X-ray scanners at airports: how can I avoid dd getting an unnecessary dose of radiation?

[intermittentrain]

Dd is 13 and wants to fly alone to France to join a friend's family. I don't want her to have to go through the X-ray security scanners because I don't think she should have a dose of radiation when it's not medically necessary or in the interests of her health in any way.

We've been looking at airports outside of London which don't have the scanners. Or we could drive her over.

How does this scanning work? As I understand it, not all passengers are scanned, but if they call you for scanning and you refuse, you are grounded, ie you can't fly and you lose your ticket money. If necessary, we could take that risk; but dd would have to have the guts to say, no, I'm not doing it, and we would then drive her over.

What do other people do, please?

Sorry, I can't believe you're serious. If you were genuinely that risk-averse you certainly wouldn't be considering driving her anywhere.

Fucking iPad.. I'm sure it turns the most reasonable sentences in to complete gibberish just to piss me off.

I'm not sure being x-rayed by airport security is 'willy nilly'. It probably won't even be the most irritating bit of the whole experience.

As others have said, she'll be exposed to more radiation on the plane than in the x-ray machine. There is really nothing to fear. It's perfectly understandable that you're nervous about her going away without you, but you are really only displacing your anxieties on to something a bit silly here.

Well I'm not normally uptight but I refused it when we flew two months ago as I am pregnant. They agreed to do a more thorough search in a small room.

If you are tki g about the new scanners at heathrow and manchester then it is an x-ray and it's not z small minority sent over. We were flying to the states and they send most of us through. It basically sees you naked. I wasn't worried about that but in the same way that I would t have an xray at the dentist whilst pregnant, I wasn't going to do this.

As I said they agreed to hand search me due to being pregnant. Not sure whether that's standard. If I hadn't been pg I would have gone through though. Dh and the kids did it. I think it's low level but I still wouldn't have risked it in pregnancy.

intermittent I fly frequently within europe (with and without dc) and have never been asked to step inside the x-ray scanner.
just the metal detector and patting down by the officers.
try not to worry.

OP, this is a classic example of a failure (on your part, in this instance) to appropriately and accurately evaluate risk.

As others have pointed out, even in the (extremely unlikely) event that your DD is asked to go into a x-ray booth, the dose of radiation she would receive is minute compared to the amount of radiation exposure while flying on the plane.

You may be comparing the airport version of x-ray machines to the hospital kind. Don't. The hospital versions have to be far more powerful that the airport versions to detect far smaller abnormalities and with a far greater degree of accuracy (and, of course, in a medical situation most people would agree that the increased dose - and hence increased risk - is worth it to get appropriate treatment).

I travel a fair amount for business and pleasure (averaging about 2 flights a month) and have only been asked to be x-rayed once (on the way to my honeymoon last year.... at least I was in good shape in the "naked" pictures). That was at Heathrow. You don't need to set the scanner off to be selected. It is apparently "random". As I walked through the scanner it beeped, but really late. I was puzzled as I had taken absolutely everything off that could have metal in it. Anyway, the woman who led me down to the scanner told me they have it beep to signal who they want to xray. I was taking to a side room, asked to adopt two ridiculous poses and then left to find my husband and handluggage in amongst the bank of about 30 check points. I don't approve of them (I think they are about scaremongering, frankly) but it was really no big deal.

I am sure the amount of radiation is small compared to what we are exposed to in daily life anyway. IMHO, you are getting your knickers in a twist about nothing. If you are that bothered just find a flight from an airport that doesn't have them. A smaller airport is likely to be less daunting for a 13 yr old flying alone anyway.

I didn't think there were health concerns with these scanners. I though it was a privacy issue, where the operator might be able to see your privates. Not a lot different from someone feeling your privates during a pat-down.

There are two technologies used at LHR. One uses E/M rays in the radio band, and the other uses back-scattering (ie non penetrating) x-rays. Both use a tiny amount of energy compared to radio transmissions, mobile phone signals and rocks/soil.

I think Manchester airport have started/are planning to send everyone through it. I lived near there until last year and I remember lots of arguments about it on the local news. As I say, we've moved so I'm not sure what was finally decided.

Spottyfrock I have only ever seen a tiny minority sent for x-raying. And I fly to the US a fair bit. I've never been x-rayed on one of my US trips.

Do you really think that airports would have been allowed to install these x-ray machines (not to mention be allowed to use them on under-18's) if they were harmful?

For Christ's sake - have you also evaluated the risk/likelihood of the plane crashing en route?

Thanks, eurochick, that explains to me the system. It sounds like the metal detector is set to beep randomly to send people over to be X-rayed. So it could be man, woman, or child, and regardless of whether they're carrying large rucksacks which could be stuffed with explosives.

We have been looking at flying her from Luton airport, so thanks for your thoughts on smaller airports.

If you want to prevent your dd getting a non-medical dose of radiation, then you'd better send her by boat, as the amount of radiation to which she will be exposed on the flight will be almost as much as she would be exposed to if she happened to be scanned. The in-flight radiation is unavoidable, the scanner radiation is only a possibility.

And better confiscate her mobile: that, too, emits more radiation than the scanner over the course of a long conversation - and only an inch or two from her brain. Not forgetting, of course, the frequent bursts of radiation it emits over the course of the day, when it's not even being used, just sitting in her jeans pocket - 6" from her ovaries.

I am the parent of a seriously ill DC who has to have Xrays concentrated into their body every day for 2 months. I am hoping this will stop my DC dying.

FFS get a life.

The X-ray machines are controversial in the US, but as I say, people who are concerned for their health can opt for a pat-down instead. SpottyFrock, frankly I think you were lucky to get away with that in the UK.

Oh I don't doubt I was being over cautious but I was still concerned due to being pg. They seemed fine with that as long as I agreed to the thorough search. She also told me she'd had to search 2 other pg woman who didn't want the xray machine. As I said, I wasn't worried about dh or the kids and would have gone through myself if I hadn't been in early pregnancy.

Eurochick, have you been flying out of Manchester? They seem to have pioneered it Here and seemed keen from what I remember that it became standard for all passengers.

PrettyCandles, the flight to France is short. She only uses a mobile for genuine emergencies and doesn't keep it on in her jeans pocket, precisely for the reasons you say.

You can't take rucksacks through the scanner.

Maybe I was lucky. Or maybe until it becomes statutory, they are being a bit more flexible.
This is def my last baby so it won't ever come up again, thankfully.

I suspect that they taking the official position that no-one can refuse, but that actually if you seem to have a good reason, eg pregnancy, they will agree to search you instead. Personally, I can't see why they wouldn't search women who are pregnant instead of X-raying them; except that it takes more of their time.

I flew to the States from Manchester last month and everyone was scanned it appeared. V quick, no big deal at all.

But why are you so worried in the first place? You've had a plethora of answers and reassurance? Why the anxiety? You cannot eliminate every single risk in life. Surely there's more chance of your DD being harmed by driving to France (if the car crashes) than being X-rayed (which seems very unlikely that she would be anyway).

And you let this child out of the front door? Seriously, get a grip.

I fly fairly frequently in and out of the US where these scanners are used in every airport. And I think an important point to make is that while, yes, the scanner uses X-rays it is not the same as having a medical X-ray and the dose of radiation is much lower. (I believe the links that someone helpfully posted above should clarify that)

If you think about it when you are scanned at the airport the radiation is used to give an image of the outside of your body, and type and amount of radiation is designed to hit your body and bounce back to be detected. Yes, some of the radiation will be absorbed by the body be not very much. When you have a medical X-ray your body sits in between the X-ray source and the detector (the plate) and the radiation is designed to enter your body and pass through the other side. This, of course, means that you receive a higher dose of radiation.

So I would suggest that the type of radiation exposure one receives during a scan at the airport is much more in line with the risks that we all take with radiation in the course of our daily lives- i.e. mobile phones and air travel in general.

This is quite interesting about an eye consultant who refused to be X-rayed because he wouldn't agree to having a dose of radiation without a medical reason.

It says "Recent studies have suggested that the X-rays used at Manchester airport could produce 20 times as much radiation than first thought."