FDA Cracking Down On X-ray Exposure For Kids 138
ericjones12398 writes "The Food and Drug Administration is proposing that manufacturers of X-ray machines and CT scanners do more to protect children from radiation exposure. If companies don't take steps to limit X-ray doses, the agency may require a label on their new equipment recommending it not be used on children. X-rays and CT scans can provide doctors with lots of useful information. But the radiation that creates the helpful images also increases a person's risk for cancer. There's been an explosion in the use of imaging tests. And rising radiation doses, particularly from CT scans, have drawn concern. The cancer risk increases with the dose of X-rays received during a person's lifetime, so kids' exposure is particularly important. It's also the case that children are more sensitive to X-ray damage. The FDA is also telling parents to speak up. If a doctor orders a test or procedure that uses X-rays, parents shouldn't be afraid to ask if it's really necessary. Also, it doesn't hurt to ask if there's an acceptable alternative, such as ultrasound or MRI, that doesn't rely on X-rays."
Growth (Score:5, Informative)
Radiation will be especially bad for children, since any mutation their cells acquire will be passed on to all daughter cells. For a growing child that will be a lot more cells than for adults who are only replacing their cells.
Re:Can we please... (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps the fact that the TSA scanners are NOT regulated by the FDA, not certified by them, nor do they license their operators, might change your mind.
Image Gently (Score:5, Informative)
Dose from CT scans is vastly larger... (Score:4, Informative)
(Doesn't change my opinion that all full-body airport scanners are a waste of money, and xray backscatter scanners in particular should be banned.)
But the FDA is right to focus on over-prescribed medical xray procedures.
Re:Dose from CT scans is vastly larger... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can we please... (Score:3, Informative)
I would seriously like to see the TSA removed and each airport and airline worry about their own security.
If it wasn't trivial to move about after passing the security screening, I might agree. Since someone who flys airline X can freely mingle with someone who flies on Y, if X has lax security then so do, effectively, Y. Same for the issue of mixing people between airports. If airport X has no security and Y does, the first plane to land at Y that came from X means Y also has no security.
Much worse was the kind of issue created when England temporarily enacted really draconian security policy. If you weren't aware of the nutiness, you could get on an airplane going there and then not be able to carry your stuff back out. My boss was stuck like that. He carried his laptop in but couldn't leave with it. If airlines were each responsible for their own, you could start a trip with a really nice laptop and expensive electronic gadgets, only to have them confiscated when you were trying to make your connection on a different airline. Trying to make a 45 minute connection at a distant airport is the worst time to find out that you can neither carry on that electronic device nor check it.
Not saying that TSA is not a problem, just that the solution is not a mishmash of mix and match systems. There needs to be national standards and a national implementation.