Morning:
13°c
An awesome and ridiculous film that leaves you thrilled beyond the point of your natural endurance
London faces a wave of bus and Tube strikes that could cause chaos for millions of passengers as unions walkout over pay and conditions
More...
Health fear over new airport scanners
Last updated at 00:07am on 22.05.07
Danger? Passengers exposed to X-rays
New X-Ray scanners at British airports could be exposing passengers to potentially dangerous levels of radiation, according to one senior radiologist.
The machines are designed to "strip search" passengers by using low-level X-Rays, which produce an image of their bodies, revealing whether they are secretly carrying weapons, explosives or illegal drugs.
But the scanners may not be safe for certain people, particularly children and women in the early stages of pregnancy, according to Dr Sarah Burnett, who works as an independent radiologist in London.
"It is illegal to expose people to any level of radiation without medical justification," said Dr Burnett, who raised her concerns after being asked to undergo a full-body scan at Luton Airport.
"So how is it that the Government is allowed to irradiate us willy-nilly at airports?
"I am particularly concerned about the potential effects on women in their first trimester of pregnancy.
"That is when the risks of the baby developing genetic abnormalities are highest because radiation exposure can damage the body's reproductive DNA."
Called the Rapiscan Secure 1000, the device looks like a big filing cabinet and fires a low-energy X-Ray beam over the body.
It has been trialled mainly at Heathrow, where four have been in use over the past couple of years.
However, it has already attracted controversy for producing revealing images clear enough to make out passengers' genitalia.
Indeed, U.S. airports have now refused to use them until the manufacturer can promise more privacy.
The X-Rays penetrate one-tenth of an inch into the body, enough to detect any devices or drugs hidden just under the skin.
According to Rapiscan Systems, the California-based company which makes the machines, each scan generates only three microrems of radiation - compared to 10,000 in a chest X-Ray.
The firm claims this is no higher than the amount that the body is normally exposed to every five minutes from "natural" radiation in the atmosphere.
The company also says that frequent flyers would need to have at least 5,000 scans a year before there would be any health threat.
What's more, it adds that longhaul passengers will soak up more so-called radiation during the flight, from the plane's equipment, than from the scan.
However, last year the Transport and General Workers Union investigated claims that five female security guards suffered miscarriages as a result of prolonged exposure to radiation from using the machines at Heathrow.
"The machines are referred to as 'low-dose', but there is a school of thought that there is no 'safe' radiation dose," said Dr Burnett, who has had 15 years' experience working in the NHS.
"It is true that passengers are exposed to 'cosmic' radiation within the aircraft, but there's nothing they can do about that - it can't be avoided.
"We can, however, avoid deliberately exposing people to radiation."
The British Airports Authority said passengers are free to refuse the X-Ray. But if they do, they will then have to be hand-searched.
Dr Gill Markham from the Royal College of Radiologists urged passengers not to worry, as the dose is so low it is unlikely to cause harm.
But women who think they may be in the early stages of pregnancy should tell airport staff if asked to have the scan.
Reader views (17)
I don`t agree with you Renee, CA USA. I have just come back from the states. I have a fracture boot on and when i left Heathrow they just put a wand over it, when i entered Huston they pulled me aside into a perspex holding swabbed my boot, then my hands back and front then i had to wait till the results came back, at which time they hand patted me down, then i had my photo taken and both hands finger printed before i could go on my way. land of the free yeah right!!!!!
- Karen, Portsmouth, England
The only thing that will protect you from terrorists is better foreign policy.
"We dont negotiate with terrorists" get real mate thats the reason we live in the World we do today.
To many old fools in power who cant see the bigger picture.
YES you can refuse the scanner and be frisked, so what happens to me all the time in Amsterdam its just part of life there.
I do draw the line at the last peice of privacy is to be erroded.
Lets take other technologies like CCTV & mobile phone cameras all these types of movie are on MAINSTREAM TV as entertainment its only a matter of time before this tech has a TV show of its own.
- Chirs, England & Amsterdam.
Still have an anlogue TV? Did you watch the old one a lot? Don't worry about airport x-rays then, you have had more dangerous low dose radiation from the cathode ray tube to make anything the airport squirts at you fade into insignificance. Embrace anything that will protect you whilst sitting in that 500mph vulnerable cigar case 5 miles up in the sky.
- Hicvadum, Hereford. England
I read with suspicion the following:
"Dr Gill Markham from the Royal College of Radiologists urged passengers not to worry, as the dose is so low it is unlikely to cause harm."
Well Dr. Markham, if this low dose is unlikely to cause harm, would you mind having your pregnant wife, or daughter, if you have such, walk through these scanners 1000 times successively so that I may then be fully convinced that you actually know what it is you're talking about?
- Guy, Los Angeles, CA, USA
No one seems to mention - and therefore appreciate the risks to - VERY frequent fliers. If it is hazzardous to pregnant women (and as a physics major, I know it is - what about people who must board 4 flights a week, some as long as 14 hours (as I did for 5 years)? I predict implementation followed by multiple lawsuits and fittingly, subsequent removal of the machines. Why must we always "get it" after people get hurt?
- Sophie, Los Angeles, CA, US
I was leaving the UK and had to go through this procedure. Funnily, I could not help notice the staff choosing non white people for the x ray. Myself being non white, I was dragged and not even informed by the Heathrow security staff what I was going to go through. They did not inform me, did not give me a choice and gave me the impression I had no alternatives. Moreover, the security staff was rude, condescendent and totally disrespectful.
From that experience and from this treatment (non even mentioning the obvious racial discrimmination I witnessed), I will never go back to the UK, ever.
- Kevin, London,UK
It is appalling. How much more invasion of privacy will we have to
put up with? I say we as a people must resist such plans. It is only due to
apathy and inaction on the part of the population that governments, these
worst of control-freaks, can implement their latest fads.
And for what? To give us comfort in the face of terrorism?
I ask you this: what makes you more uncomfortable at an airport?
The fear of a terrorist attack, or the thought of people seeing you naked
as you walk through security?
It is a simple question, really...
- Harry, London
It is hard to make an informed decision from an article which is not clear. "The x-rays' penetrate only 1/10th of an inch into the body". Well this isn't correct, because to produce an image they must penetrate through the whole body, and the more they penetrate, the less they are being absorbed - which is good. The difference between low energy (wavelength of x-rays) and short exposure must be appreciated. Which is it? Dr Burnett is being emotive in her argument. If for example it happens that the exposure is equivalent to 10 mins of flying or walking on a bitumen road for half an hour, then there are no good grounds to ban the scan. If chosing the scan means one doesn't have to remove shoes, belts and all those other inane inconveniences, then the option is attractive. The miscarriages are notable and one wonders if maybe there is a non-x-ray emission from the equipment that is responsible. After all, the operators aren't in the line of fire of the x-rays? Perhaps the operators could be trained to spot tumours and then the scan would be useful!
- Jc, Perth, Australia
As a radiographer I have studied a vast amount into the effects of low level radiation and high level radiation into the body. It is not solely the initial amount of radiation that can effect whether or not there is likely to be an adverse effect e.g. carcinoma but a series of factors- 1) radiation takes on a cumulative effect over a period of years which can build up in the body, therefore if business travellers fly frequently due to work, the dose can build up quickly within the body from a sum of all the 'low doses'. 2) Low dose radiation/ scatter radiation is more likely to cause a reaction than a dose within the normal range given in the hospital- the 'low dose' is more likely to be absorbed by the skin rather than diffracted or reflected as it has less energy, consequentially increasing the chances of a reaction. I think more research is necessary before we go ahead with this scary unnecessary dangerous equipment. In addition, younger members of the population such as children/ teenagers are more at risk as their cells are still metabolising, and as most passengers are younger, this adds to the dangers already present.
- Alison, leeds, england
I've read the above views and I feel that while you have the choice of refusing it is a different story for the staff that work in the airport. They have no choice.
- Anon, England
I would rather have a thousand scans. The minute you are NOT anti-goverment, you become a worthless piece of trash. There is NOTHING that makes me angrier than people using the "I want to be safe" line for any reason, especially when it involves imaginary threats.
- Nickoli, Suberbia, MN
David from Dallas begins by making a reasonable statement about weighing the pros and cons of a radiation scan. But the thoughtfulness of his view was diminished when he comments on Dr Burnett's criticism of the procedure: "Dr. Burnett sounds like a alarmist and this article is typical anti-government left leaning propaganda. Over." Over, indeed - and out. It was a simple and balanced article. I personally do not object to the scans, as they are voluntary, as David correctly points out. But, David, eager to label everyting that moves, shows himself to be the alarmist - seeing a conspiracy under every stone - not Dr Burnett. Regrettably, this kind of stereotyping is typical of reactionary people on both the right and the left.
- Dennis Dodds, Philadelphia USA
In this day and age anything that might speed up the boarding of a plane and shorten the time at the airport is a welcome edition. If one believes low level radiation is hazardous they must weigh the risk of a plane exploding or being hijacked versus infinitesmal possibility of cancer 50 years out. If radiation hormesis is true, the British Transport Authority may be providing a valuable service, providing air travellers with a healthy dose of low level x-ray radiation.
- Chris, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
As the article states, you may refuse the radiation scan and be hand searched. The statement that "It is illegal to expose people to any level of radiation without medical justification" is not applicable as these people are consenting to the exposure. If you don't want the government "willy-nilly" exposing you, either refuse and get the hand search or don't fly; it doesn't matter to me which you chose, but I want to know the flight that my familiy and I are on is secure from bad guys.
Dr. Burnett sounds like a alarmist and this article is typical anti-gov. left leaning propaganda. Over.
- David, Dallas, USA
They are trying to get these installed here in the U.S. The topic comes up every few months or so. Instead, they CT Scan our luggage to death on occasion, and if we have one-way tickets, or got them less than 24 hours prior to travel, we get to submit to "detailed" searches (Arms in the air, patting down, and wanding). Oh yeah, shoes come off all the time here.
- Renee, Antelope, CA USA
Last time I was in Heathrow they had me do this thing, it took a couple minutes and was embarrassing but it wasn't like I had anything to hide as I was on holiday.
The British and Europeans may think they are more free and civil than the Americans but that is far from the truth. Even the Americans don't have this kind of treatment in their airports.
- Matt, London
I had to queue for 45 minutes at Heathrow on Monday to get through security. Anything that reduces this to a vaguely acceptable level (i.e. less than 10 minutes) should be welcomed.
- Nobby Clark, London
