Are you being exposed to Radiation when you walk through a scanner in Air Port?

Luggage Scanners-
There is nothing for you to worry about. An airport x-ray machine is very similar to x-ray machines used by federal and state agencies to screen briefcases and packages. They give off much lower doses than x-ray machines in hospitals. You could almost say they are immeasurable. They are designed this way because they do not have to see as much detail and are not designed for looking into very large objects. They are usually only looking for things that really stand out on images like metal.
The only devices in your luggage that you should be worried about would be your camera film, but since everything has gone digital these days you probably won’t even have to worry about that, as for food items the radiation coming from the airport exposure is too low to affect anything.
Pets are also safe, because only the pet carrier will be sent through the airport x-ray. The same goes for clothing; the radiation of the scanner is too small to degrade the materials. The manufactures of these scanners indicate that the radiation exposure to an item is about 1/10th of the exposure we get every day from natural radiation in our environments.

People Scanners-
It is true that some walk-through x ray scanners are actually being used to screen people before getting on an airplane. You might see one of these in a large international airport such as Heathrow in London.
You must remember next time you step into one of those scanners that there is actually very little radiation dose for a person passing through the scanner because they are not trying to see the detail of our "soft" tissues as is done in medical examinations. They are looking for items that will stand out pretty easily.

The American National Standards Institute, in its standard N43.17-2002 "Radiation Safety for Personnel Security Screening Systems Using X-Rays," the maximum effective dose an individual could receive when walking through this scanner is 0.01 mrem (millirem) For some perspective on the level of this dose, the annual effective dose each of us receives from background radiation is about 360 mrem; the effective dose from one chest x ray is about 10 mrem.

Metal Detectors-
This type of machinery does not expose you to ionizing radiation, neither do the wands that are used for individual screening. Metal detectors operate by generating a low-intensity magnetic field that passes from one side of the detector to the other. If metal objects pass through that field, the magnetic field will induce a second field in the metal object. Since that second field is a disruption of the first field, the detector senses the change and sets off an alarm. Magnetic fields are a form of radiation, but they are called "nonionizing" radiation. This means that magnetic fields do not generate additional, damaging radiation the way that ionizing radiation (or X rays) does. Magnetic fields below certain intensities are considered to be safe in that they will not cause any biological damage to an individual. As a reference, MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) is considered safe and uses much higher magnetic field intensity than a metal detector. In summary, because of its nonionizing properties, the magnetic field generated in a metal detector will not cause harm to persons even with routine and/or repeated scanning.
I work for a major airline and will be required to spend eight hours a day near the new baggage x-ray machines (the big ones that I think are CT machines) that TSA (Transportation Security Administration) uses. We have been given a handout saying that TSA has determined that the machines are not dangerous and that we do not need film badges. How can anyone say working near radiation is not dangerous if it is not monitored in any way?

Newer Luggage Scanners-
Some of the newer x-ray machines used to scan checked luggage use computerized tomography (CT) technology—just like those used in medicine. The main difference between the two types of use (security at airports and medical diagnosis) is that the machines used in airports have more shielding to stop the scattered radiation—nearly the entire luggage belt is shielded where, in medicine, the patient table is not shielded—and they subject the baggage to lower doses because the image does not need to be as clear as it does for a patient.

Someone standing next to the unit in airports would receive little, if any, radiation exposure. Radiation emitted around a piece of equipment when it is operating is determined at the manufacturer and, sometimes, checked by the purchaser. A manufacturer must assure the equipment is operating within federal regulations that govern x-ray equipment, which in this case is 0.5 mR/h at 5 cm from the unit (mR or milliroentgen is a unit of radiation exposure) though performance studies of the equipment indicate that the average exposure rate was about 0.08 μR (microroentgen, one-one thousandth of a milliroentgen) per scan (NCRP Report 95). Purchasers can use the manufacturer's assurance and/or can perform their own surveys on the equipment. The dose to the luggage is very low and there is no detectable radiation outside the machines according to one manufacturer.

Accountability of Radiation Europe to America

Why is it that America doesn't keep track of the skin entrance dose of all the radiographs that it takes on its own citizens?

Answer soon to come.

How much can a radon mitigation system cost?

If you have successfully tested your home for radon gas and you have received your results they are positive for high radon levels of 4 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L) or higher. This is what you need to do.

 Hire a qualified radon mitigation contractor to reduce the radon levels in your home

 Decide an appropriate radon reduction method for your situation

 Continue to maintain your radon reduction system

If you do these three suggestions you're health will benefit. Even though there are no immediate signs of Radon exposure, five to twenty five years down the road you may develop lung cancer. This is the only cancer directly related to being exposed to radon.

A national residential radon survey completed in 1991 to determine the average indoor radon level was about 1.3 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) in the United States. The average outdoor level is about 0.4 pCi/L. You may be wondering what you can do to reduce your exposure to Radon. I would recommend a Radon Reduction System.

Radon reduction systems have been proven to work. As a matter of a fact some radon reduction systems have been known to reduce radon levels in your home by up to 99%. The estimated cost of fixing a home with radon generally ranges from $800 to $2,500 (with an average cost of $1,200). Costs depend on the size and design of your home and also which radon reduction method is chosen. There are hundreds of thousands of people have reduced radon levels in their homes, so don't feel like you're the only one to have these kinds of problems.

Are cellular phones dangerous?

There has been tons of research done on the interaction of the cell phone on the human body. Many have come to believe that a cell phone is harmful. Cell phones are designed to be safe for both the user and anyone that many by chance standing nearby the user. Cell phones are actually small radios that transmit signals to and from base-station antennas located on towers or buildings in the nearby neighborhoods. Cellular phones use low-power radio signals, even weaker than CB, police, or fire radios.

Cellular phones and cellular phone base stations have been shown to meet these RF safety standards. A cell phone is always on whether you are using it to talk or not it’s constantly communicating to nearby base stations. These are similar to the waves that go to your radio so that you can hear your favorite songs while driving. The cell phone produces very low frequencies of Radiofrequency energy exposure to the user.

The FDA does have the authority to take action if cell phones are shown to emit radiofrequency energy (RF) at a level that is hazardous to the user. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) sets safety standards for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy in the United States. Government agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and many states recognize and accept the ANSI RF safety standard. Also the United States standard for RF energy is comparable to those set in other countries. With all the information and technology that we have currently we cannot prove that the RF energy used by cell phones pose any health threat to the public.

I would like to further indicate that nothing is "completely safe" everything has some associated risk. Although science has been reasearching EM (electromagnetic) feilds for over 50 years, they still have not answered wether these EM feilds casue cancer. The question you should be asking yourself is if the risk is worth the benifit.

Consider checking the Motorola cell phone sight below to see what they have to say about this topic.



http://www.motorola.com/staticfiles/Business/Corporate/US-EN/corporate-responsibility/consumers/wireless-communications-and-health.html

EPA Map of Radon Zones

 

This map doesn’t include the Puerto Rico (this is under development)

The purpose of this map is to assist National, State, and local organizations to target their resources and to implement radon-resistant building codes. This map is not intended to be used to determine if a home in a given zone should be tested for radon. Homes with elevated levels of radon have been found in all three zones. All homes should be tested regardless of geographic location.



Zone 1 counties have a predicted average indoor radon screening level greater than 4 pCi/L (pico curies per liter) (red zones) Highest Potential

Zone 2 counties have a predicted average indoor radon screening level between 2 and 4pCi/L (orange zones) Moderate Potential

Zone 3 counties have a predicted average indoor radon screening level less than 2 pCi/L (yellow zones) Low Potential

-If you have any problems seeing the words on this Radon Map of Idaho, just click to enlarge.

How to get your house tested for Radon

About 7% of homes in the U.S. have unsafe Radon Gas levels.

There are four types of Radon Test Kits. Long Term, Short Term, Private Well Water Radon Test Kits and an Electronic Radon Gas Detector.

The Long Term Radon Test Kits (Accutar Alpha Track Test Kit AT 100)are used in situations where they are exposed to changes in seasons, temperature and humidity. These tests last from 3 to 12 months, it works by taking air samples from inside your house. The expected cost for a Long Term Radon Test is normally $28.

The Short Term Test Kits (AccuStar Charcoal LS CLS 100i Short Term Radon Gas Test Kit) is most commonly used when quick results are needed. When using this type of test it is recommended that you use 2 test kits and place them side by side about 4 inches apart to help rule out inaccuracy. This testing takes 48 to 96 hours. The anticipated cost of the Short Term Test Kit is also $28.

There are also ways to test the radon levels of your well water. The Accurstar WTR-100 Private Well Water Radon Test Kit The estimated cost of the Radon Water Test Kit is $36.

When the test is complete, you will need to send the test kit to the Radon testing Lab. Analysis should take only one business day to obtain your results.

If you are interested in continuing your tests you may look into obtaining a Safety Siren Pro Series 3 Electronic Radon Gas Detector with LED Digital Readout. This is the ideal product for homeowners & smaller business. This can be used for both short term and long term testing and monitoring. This is a very simple device that plugs into a standard AC house outlet and displays a digital reading in approximately 48 hours after being plugged in. The reason for the long delay is due to the fact that the EPA considers a test less than 48 hours to be invalid. The projected cost of this Electronic Radon Gas Detector is $165.

If you would like to order one of these Test Kits I received the majority of my information and prices from this web site.

http://www.4radon.com/

The following question came up during our Radiation Protection Class. "If a pilot was to fly a night would this reduce the amount of radiation that the pilot and crew would be exposed to?" In my search to answer this question I contacted Richard Brey, a Professor of Physics at the Idaho State University and this was his reply.

Ben,

To answer your question directly; no, there is little anticipated difference in the ionizing radiation exposure received during the day or at night. Very little of the cosmic ionizing radiation exposure received by humans is associated with solar radiation. Although our sun does produce ionizing radiation that source of ionizing radiation is greatly deflected by the Van Allen Belt which surrounds the earth. The Van Allen radiation belt is a torus of energetic charged particles (plasma) around Earth, which is held in place by Earth's magnetic field. Cosmic radiation exposure on the surface of the planet is related to extremely high energy particles and waves generated by other stars in our universe. This radiation sometimes serves as a source of direct exposure, and it frequently generates secondary radiation when it interacts in the earth's atmosphere. Some of the radiation exposure we receive is associated with the secondary particles generated by spallation reactions in the atmosphere. Some of the exposure is associated with the so called cosmogenically produced radioactive material such as C-14, H-3, and Be-7. A good reference on this subject is NCRP Report No. 160 which was published in 2009 and is entitled Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States (ISBN : 978-0-929600-98-7). This may be purchased on-line from NCRP (The National on Radiation Protection and Measurements). The NCRP web-page may be found at: http://www.ncrponline.org/. To find a copy of the report described above simply click on the Publications tab. I hope this is helpful.

Richard Brey, Ph.D., C.H.P.
Professor of Physics
Director, ISU Health Physics Program