Cancer risk from airport scanners very low, study finds. Bloomberg News (3/29, Ostrow) reports, "Airport body scanners pose little radiation risk to travelers, emitting less than 1 percent of the dose a person would get from cosmic rays while flying at high altitudes," according to an online-first study in the Archives of Internal Medicine. The American College of Radiology's Safety Committee Chair Dr. Richard Morin "said radiation isn't well understood. 'The levels we're talking about are lower than actual background radiation,'" said Morin, who wasn't involved in the study. According to the Boston Globe (3/28, Kotz) "Daily Dose" blog, the study "equated the small dose of radiation delivered by the scanner with other radiation doses from medical devices and our environment." For example, "every time you fly, you get some extra radiation due to your closer proximity to the sun. 'The backscatter X-ray scans deliver radiation equivalent to around 1 to 3 minutes of flight time,'" wrote the study authors from the University of California. Their research revealed that "50 airport scans equals the amount from a single dental X-ray, 1000 scans is equivalent to a chest X-ray, 4000 scans equals a mammogram, and 200,000 scans equals the amount in a single abdominal computed tomography scan." HealthDay (3/28, Reinberg) reported that the study "looked at three groups: all fliers, frequent fliers (those who fly 60 or more hours a week) and 5-year-old girls who fly weekly. This last group was included because children are more sensitive to radiation." For frequent fliers, "four cancers might be linked to these scanners, but 600 cancers would result from flying at high altitudes, and 400,000 cancers would develop because of other factors," the researchers noted. MedPage Today (3/28, Bankhead) noted that the authors "estimated that two million girls flying once a week would have one excess breast cancer." In contrast, "250,000 of the girls will develop breast cancer over their lifetimes owing to the 12% lifetime risk of the disease."
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Airport Scanners and Cancer
Cancer risk from airport scanners very low, study finds. Bloomberg News (3/29, Ostrow) reports, "Airport body scanners pose little radiation risk to travelers, emitting less than 1 percent of the dose a person would get from cosmic rays while flying at high altitudes," according to an online-first study in the Archives of Internal Medicine. The American College of Radiology's Safety Committee Chair Dr. Richard Morin "said radiation isn't well understood. 'The levels we're talking about are lower than actual background radiation,'" said Morin, who wasn't involved in the study. According to the Boston Globe (3/28, Kotz) "Daily Dose" blog, the study "equated the small dose of radiation delivered by the scanner with other radiation doses from medical devices and our environment." For example, "every time you fly, you get some extra radiation due to your closer proximity to the sun. 'The backscatter X-ray scans deliver radiation equivalent to around 1 to 3 minutes of flight time,'" wrote the study authors from the University of California. Their research revealed that "50 airport scans equals the amount from a single dental X-ray, 1000 scans is equivalent to a chest X-ray, 4000 scans equals a mammogram, and 200,000 scans equals the amount in a single abdominal computed tomography scan." HealthDay (3/28, Reinberg) reported that the study "looked at three groups: all fliers, frequent fliers (those who fly 60 or more hours a week) and 5-year-old girls who fly weekly. This last group was included because children are more sensitive to radiation." For frequent fliers, "four cancers might be linked to these scanners, but 600 cancers would result from flying at high altitudes, and 400,000 cancers would develop because of other factors," the researchers noted. MedPage Today (3/28, Bankhead) noted that the authors "estimated that two million girls flying once a week would have one excess breast cancer." In contrast, "250,000 of the girls will develop breast cancer over their lifetimes owing to the 12% lifetime risk of the disease."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment