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?

Ok - but even if the scanner did produce 20 times more radiation than previously thought - that's still not much in the grand scheme of things. Nor does it justify your anxiety.

Why focus on this particular risk? And, as regards the mobile phone, if it's switched off then what about the risk of not being able to track the signal should (God forbid) anything happen to her? Do you risk abduction or radiation? Surely you need to relax slightly?

To whoever asked, no, I don't fly out of Manchester. I am London based so use Heathrow/Gatwick/Luton/Stanstead/City mostly. Maybe they have a different system in Manchester. It certainly looks different in the article I link below. If they tried to get all of the Heathrow traffic through the scanners there, a lot of people would end up missing their flights.

I found this article about the scanners. The lower pictures with the security guard striking poses shows what I had to do (it looks like the same room in fact).

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247977/Full-body-scanners-introduced-Heathrow-Manchester-airports-Lord-Adonis-seeks-allay-privacy-fears.html

Maybe it is a different system. Though Manchester doesn't have the weight of traffic that heathrow does, it must be the second busiest uk airport. Our local airport is now gatwick which doesn't seem as big or busy. I'm sure I remember them saying they planned to eventually scan everyone.

I do think they should factor in the need for offering full body searches in some circumstances. I'm not sure they could say themselves it acceptably safe in early pregnancy.

dd flew from new york yesterday
she was pulled out of queue and asked to stand in body scanner
no reason was given

I agree, SpottyFrock: if patdowns are available in the US, why not here?

Moanna, you don't think the eye consultant in the Telegraph article I linked to would have a balanced view on the amount of radiation? With him being a highly trained senior doctor and all?

Hi my DH works at Heathrow and basically says if you want your child to go on the plane, and she has to walk through the x-ray scanner, and you refuse, they simply won't let her on the plane.

But, my DS goes to France twice a year via Southampton airport, and they've only got the metal scanners, no x-ray scanners :)

HTH

Thanks, Woodpeckers, that does indeed help. I'd understood from everything I'd read that she would simply be grounded, no ifs or buts, and you lose your money. I guess Southampton might be a possibility.

OP - I understand that you have reservations about scanners at airports but surely you can see that there is far greater risk to you driving your DD over to France?

It sounds like you need to put the scanner anxieties to once side and address your fears about your DD travelling alone. If you're passing on these anxieties on to your DD you will do so much more future harm to her (and your) well being.

The scanners are a smokescreen. Sorry.

Don't be sorry, Mavis. You are entitled to your opinion.

intermittentrain - I do appreciate that you are worried and I do think that they should do pat downs for peace of mind for pregnant women and children. Mainly for peace of mind.

The radiation aspect does not bother me as much as the fact that the scans are ineffectual at identifying objects hidden in body cavities, pretty much useless when terrorists are evolving weapons constantly.

it, I share your view on this
yes, the family I know fly from London airports, but it seems that this technology is prhps being pushed more recently, so it could be potentially less optional
(thank God my ds qualifies for drs letter on this)

Ok, I don't often pull this card, but as someone working in government who has had direct involvement with the policy to introduce full body scanners, I would just like to add:

(yet again) - the dose of radiation you receive is tiny. It is much much much less than your daughter will receive during the short flight to France. It is much much much less than she would receive in a single hospital x-ray.

And the operator cannot "see you naked". I have been in the room where the operator sits. I could barely tell the gender of the people being scanned, from the blurry image. In fact on most people I couldn't tell at all (and where I could, it was more from the body shape rather than from being able to see genitals). The image is basically good enough to show up the outline of a suspicious object (bomb, gun etc), not to show the person's body parts. There are other privacy safeguards in place - eg the operator is in a room where he/ she can't see the actual people being scanned, just the blurry image.

Interim Code of Practice here, with various safeguards for the operation of the scanners.

Information on the (lack of) health risks confirming that you receive hugely more radiation during the flight than you do from these scanners.

OP - I think the conclusion here is that you really must prevent your DD from flying because of the radiation she will receive during the flight. Whether she goes through the scanner or not doesn't matter given the minute amount of radiation she receives here.

Wigeon, whilst I appreciate I would have received more radiation during the flight, I still think it's an unnecessary extra when in the early stages of pregnancy. I was more than happy to be patted down, even stripped searched if deemed necessary. Not sure why policy cannot allow this option for pregnant women.

Do you struggle with anxiety generally? This that you said:

"It sounds like the metal detector is set to beep randomly to send people over to be X-rayed. " sounds like the thinking of someone having an anxiety attack to me. It's not rational to think that they would do that.

FWIW I have had a 3d scan at heathrow when they were trialling them, it was fine, no bits have dropped off yet. As someone mentioned upthread, hospital x-rays need to penetrate through to your bones, airport ones only need to penetrate your clothes. They are not comparable.

the problem with x rays generally is that they are cumulative and will add up over lifetime and they could be more damaging to a young/developing organism precisely b/c they will (hopefully) clock up more years in their lifetime

One airport strength x-ray is really fuck all in the scheme of things.

I've not read the whole post so I may be repeating. Your DD will receive more radiation from the actual flight than she will receive from these new body scanners. Therefore if the radiation risk frightens you you'd better not let her fly at all.

And xrays are not cumulative... They're deposition is stochastic by nature. Tissues have various levels of tolerance to radiation but you'll only get near these tolerances at therapeutics levels of radiation... Not diagnostic.

arf

I bet you don't have a microwave do you OP?

Gosh.. Sorry to be pedantic but this initiates me. X-rays pose a genuine risk (but in these circumstances and at these levels is tiny, tiny, tiny). They pose a risk because the radiation is ionising and has the ability to break DNA strands. Mobile phones and microwaves emit NON-ionising radiation and do not have this ability (although recent work has mentioned various risks but not ionising radiation risks).

Life is always about risks and trust me an airport body scanner (that she's unlikely to have) is really not worth worrying about.

OP is obviously ignoring all the posts about other sources of radiation, which is quite frankly ridiculous.

Either you care about radiation exposure or you don't. Why pick and choose which ones concern you?

She's not listening to reason.

I do indeed care about radiation exposure.

Woodpeckers and Widgeon, how are people selected for execution X-ray?

Upthread, eurochick said: "the woman who led me down to the scanner told me they have it beep to signal who they want to xray." So is that indeed how they pick people out? I had thought they would pick out people who seemed a bit iffy (looked nervous, for example), but I guess that might be deemed discriminatory?

If you're that worried then why is she allowed to fly?