Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Miller
Anyone know if the "the radiation used isn't necessarily safe" is a legit concern or just hokum to try to stir up anti-scanner sentiment?
|
There's a controversy over how the government and manufacturer measure the scan strenghth. It's a surface scan, yet they average based on your full body mass. So, the strengths given suggest extremely (
extremely) low exposure, but it may be that the skin-level exposure is comparable to other types of scans. At least skin cancer's not as bad as a brain tumor. But the limitations on measurements mean you can't get a truly straight answer to the question.
But it's going to depend on total exposures. If you're an occassional flier, even the high levels are unlikely to be of much concern unless you already get a lot of exposure elsewhere.
Note that you get more exposure to radiation from flying to begin with. That's part of why the pilots union has recommended avoiding the scans: they are already dealing with an over-exposed subgroup. For most of us, it's probably of less concern than with pilots. On the other hand, if you engage in professional tan competitions, sideline as a dental technician, or fly several times a week, you might want to avoid them.
I'm not going to worry about it for myself. Though I understand others' concerns, and am feeling more concern about my kids.
