From: "Rich Gauszka" 

"So how is it that the Government is allowed to irradiate us
willy-nilly at airports? "


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23397526-details/Health+fear+over+ne
w+airport+scanners/article.do
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.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5