TSA employees develop cancer from x-ray machines

[her209]

Looks like there's an update to the article:

Update [2:20 p.m.]: The TSA spokesperson contacted Healthland to point out that the complaints from the Boston airport security workers date back to May 2010 and that the TSA has responded to them. The TSA provided this May 2010 document from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) that states in reference to the "cancer cluster" claimed by the Boston union that "15-25 cases of cancer over nine years among approximately 1100 employees are not an excess of cancer." NIOSH states that "it is unlikely that the cancers reported are associated with exposures from the TSA baggage screening machines at [Boston Logan International Airport]."

 

[Texashiker]

Wearing a dosimeter near x-ray machines is not common sense.

When have you ever worked around radiation? Getting an xray at the dentist does not count.

Bro, when you work you don't have a choice.

Learn your OSHA regulations.

In just about all of the jobs I have ever worked at, we had guidelines set down by OHSA and the various workmans comp insurance providers.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

When have you ever worked around radiation? Getting an xray at the dentist does not count.

Learn your OSHA regulations.

In just about all of the jobs I have ever worked at, we had guidelines set down by OHSA and the various workmans comp insurance providers.

It's one thing when you have some brains and financial mobility; it's an entirely different thing when you're dumb as bricks and your job is keeping your family fed.

 

[Exterous]

People that work around x-rays are supposed to wear dosimeters, that is just the way things are.

Only in cases where:

Each employee who enters a restricted area under such circumstances that he receives, or is likely to receive, a dose in any calendar quarter in excess of 25 percent of the applicable value specified in paragraph (b)(1)

(b)(1)
Rems per calendar quarter Whole body: Head and trunk; active blood-forming organs; lens of eyes; or gonads 1 1/4
Hands and forearms; feet and ankles 18 3/4
Skin of whole body 7 1/2


So...it depends on how much radiation the machines emit. If it is less than the above OSHA DOES NOT require the wearing of dosimeters

(Edit: There are some other cases but I don't think the employee is under 18 or that this is a High Radiation area)

 

[SagaLore]

Update [2:20 p.m.]: The TSA spokesperson contacted Healthland to point out that the complaints from the Boston airport security workers date back to May 2010 and that the TSA has responded to them. The TSA provided this May 2010 document from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) that states in reference to the "cancer cluster" claimed by the Boston union that "15-25 cases of cancer over nine years among approximately 1100 employees are not an excess of cancer." NIOSH states that "it is unlikely that the cancers reported are associated with exposures from the TSA baggage screening machines at [Boston Logan International Airport]."

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/...-give-boston-tsa-agents-cancer/#ixzz1RFwilKtL​

OP fail.

​

 

[Mark R]

People that work around x-rays are supposed to wear dosimeters, that is just the way things are.

Not strictly correct.

You are supposed to wear a dosimeter, if you are 'at risk' of exceeding a 'dose limit'. People who work with radiation infrequently, or where the exposures are only ever going to be extremely small do not need a dosimeter - as long as the net result is that there is no chance of them exceeding the legal limit.

E.g. an anesthesiologist who occasionally performs anesthesia for patients having X-ray guided surgery, doesn't need monitoring, because they do so sufficiently infrequently, and at a sufficient distance from the patient (the most relevant X-ray source in the room - from a safety perspective the X-ray machine itself is not really an exposure risk) that the chances of them exceeding the legal limit is nil.

Every other profession that works with x-rays, everybody from military personal to an industrial xray tech, wears dosimeters.

Only those workers that are potentially at risk of receiving a significant exposure - e.g. due to accidental malfunction of a machine, or due to regular work with unshielded machinery. Some employers may have policies in place that everyone needs monitoring, if they ever work in a radiation risk area. However, this is neither necessary nor recommended (but some employers may do it anyway, so that employees who are at risk don't get 'missed' - such a miss could be a massive ballache for the employer, so blanket monitoring is understandable)

For baggage screeners at airports any exposure they get is likely to be negligible. The machines use low-dose X-rays, they are heavily shielded, and the control system is placed in a shielded area. Additionally, the inverse-square law means that even if someone stands directly inline with the less shielded openings, the long conveyors ensure that the closest they can get is way outside any area where there is a relevant radiation field. It seems totally inappropriate and a waste of resources to give such staff dosimeters, as the exposure does not warrant it.

In fact, the risk of abuse of the dosimeters is much higher for those employees who don't need them - believe me, after an employee gets 10 'zero' dose reports back in a row, it's not as rare as you think to find a dosimeter that has been deliberately X-rayed. Depending on the type of dosimeter, this type of exposure may be easily detectable, and usually ends up with the employee being fired (for deliberate tampering with personal safety equipment).

There is supposed to be a 24 hour limit as to how much radiation someone can be exposed to. The way that is measured is with a dosimeter. But for some reason TSA employees are not given dosimeters? Some companies (industrial xray) even require their employees to keep a daily log of their radiation exposure.

There is no daily limit. The limits are specified on an annual basis.

Workers who are likely, or expected, to exceed a certain percentage of a dose limit (e.g. 33&#37 will also need to keep a regular personal log of exposures (e.g. on a monthly basis, if dosimeters are read monthly). This way, if they change employer, or do external contracting work, that there can be no doubt of their accumulated radiation exposure.

Different work practices require different types of monitoring. E.g. an X-ray tech is very unlikely to receive a significant exposure, and good working practices will mean that each operation gives a very low cumulative dose. It's pointless to read the dosimeter more than once a month, so a photographic film dosimeter, or thermoluminescent crystal dosimeter which is sent to a laboratory for processing and certified reading is most appropriate.

A scientist or pharmacy technician handling test tubes/syringes of radiactive chemicals or radioactive drugs may be given finger ring dosimeters (usually a once-monthly thermoluminescent dosimeter), to ensure that they don't exceed the finger dose limit.

A maintenance worker at a nuclear plant may need a real time dosimeter, so that they can detect and avoid areas that are heavily contaminated.

--

Back to the original article. There are several issues:
1. There is genuine concern about the safety of the 'whole body' security scanners. These are open and use backscattered X-rays to image for dense materials. The dose to the person being scanned is reported as very low, but the concern is that staff in the vicinity might get a cumulative exposure.

There are national guidelines which state that the radiation field surrounding the machines is negligible. However, there is genuine scientific concern that this might not always be true as only one machine was actually tested - and manufacturing variation might mean that some machines produce more radiation than others.

This is a fair point, though I'm highly skeptical that any material differences would be found. Even if the machine emitted 10x as much radiation as stated, the radiation field around it would still be negligible - and using most X-ray detection technologies, going 10x over design exposure would likely result in operational problems (e.g. failed calibrations, failed exposures, failed quality assurance, etc.) Still, the costs of performing a proper study of a group of machines are unlikely to be significant.

2. The original article suggests there has been a 'cluster' of cancer cases in operators of baggage scanners. First of all, there is no cluster. The statistics are well within normal ranges, and this was stated in an update. Second, a 9 year time lag is a bit short for X-ray induced cancers - they usually start cropping up 20-40 years after exposure (although 10 years, or less, is possible for very severe exposures - but the baggage scanners would be unlikely to achieve such levels of exposures through normal use, or even plausible types of abuse).

 

[Texashiker]

There is no daily limit. The limits are specified on an annual basis.

Depends on company policy.

Different work practices require different types of monitoring. E.g. an X-ray tech is very unlikely to receive a significant exposure, and good working practices will mean that each operation gives a very low cumulative dose.

Your trying to group various job settings together.

There is a difference between a xray tech that works at a dentist office that can step around a corner or into a shielded room, and a xray tech that has to xray pipe in an industrial setting.

I have seen xray techs use cobalt, where they got as close as 30 feet from the exposed source. The cobalt was used to xray 2 inch thick steel plates. In some cases we had to be 200 - 300 feet away from the xray source.

With the TSA employees, they did not wear a dosimeter, worked next to the source for hours on end. So "how" do they know much radiation was absorbed? They dont.

 

[KB]

"15-25 cases of cancer over nine years among approximately 1100 employees "

Cancer cluster not found. That is actually well below the normal levels of cancer among the general populace. Cue the reverse article: TSA screeners have less cancer. Daily dose of Airport X-rays recommended.

 

[Mark R]

Depends on company policy.

My point was that there was no legal or official mandate for daily monitoring. A company is free to do what it wants to do, provided that it obeys the law and uses good practice.

Your trying to group various job settings together.

There is a difference between a xray tech that works at a dentist office that can step around a corner or into a shielded room, and a xray tech that has to xray pipe in an industrial setting.

I have seen xray techs use cobalt, where they got as close as 30 feet from the exposed source. The cobalt was used to xray 2 inch thick steel plates. In some cases we had to be 200 - 300 feet away from the xray source.

Different working environments and different risks require different precautions. Riskier working environments may require monitoring. Low risk environments don't.

With the TSA employees, they did not wear a dosimeter, worked next to the source for hours on end. So "how" do they know much radiation was absorbed? They dont.

True.

However, they can estimate it. And if the upper limit of the estimate is negligible, then what does it matter, if they don't know exactly?

Some back of envelope calculations for airport-type backscatter scanners, suggest that even for an employee working with such a scanner for an entire month, the plausible exposure is below the limit of measurement of most conventional dosimeter devices. Are you seriously suggesting that if a dosimeter read 'zero' that you would treat that as an unknown exposure? Technically, you would be correct - the actual exposure would be unknown. Pragmatically, you would assume it was negligible.