| There are three problems with that statement. 1) Short trips tend to fly at much lower altitudes than transatlantic flights, e.g. 10,000 feet vs 40,000 feet, which is about 1/35th the exposure. It takes time (and fuel) to climb to high altitudes with a full complement of passengers. 2) The superficial nature of backscatter scans means the dose is absorbed by the outermost tissues, instead of distributed throughout the volume of the body. Thus the effective dose is higher. 3) The dose is received over a period of seconds instead of minutes or hours. From higher-dose research, we know that a high dose in a short period of time is more damaging than the same total dose spread out over a longer time period. There is a lack of data for low-dose exposure, which causes a rift between safety agencies and industry spokespeople. Additionally, we should be using independent testing and dosimeters instead of relying on manufacturer's figures. AFAIK nobody has walked through one of these with a dosimeter yet. "David Brenner, the head of Columbia University’s Centre for Radiological Research, says the concentration on the skin – one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the body – means the radiation dose is actually 20 times higher than the official estimate." http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/naked-scanners-may-increa... Check my comment history for a more thorough review of these issues. |