- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
March 2011 Moms
Concerns About New Airport Body Scan
Ok... I already posted this on the 2nd Trimester board and want the March Mommies' opinions. I'll re-phrase slightly.... since my use of the word "invasive" to describe the new pat-downs sent a few people up the wall - (sheesh people I'm not suggesting they force you to a body cavity exam!!)
Traveling during the holidays is stressful in itself, much less
traveling while pregnant. The new TSA policy requires either a full body
scan (which uses x-ray technology) or what you may or may not consider an invasive same-gender pat down.
The TSA states the full body scan is safe for pregnant women. A
statement from the TSA website regarding safety:
"Some news reports have raised questions about backscatter x-ray safety. The x-ray dose produced by backscatter systems is extremely low (less than 0.10 microsievert (10 microrem)). An airline passenger that has been screened receives an equivalent dose of radiation from less than two minutes of flight at altitude. Furthermore, naturally occurring ionizing radiation is all around us. We are continuously exposed to this background radiation. In 17 minutes of ordinary living, a person receives more radiation from naturally occurring sources than from one scan."https://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/ait_fact_sheet.pdf
If you refuse the body scan:
"In addition, Transportation Security Agency agents are now allowed to conduct a very detailed, very personal, body search of passengers who refuse to pass through the new scanners. The agents are allowed to use fingers and the palms of their hands to feel around breasts and genitalia"https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/15/earlyshow/living/travel/main7055776.shtml
Obviously, you weigh the risks/benefits and talk to your doctor. Just wanting some other pregnant opinions.
[Poll]
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Concerns About New Airport Body Scan
Diagnosed with PCOS March '10 - Started 1000mg of Metformin
After 3 unsuccessful Clomid cycles, FSH+Ovidril+IUI+Progesterone=BFP!
Time to make Emilie a big sister!
May '16 2.0: Letrozole+FSH+Menopur+Ovidril+IUI+Progesterone=BFP! first beta-45.44, second beta-148
I traveled and had to use one in Oct when I was 16 weeks along. While It's not something I'd do multiple times a day, I would think that microwave ovens, electric blankets, hot bubble baths, kitty boxes, raw meat, and medication are more dangerous than a 10 sec scan.
I just got back on the 10th last week from an international trip. I wasn't choosen to go through the scanner but if I had been choosen I would have elected to have the pat down. I did get selected for a pat down though, the specific airport didn't have a body scan.
As far as the new pat down goes, it really wasn't bad. When she felt up my legs she stopped low enough that I didn't feel "invaded" - that being said in 2004 I flew up to see my ex in Canada and was seriously invaded. It was the day before the same-sex pat down rule went into effect and I had a male security agent touch my chest because my underwire set off the wand. Needless to say on all additional flights up North I wore my sports bra.
I agree with this. ?I mentioned this in response to your post on second tri but I'll reiterate it here as well, a commercial flight from New York to California is, in terms of radiation exposure, roughly equivalent to receiving a mammogram or three months average background radiation. ?I don't know how much radiation the scanners involve but would bet it's much less than that.
Yes I've read that you are exposed to higher levels of radiation being on the airplane for a matter of time or even being outside in the sun. I'm just a naturally suspicious person I guess. The TSA is concerned about the safety of passengers and keeping terrorists off our planes - a pregnant lady's concern about x-rays isn't high up on their list I would imagine.
As a first-time mom, I think I'm prone to over analyze everything but the concern isn't great enough for me not to fly. I'll just opt for the pat down... and see how invasive it turns out to be. I suppose I'd better get used to being felt in private places by strangers!
My husband works at a nuclear plant as well, and he has taught me a lot about the radiation hype. People don't realize how much they are exposed to just walking down the street. I don't think a scan for a few seconds is going to be any worse than flying.
The pat down isn't as bad as you're expecting. Personally I would just go through the damn scanner, but the pat down wouldn't bother me either. My DH works for TSA and because of the new pat down he was able to find a gun on a passenger last night. So yes, I do feel like TSA is only doing what is necessary to keep us safe. Besides, do you honestly think TSA employees enjoy the new pat down anymore than you do? The only reason TSA does what they do and uses the eqipment that they use is because people are constantly looking for a way to hide something. I'm not trying to be a biitch, but if you don't like it then you can always drive.
of course they SAY it's a low dose of radiation, but who checks the machines? who calibrates them? how often?
i say if you can avoid the risk easily enough, then avoid it. ionizing radiation is bad for baby DNA!!
I do not trust that the radiation exposure from the machines has been sufficiently studied. The radiation that these machines produce is sufficiently different from the type of radiation that one is exposed to daily, on a long flight, etc. By design the radiation penetrates only a small fraction of your total body; FDA standards on tolerable radiation exposure were written assuming the dose is applied to ones entire body. The interests which have developed the tests and which claim the machines are safe, are the same interests who benefit financially from their use. In addition, the government has mistakenly approved dangerous things in the past; with the rush and intensive lobbying behind the machines, I fear that safety has been compromised. Claims for studies showing that the manufacture's claimed dosage are surfacing. The one that I have read states that the dose is 4 times higher than the maximum stated by the manufacturers and that "The increased dose to individual passengers remains well below doses that are known to cause adverse health effects."
Until I have had sufficient time to read and examine technical papers regarding the machines -- I have the "luxury" I'm of being an engineering and plasma physics doctoral candidate so I spend a large portion of my time reading technical papers and so I hope that I'll be able to wrap my head around the field -- I will not allow my family to go through them. Sure, telling my husband that he cannot go through the advanced imaging machines because I intend to have more children and don't want them to have birth defects b/c he was too homophobic for an entirely too-evasive pat down is exaggerating. However, any risk to our health and that of our future children needs to be carefully evaluated.
Also note that since the machines are designed not to penetrate deeply into the body, I wonder if they are safer for fetuses. I have seen no information the radiation exposure to internal organs.
Finally, the scanning aspect of the machines is extremely important to their operation. They must scan the entire human body in a few seconds. Suppose that there was a hardware or software issue that caused a malfunction in the scanning. The person in the machine would suddenly receive highly concentrated doses of radiation. How often do the machines in your life fail? Are you willing to risk it in order to catch a flight? In my opinion, it had better be a very important flight, one your willing to risk suffering from skin cancer for.
And a brief divergence onto my soap box. When do the government receive so much power to remove individual liberties to privacy? I don't want strangers knowing that I have my period; I don't care if they are in another room. I certainly will not allow anyone to grope my children. There is no inherent assumption of complete safety when flying or taking public transportation, etc. The greatest danger with aircraft was when the system enabled the plane itself to become a weapon. Securing the cockpit should be the primary focus of anti-terrorist safeguards. It seems that by adding all of this "security" the government is tempting explosives on flights by making the target a high priority. While in going through airport security in New Zealand, I started taking off my shoes and their airport security personnel stated "You don't have to do that here. We are civilized." It hit me pretty hard because I realized that I had become so accepting of the TSA policies that I no longer questioned wearing slip-on shoes on chilly feet in the middle of winter and separating my liquid make-up. If we let the government perform these virtual strip searches without questioning them, what will we be setting up the stage for next when this technology doesn't stop terrorists?