Is Airport Security Safe for Travelers - Assignment Example

 After the events of 9/11 in 2001, safety measures were put into place at all airports, particularly in the United States. What people could bring on board flights and also pack in their luggage was outlined clearly. In addition to these precautions, body scanners were implemented shortly afterwards, causing concerns among the populace as to how safe the scanners were in terms of radiation residue (USA Today web). These scanners were continuously tested over the years and even into last year, 2012, there were 700 inspections of radiation levels from these scanners which, at final tally, were well below standards considered dangerous. The Transportation Security Authority (TSA) has continued to maintain the safety of these machines but there are plenty of people who question these results. Known as Rapiscan backscatter scanners, these will be removed from service by the end of June 2013. Millimeter wave scanners will remain in service instead to carry on with the required scanning for all airport travelers (USA Today web). The reason for the TSA canceling the contracts was presented more as the issue of body pictures resulting from the scans which many travelers felt were very intrusive rather than the fact that radiation might be harmful. Rapiscan, however, was not able to meet the deadline for designing software that would change the body images into stick-like figures rather than the actual body imagery that caused much of the controversy. As a consequence, the contracts were cancelled and the scanners will be fully removed. The European Union has already banned all usage of x-ray body scanners in order to avoid any potential risk to EU travelers’ health and welfare (USA Today web). There have been claims from scientists over the years that testing criteria by the company, Rapiscan, had not been accurate from one machine to the next and that there was also leakage on several occasions. While not necessarily a concern to passenger so much, for TSA agents who monitor these machines over a length of time, the residue could add up although this was not addressed at any point. Some previous reports had shown clerical and mathematical errors in test results which, when redone, showed radiation levels at 10 times higher than what was previously expected (USA Today web). John Sedat, Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California in San Francisco, has been one of those who have complained to various federal officials over the years, saying “Their measurements are probably flawed” (web). In medical studies over the years, the effects of radiation have been proven to cause various problems and while many people who travel very little will not incur problems, the issue may be in regards to those who do travel frequently and also those with compromised immune systems. There are also issues regarding pregnant women as well, as these effects have not been fully studied (Science Daily web). A recent study of CT scans on children younger than 14 showed that scans had increased from 1996 to 2005, and that this was projected to increase the risk of radiation-induced cancer. These tests showed that children are more sensitive to radiation-induced carcinogens and as the increase in the use of CTs grow, children are expected to show signs of the retention of radiation as they get older. This includes those who were younger than five years of age as well as those from age 5 to 14 years, for which exposure to CT scans had increased to triple the amount of exposure (Science Daily web). As a consequence, cancer and leukemia were a probable risk for these children and it is calculated that a reduction of the highest 2% of dosages down to a more midpoint amount of radiation might prevent some 4,870 potential cancers in the future (Science Daily web). While this does not directly apply to radiation exposure in airport scanners, the implications of this exposure, particularly on the young who travel often as well as the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems, suggests that scanner radiation effects could be potentially a problem in years to come (Science Daily web). In another research study on the same subject of childhood CT scans, it was noted that 74 of 178,604 patients were eventually diagnosed with leukemia and 135 of 176,587 patients were diagnosed with brain tumors. While the affected numbers might be small, this still shows the evidence of radiation exposure over a period of time (Pearce et al. 1). Obviously, keeping the dosages down was the best course of action along with using alternative methods of treatments that did not involve radiation in any form whatsoever. Indeed, in research of records going back several decades, it was also realized that before 2001, radiation dosage was not adjusted according to age, thus making the younger population more vulnerable to future cancers. After 2001, the dosage amounts were adjusted according to age relativity (Pearce et al. 2). In moving forward with the removal of the backscatter x-ray machines and using only the millimeter wave machines, this should reduce the issues of radiation and potential health risks of exposure. The millimeter wave machine sends radio frequency waves over the body which returns a generic unisex outline to the viewer’s (TSA) screen. The difference is that in x-ray machines, the ionizing radiation strips electrons off of atoms, subsequently damaging or altering a person’s DNA, leaving a person vulnerable to cancer of some sort. Radio beams have no effects on cellular infrastructures (Groeger web). Unfortunately, there are higher returns on false alarms from these types of scans which can slow down airport security functions when more time is spent following up on a false return (Groeger web). As a consequence of the changeover from the x-ray scanner to the millimeter radio scanner, the issue of radiation from scanners drop to zero. But there is also radiation that customers take in while flying on the plane as well and this may bear looking into as well. It may not be enough to get rid of the x-ray scanners; that which can be found on planes should also be looked in to as well (Akber 1). Actual research has been rather scarce overall in looking at the effects of radiation gained from scanners in the past and also what travelers are exposed to while actually flying. Research has shown that low-level exposure may actually be more dangerous because human cells respond to different levels of radiation in different ways, even more so at lower levels than higher ones (Akber 1). DNA lesions are induced by low-level secondary electrons generated by x-rays (ionization). This will induce breakage at both the single and double strands. While people go to dentists and have dental x-rays, lead shields are commonly used to protect genital organs and the dosage given in these scans is well below the airport scanner dosage. Of course, at the airport, no one is ever given a shield for the reproductive systems, for obvious reasons. As a consequence, the damage may have already been done for those who have travelled over the last decade by plane. Pregnant women, or those pregnant at the time of travel, should closely monitor their bodies for any signs in the next decade of potential cancerous cell growth. While it may be hard to correlate future cancers with past travelling conditions in airport scanners, it is important to conduct research on these travelers to determine if there were any long-lasting effects. Of particular concern would be the TSA monitors who were in close proximity on a daily basis to the scanner (Akber 2). While not actually going through the scanners, being in close proximity might very well have caused them to be affected by far greater dosages of radiation than might have been thought possible. Only close monitoring and research will be able to give those answers. Yet, even to the last minute before the TSA made its decision about the contract with Rapiscan, corporate heads still believed that their x-ray scanners had performed well. "We're very pleased with the results of the latest batch of inspection reports," said Peter Kant, Rapiscan's executive vice president. "It's yet another set of test results that show the systems are operating exactly as we said they would, that they are well below safety limits." (2). Resources Akber, Syed F. Airport Whole Body x-ray Scanners. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice, 11, 5-6. 2011. Groeger, Lena. Scanning the Scanners: A Side-by-Side Comparison. ProPublica Online/Tools & Data. (December 28 2011). Web. June 25 2013. Pearce, Mark S., Jane A. Salotti, Mark P. Little, Kieran McHugh, Choonsik Lee, Kwang Pyo Kim, Nicola L. Howe, Cecile M. Ronckers, Preetha Rajaraman, Alan W. Craft, Louise Parker, and Amy Berrington de González. Radiation Exposure from CT Scans in Childhood and Subsequent Risk of Leukemia and Brain Tumors: A Retrospective Cohort Study. The Lancet Online. (June 7 2013). Web. June 25 2013. Science Daily. Study Examines Cancer Risk from Pediatric Radiation Exposure from CT Scans. Science Daily Online. (June 10 2013). Web. 25 June 2013. USA Today. Airport Body Scanners Pass Company’s Radiation Tests. USA Today Online/Travel. 3 May 2013. Web. Read More