Airport Scanners: Radiation Exposure Risks For Travelers

Airport body scanners have been a topic of debate for years, with many people expressing concerns about the amount of radiation they emit and the potential health risks associated with exposure. Two types of full-body scanners are currently in use around the world: backscatter scanners and millimeter-wave scanners. Backscatter scanners emit low-energy X-rays that bounce off the skin and items under clothing to create an image, while millimeter-wave scanners use radiofrequency waves to generate images. While the radiation exposure from airport scanners is minimal compared to other sources of radiation, such as dental X-rays or chest X-rays, there are still concerns about the potential health impact, especially for frequent flyers and vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant women.

Full-body scanners emit low-energy X-rays or radio waves to detect prohibited items

Full-body scanners are used in airports to ensure that passengers do not carry prohibited items, such as weapons and explosives, aboard an aircraft. There are two types of full-body scanners: backscatter scanners and millimeter wave scanners.

Backscatter scanners emit low-energy X-rays towards the person being scanned. The X-rays bounce off the skin of a person and any items under their clothing, and are then detected by the scanner to create an image. Because these X-rays are very low energy, they do not penetrate the body and, as a result, the person being scanned only receives a very low dose of radiation.

Millimeter wave scanners, on the other hand, use radiofrequency (RF) waves instead of X-rays. These are also non-ionizing and of low intensity, meaning there are no health risks associated with these scans. The RF energy is reflected back from the body and from any objects concealed on the body to produce a generic image indicating areas requiring additional search.

The radiation emitted by full-body scanners is extremely low compared to other sources of radiation, such as dental X-rays or chest X-rays. According to the Health Physics Society, airport X-ray scanners deliver 0.1 microsieverts of radiation per scan, while a typical chest X-ray delivers 100 microsieverts of radiation.

While there is ongoing debate about the safety of full-body scanners, particularly regarding the risk of cancer, especially for children and at-risk populations, several radiation safety authorities, including the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the Health Physics Society, and the American College of Radiology, have stated that they are "not aware of any evidence" that full-body scans are unsafe.

The radiation exposure is minimal and does not cause biological damage

The radiation exposure from airport scanners is minimal and does not cause biological damage. There are two types of full-body scanners: backscatter scanners and millimetre wave scanners. Backscatter scanners emit low-energy X-rays that bounce off the skin of a person and create an image of the surface from which they bounce off. Millimetre wave scanners use radiofrequency (RF) waves to create a generic image indicating areas that may require additional searches.

The radiation exposure from backscatter scanners is very low. An individual would have to undergo more than 50 backscatter scans to equal the exposure of a single dental X-ray, 1,000 scans to equal the exposure of a chest X-ray, 4,000 scans to equal the exposure of a mammogram, and 200,000 scans to equal the exposure of an abdominal and pelvic CT scan. According to the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP), a person would have to undergo 2,500 backscatter scans in a year to exceed the annual limit for ionizing radiation exposure from non-medical devices.

Millimetre wave scanners emit non-ionizing radiation that is well within the safe human exposure limits set by Health Canada. The electromagnetic waves emitted by these scanners fall in the microwave range of the non-ionizing radiation spectrum and are believed to cause harm only when they are powerful enough to cause molecular changes. The radiation emitted by millimetre wave scanners is not powerful enough to cause such changes, and the risk of biological damage is minimal.

While some experts have raised concerns about the potential health risks of airport scanners, the consensus is that the radiation exposure is too low to cause any significant harm. The dose of radiation received from airport scanners is minuscule compared to the amount of radiation received from other sources, such as medical X-rays. The benefits of using airport scanners, such as the quick and reliable detection of prohibited items, outweigh the minimal risks associated with radiation exposure.

The risk of cancer is very low, but some experts argue it is not risk-free

While the risk of cancer from airport scanners is generally considered to be very low, some experts argue that it is not risk-free.

Airport scanners use two main types of technology: backscatter scanners and millimeter-wave scanners. Backscatter scanners emit low-energy X-rays that bounce off the skin and items under clothing to create an image. Millimeter-wave scanners, on the other hand, use radiofrequency waves to create an image without emitting X-rays.

The radiation exposure from these scanners is generally considered safe. For example, an individual would need to undergo 50 airport scans to equal the exposure of a single dental X-ray or 1,000 scans to equal the exposure of a chest X-ray. Additionally, the World Health Organization and other health organizations have set guidelines for exposure limits to ensure public safety.

However, some experts argue that airport scanners are not entirely risk-free. Professor Ivan Brezovich, a professor of radiation physics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, acknowledges that millimeter-wave scanners may not be 100% risk-free and could have a biological effect. While the risk is deemed acceptable due to the low intensity and short duration of the scans, Professor Brezovich notes that non-ionizing radiation is increasingly present in our environment with technological advancements.

Furthermore, concerns have been raised about the potential impact on vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women and children. While studies suggest that these groups receive the same amount of background radiation as anyone else, the cumulative effects of multiple exposures could potentially be a concern.

In summary, while the risk of cancer from airport scanners is generally considered negligible, some experts argue that it is not without risk, especially with the increasing presence of non-ionizing radiation in our environment and the potential impact on vulnerable populations.

The TSA's use of backscatter scanners was criticised for privacy and health concerns

The TSA's use of backscatter scanners has been a topic of criticism due to concerns related to privacy and health. Backscatter scanners, which emit low-energy X-rays, create detailed full-body images by reflecting X-rays off the skin and items underneath a person's clothing. While the TSA maintained that these scanners were safe and effective, critics labelled them as "virtual strip searches" due to the revealing nature of the images produced.

The privacy concerns surrounding backscatter scanners centred on the level of detail in the body images. Despite the TSA's protocols to ensure that screeners did not see the passengers being scanned, critics remained worried about the potential misuse of the technology. Congress even voted to mandate privacy-protecting software for all body scanners, which ultimately led to the TSA phasing out backscatter scanners as they could not meet this standard.

In addition to privacy concerns, the use of backscatter scanners also raised health concerns due to the associated low doses of radiation from X-rays. While the TSA asserted that the machines were adequately tested and posed little health risk, critics worried about the potential impact of radiation exposure, especially on more vulnerable groups such as children. Some studies suggested a potential link between airport scan exposures and increased cancer risks, particularly for young girls.

However, it is important to note that the doses of radiation from backscatter scanners are considered extremely low compared to other sources of radiation, such as dental or chest X-rays. The risk of health effects from these scanners is generally regarded as very low, and the scanners are designed to meet FDA requirements to limit radiation exposure for passengers and workers. Nevertheless, the criticism and concerns surrounding the TSA's use of backscatter scanners prompted a shift towards alternative scanning technologies, such as millimeter wave machines, which raise fewer privacy and health concerns.

The radiation from airport scanners is far lower than that of medical X-rays

The Health Physics Society estimates that airport X-ray scanners deliver 0.1 microsieverts of radiation per scan. In comparison, a typical chest X-ray delivers 100 microsieverts of radiation, according to a 2008 study published in the journal Radiology. This means that a chest X-ray exposes patients to roughly 1,000 times the radiation of an airport scanner.

To put it into further context, an individual would have to undergo 50 airport scans to equal the exposure of a single dental X-ray, 1,000 airport scans to equal the exposure of a chest X-ray, 4,000 airport scans to equal the exposure of a mammogram, and 200,000 airport scans to equal the exposure of an abdominal and pelvic CT scan.

The FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) ensures that all X-ray systems and other radiation-emitting screening equipment are built to use radiation safely. The FDA requires that all machines be correctly calibrated and maintained. These safety measures are in place to prevent the exposure of workers and travelers to high levels of ionizing radiation.

In summary, while airport scanners do emit low levels of radiation, the dose is far lower than that of medical X-rays and is considered safe for all individuals, even those more vulnerable to radiation exposure, such as pregnant women and children.

Frequently asked questions