Are Airport X-Ray Scanners Safe For Travelers?

Airport X-ray scanners have been a topic of debate for years, with some experts arguing that they are harmful due to the radiation exposure, while others claim that the radiation dose is too low to cause any damage. On one hand, it is true that X-rays are known to cause cancer, and there is valid concern about the potential risks associated with the use of backscatter X-ray scanners in airports. On the other hand, reports from reputable organisations suggest that the radiation exposure from airport scans is extremely low and that the cancer risk is truly trivial.

The radiation exposure from airport X-ray scanners is extremely low

In fact, the dose from an airport scan is about 100,000 times lower than the average annual dose of radiation we are exposed to from natural background radiation and medical sources. This means that the cancer risk from airport scanners has been called "truly trivial".

While X-rays are known to cause cancer, the risk from airport scanners is very small. According to Dr Francis Marre, former director of radiation safety at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, there is "no known risk" from being scanned. The radiation exposure from a scan is far below the danger threshold.

Additionally, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement has reported that a traveler would need to experience 2,500 backscatter scans per year to reach what they classify as a "Negligible Individual Dose". While some people may still be concerned about the potential risks of airport scanners, it is important to put this risk into context with other sources of radiation exposure.

The cancer risk from airport X-ray scanners is truly trivial

The cancer risk from airport X-ray scanners is often described as "truly trivial". This is because the radiation exposure from these scanners is extremely low.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) uses backscatter technology, which works by hitting a passenger with low-dose X-ray radiation to produce an image that can reveal weapons and explosives. The average radiation exposure for each scan is about .15 microsieverts, which is much less than what you're exposed to during a dental X-ray or a cross-country flight. According to the American College of Radiology and the American Roentgen Ray Society, an airline passenger flying across the country is exposed to more naturally-occurring cosmic radiation from the flight than from an X-ray body scanner.

The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement has reported that a traveler would need to experience 2,500 backscatter scans per year to reach what they classify as a "Negligible Individual Dose". This is far more than the average person would encounter, even pilots who go through security hundreds of times a year.

While no amount of X-ray exposure is considered beneficial, the levels emitted by airport scanners are generally considered safe. The risk of cancer from these scanners is extremely small, and the chance of being harmed by them is very low unless you are exposed to them frequently.

It's worth noting that there is some disagreement among experts on the exact level of risk posed by airport X-ray scanners. Some argue that the dosage may be higher than what is typically quoted, especially for the skin on the scalp, which receives a higher dose of radiation. Additionally, there are concerns about the potential for increased risk when a large number of people are exposed to these scanners. However, the consensus is that the risk of cancer from airport X-ray scanners is minimal.

The radiation exposure from flying is much higher than that of airport scanners

While the use of X-ray scanners in airports has raised concerns about potential health risks, the radiation exposure from flying is significantly higher than that of the scanners themselves.

The radiation dose received during a flight at 35,000 feet is approximately 5 microsieverts per hour, which is at least 100 times greater than the radiation emitted by airport X-ray scanners, estimated to be between 0.02 to 0.03 microsieverts. This means that even with multiple scans, the radiation exposure remains relatively low in comparison to flying.

The higher radiation exposure during flight is due to the increased altitude, which results in greater exposure to naturally occurring cosmic radiation. This radiation is always present in our environment, but its intensity increases with height. For example, a flight from New York to Los Angeles can expose passengers to between 3 and 4 millirems of radiation, which is 300 to 400 times higher than the radiation from an airport scanner.

The potential health risks associated with radiation exposure have been a subject of debate. While some experts argue that the radiation from airport scanners is too low to cause significant harm, others suggest that frequent exposure or specific vulnerabilities, such as pre-existing health conditions or gene mutations, may increase the risk. Additionally, the cumulative effect of radiation exposure from various sources, including medical procedures and natural background radiation, should be considered.

In conclusion, while the radiation exposure from airport scanners may be relatively low, the radiation received during air travel is significantly higher. This information highlights the importance of understanding the risks associated with radiation exposure and the need to weigh the benefits of security measures against potential health concerns.

The radiation exposure from a dental X-ray is much higher than that of airport scanners

Airport body scanners, also known as advanced imaging technology (AIT), were introduced as a primary screening modality by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the United States in 2009. The two main types of airport body scanners are backscatter X-ray scanners and millimeter wave scanners. Backscatter X-ray scanners use low doses of ionizing radiation, which can break apart molecules and potentially cause harm, to create a computerized image of the entire body. However, the dose is so low that it is challenging to estimate the actual health risks. In contrast, millimeter wave scanners use non-ionizing radiation, which is considered safer, and emit high-frequency electromagnetic waves to generate images.

According to experts, the radiation exposure from airport X-ray scanners is extremely small and the cancer risk is "truly trivial". Dr. Lewis Nelson, a professor at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, states that the amount of radiation from an airport X-ray is tiny compared to a medical X-ray. Specifically, a chest X-ray exposes patients to about 1,000 times more radiation than an airport scanner. The Health Physics Society estimates that airport X-ray scanners emit 0.1 microsieverts of radiation per scan, while a typical chest X-ray delivers 100 microsieverts. This means that it would take over 50 airport scans to equal the radiation exposure of a single dental X-ray.

Furthermore, a report by the British Institute of Radiology and the Royal College of Radiologists found that the radiation dose from an airport scan is 100,000 times lower than the average annual dose of radiation we receive from natural background radiation and medical sources. Dr. Peter Riley, a consultant radiologist and lead author of the report, concludes that the risk is tiny and should not deter people from flying.

While there is some disagreement among experts regarding the potential risks of airport scanners, the weight of evidence suggests that the radiation exposure from a dental X-ray is significantly higher and more concerning.

The radiation exposure from a chest X-ray is much higher than that of airport scanners

Airport body scanners use two types of technology: backscatter X-ray scanners and millimetre wave body scanners. Backscatter X-ray scanners emit low doses of ionising radiation, which is strong enough to break apart molecules, but not enough to cause harm to the human body. In fact, the radiation dose from an airport backscatter X-ray scanner is 0.02 to 0.03 microsieverts, while a typical chest X-ray delivers 100 microsieverts of radiation.

Millimetre wave body scanners, on the other hand, use electromagnetic waves to generate images. This type of radiation is considered non-ionising, meaning it does not have enough energy to knock electrons away from atoms. Instead, it heats up molecules. The frequencies of the waves used by millimetre wave scanners are measured in tens of gigahertz, and the radiation they emit is thousands of times lower than that of a cell phone.

While there is some debate among experts about the potential risks of airport scanners, the general consensus is that the radiation exposure is extremely small and the cancer risk is "truly trivial". According to the British Institute of Radiology and the Royal College of Radiologists, the dose from an airport scan is 100,000 times lower than the average annual dose of radiation we receive from natural background radiation and medical sources.

In comparison, a chest X-ray delivers a much higher dose of radiation. While the specific dose may vary depending on the machine and the procedure, a chest X-ray typically exposes patients to 1,000 times more radiation than an airport scanner. Therefore, it is safe to say that the radiation exposure from a chest X-ray is much higher than that of airport scanners.

Frequently asked questions