All true, Ed, but...In the sixties I had a chest X-ray done. A large tumor was found. I don't think there was any other test at that time that could have found that tumor. That X-ray no doubt saved my life.

The Doctor's also tell you don't get too many X-Rays too close together. What about the business traveler that fly's every week? (Something I used to have to do) They would have to go through that thing each time they flew which could be more than twice a week. That seems way to much exposure for my comfort.

Ed,So if you went outside 200 days a year how many x-rays is that equal to?You better watch out because they can't tell you how much an hour's worth of being outside is exposing you to either.I would lock yourself in your basement and never go anywhere again.But wait, what about the radon seeping up through your basement floor? So that won't work either.Maybe the moon? Nope, more radiation up there then here.Darn, I guess there are levels of radiation everywhere and you just can't get away from it.

The Doctor's also tell you don't get too many X-Rays too close together. What about the business traveler that fly's every week? (Something I used to have to do) They would have to go through that thing each time they flew which could be more than twice a week. That seems way to much exposure for my comfort.

What about the flight crews who have to go through it once, twice, maybe three times a day?

Ed,So if you went outside 200 days a year how many x-rays is that equal to?You better watch out because they can't tell you how much an hour's worth of being outside is exposing you to either.I would lock yourself in your basement and never go anywhere again.But wait, what about the radon seeping up through your basement floor? So that won't work either.Maybe the moon? Nope, more radiation up there then here.Darn, I guess there are levels of radiation everywhere and you just can't get away from it.

That's a fool's argument, and you know it.I can step outside and spend 365 days outside and not get a single bit of dangerous radiation exposure. X-rays are not the same as solar radiation. Not even close. Solar radiation can be controlled with something as simple as sunblock. X-rays can't be blocked by anything but heavy metals. Radon gas is a whole different 'animal' and there are ways to detect it and reduce and/or eliminate it from a home. These are all sources of radiation we have control over. We can control our exposure. I served years on nuclear powered submarines, by choice. I also chose to control my exposure there. Hopefully you can see the difference. Between controlling exposure and having absolutely no idea what level of exposure you're being forced to endure.Flat out... ask an x-ray technician what level of radiation an x-ray exposes you to, in rads. I can assure you the answer is: "I don't know." Excessive x-ray exposure is extremely dangerous and seriously not a good idea. Intentionally iradiating people for 'safety' is a truly oxymoronic statement.

Didn't have to look long to find this:"Most of the scanners deliver less radiation than a passenger is likely to receive from cosmic rays while airborne, the report said. Scanned passengers may absorb from 0.1 to 5 microsieverts of radiation compared with 5 microsieverts on a flight from Dublin to Paris and 30 microsieverts between Frankfurt and Bangkok, the report said. A sievert is a unit of measure for radiation."From this articlehttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aoG.YbbvnkzU&pos=11Are these numbers accurate? I don't know. At least they are something to go by, rather than just panic.Bob

Didn't have to look long to find this:"Most of the scanners deliver less radiation than a passenger is likely to receive from cosmic rays while airborne, the report said. Scanned passengers may absorb from 0.1 to 5 microsieverts of radiation compared with 5 microsieverts on a flight from Dublin to Paris and 30 microsieverts between Frankfurt and Bangkok, the report said. A sievert is a unit of measure for radiation."From this articlehttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aoG.YbbvnkzU&pos=11Are these numbers accurate? I don't know. At least they are something to go by, rather than just panic.Bob

So what you are saying is that in the minute that you spend in that machine, you receive the same amount of radiation as a hour plus flight? So if I was to be scanned in Dublin and then boarded a flight there to Paris, I've just doubled my intake of radiation for that trip? Is that correct? Perhaps air passengers should be made aware of the health risks of airport body screenings and governments explain any decision to expose the public to higher levels of cancer-causing radiation. And pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, even though the radiation dose from body scanners is "extremely small."

Didn't have to look long to find this:"Most of the scanners deliver less radiation than a passenger is likely to receive from cosmic rays while airborne, the report said. Scanned passengers may absorb from 0.1 to 5 microsieverts of radiation compared with 5 microsieverts on a flight from Dublin to Paris and 30 microsieverts between Frankfurt and Bangkok, the report said. A sievert is a unit of measure for radiation."From this articlehttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aoG.YbbvnkzU&pos=11Are these numbers accurate? I don't know. At least they are something to go by, rather than just panic.Bob

The type of radiation you're exposed to makes a huge difference. However, based on your closing line... further discussion is a waste of time, after all... knowledgeable concern is not panic.

The type of radiation you're exposed to makes a huge difference. However, based on your closing line... further discussion is a waste of time, after all... knowledgeable concern is not panic.

And I acknowledge your expertise. I find it difficult to dismiss these machines without doing a little research of my own on both sides of the issue, that's all.Bob

If anyone is afraid of the amount of radiation they might get from the backscatter type of full body scanner, it is time to build an underground bunker 4' thick, give up your cell phones, TVs and other transmitter type equipment and live like a hermit away from the Sun. As noted here on this CNet report, Can full-body airport scanners harm you? , there is not much to really fear from what one is exposed to when being "searched" by said machines.As someone who has had Rad Safety for industrial radiography (the company I work for does lots of radiography and now uses digital radiography along with film) and has helped with shoots, it is known that techs are limited to 20mRem a day. An exposure of 500 mR/hour is considered a lethal dose of radiation. 25,000 mRem is considered a lifetime does. Nothing the general public comes into contact with reaches those limits.The NRC has tables which explain how much radiation is received via different sources at the Doses in Our Daily Lives page. Our local submariner should have also had to follow the same rules for exposure limitation as radiographers do.

Note that sievert/REM are measures of "dose equivalent". that is, they attempt to normalize various types of radiation by expressing the relative destructiveness in human tissue. Since tissue isn't uniform, the nature of the dose (whole body or limited to certain organs) makes a difference. I think in general dose is considered to both have an immediate effect and a cumulative (lifetime) effect.Note that absorption of a dose by tissue is dependent on various characteristics of the radiation, in particular for x-rays the wavelength. Medical physicists/Radiologists expend significant effort in shaping the incident x-ray radiation (both spatially and spectrally) to maximize the diagnostic or therapeutic benefit per unit of energy.scott s..

Our history is full of cases where something that is said to be safe turns out 5, 10+ years down the road not to be as safe as the government first thought. Something like this seems like it could become a classic example. I for one don't like playing roulette with Government reassurances, so I'll be opting out whenever I fly.

UVs are the biggest threat to humans, and when you're 30,000 feet up you don't have the atmosphere to protect you like you normally do. Heck not that it does a good job to begin with.And at the end of the day I think I can live with a bit of x-ray given what cancer patients have to ingest.....an actual radioactive substance.. not just EM radiation, thats a bonus!

Ed,How much radiation are we exposed to just walking outside everyday?

Mr. Scorna, of that fact I'm uncertain, but I assure you it is a magnitude less than the amount that a frequent traveler would be exposed to via the backscatter devices.Of that fact I am 100% certain.Braun

Mr. Scorna, of that fact I'm uncertain, but I assure you it is a magnitude less than the amount that a frequent traveler would be exposed to via the backscatter devices.Of that fact I am 100% certain.Braun

I would be interested in your research on this.In any case, The type of radiation is different walking around outside and walking through a scanner. I don't know what you get from a scanner, but you can most certainly get skin cancer from walking outside. Not everyone gets skin cancer, not everyone will get something from scanners.I don't know what the answer is, but given the choice between a scanner and some humorless guy grabbing my crotch...I'll take the scanner and get on with my dayBob

I don't know what the answer is, but given the choice between a scanner and some humorless guy grabbing my crotch...I'll take the scanner and get on with my dayBob

I dare anyone to "touch my junk!" :(