airport scanners is of very low intensity and is not harmful to pregnant women or their unborn children. The level of radiation exposure is lower than that of a typical cellphone and is comparable to the amount of cosmic radiation received during two minutes of flight. The scanners use non-ionizing electromagnetic waves that are reflected off the body and do not penetrate the skin. As a result, there is no risk of harm to the fetus or the mother.

Additionally, the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) in the United States conducts a variety of tests to ensure that their Advanced Imaging Technology and walk-through metal detector systems are safe for all passengers, including pregnant women. The Center for Devices and Radiological Health of the Food and Drug Administration has also conducted research concluding that it is safe for everyone, including pregnant women, to go through these machines.

For those who are still concerned, it is possible to opt out of going through the scanners and instead request a pat-down search. This search will be conducted by a female security officer and will involve a thorough hand search of the body, including the breasts and belly, to check for any hidden weapons. It is important to note that opting for a pat-down search may take considerably longer than the regular scanning process, so arriving at the airport early is advised.

In conclusion, airport scanners are safe for pregnant women and their unborn babies. The low-intensity radiation emitted by the scanners does not penetrate the skin and therefore cannot harm the fetus. Additionally, official sources and medical professionals confirm that the scanners are safe, and alternative search methods are available for those who are still concerned.

Frequently asked questions