----- Original Message -----
From: *- DORIS FANG -* <sfsttj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 1999 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] Avoiding X-Rays
>
>
> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, John Hudson wrote:
>
> > Tell us which airports use CTX series machines and the rated strength /
> > intensity of the radiation.
>
> This is not published, AFAIK, although all of the major US airports
> either have them installed or will soon, so the FAA tells us.
> You'll have to go search engine the intensity (which is operator
> controlled and variable). If you are carrying a small amount of film,
> get a hand-search (by law you are allowed this within the continental US).
> Sima claim to have a bag out which protects up to ISO 400. Pop Photo
> will be testing this in a CTX-5000 soon. We'll see.
>
> *= Doris Fang =*
There is a huge volume of relevant discussion at:
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/xrays.html
The anecdotal evidence is not overwhelmingly persuasive either way. If the
xray scanning is as powerful as one is led to believe, the operators of the
machinery would require extensive protection. I have yet to see any such
protective relief in airport security areas. Low level dental xrays require
body shielding and I am sure that airport scanning is no less intense. The
volume of discussion in the web site shown above barely touches on the
health issues. Back years and years ago I used to get my shoes sized by
standing with my feet inside a box. Looking down through the top of the box
I could see the outlines of the bones in my feet just as if I was looking at
a perfectly exposed b/w negative about 12" square. Those xrays were strong
and very effective but of course those shoe shop devices were banned long
ago. A relative [PhD nuclear physics, & MD] subsequently opined that those
devices were an exceptional threat to one's health! I suspect that airport
xray scanning would have to be of somewhat similar intensity to be effective
and if such intensity, actual or potential, was available at airport
security there is obviously a health issue. A not unreasonable possibility
is that the enhanced scanning facilities at airports is as much a part of a
campaign of psychology as it is of science. If travellers are told
repeatedly over and over again that scanning has been elevated to a degree
of super sophistication and the "technology" is highly classified there is
an elevated degree of deterence. I find it highly questionable that
increased levels of radiation will be or would be permitted without
correspondingly increased levels of protection for operators and those who
are in proximity to the radiation. Of all the airports I have been through
of late show no signs of such increased levels of protection.
jh
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|