FDA Cracking Down On X-ray Exposure For Kids

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."

Re:Can we please...

[dgatwood]

I'm not conflicted at all. Forcing kids to experience pat-downs just might anger the public enough to force our government to eliminate the bulls**t.

Re:Can we please...

[Xenkar]

Actually sir, I have two genetic disorders, Hemophilia and Osteochondroma.

The Hemophilia basically means my blood clotting proteins are ineffective and thus it takes me longer to stop bleeding and then to heal.

The Osteochrondoma causes a variety of non-cancerous bone tumors to grow near joints during the bone growth phase. They can be in many different shapes and sizes.

The groping/padding down can cause a bone tumor to break, which can cause me to bleed to death if it manages to puncture an artery. Chances are I'll be dead before they get me to a hospital.

The radiation from the scanners can cause my bone tumors to become cancerous. If this happens, I'm pretty much sentenced to a long and painful death.

Re:Can we please...

[element-o.p.]

I call B.S. on that logic. If we assume that all 631,939,829 passengers who flew in 2010 [quora.com] is a fair average for how many people fly per year (and according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics [bts.gov] it seems to be accurate for 2011 and the projected 2012 stats), then that's over 7,000,000,000 passengers since 9/11. On 9/11, there were what, fifteen hijackers? We've seen two underwear bombers and one shoe bomber since then. Am I missing any other would-be terrorists? If not, that makes a grand total of...


Wait for it...


18 out of over seven billion passengers who are (were) terrorists. In other words, stopping and searching every airline passenger gives you a one in 388 million chance of actually catching a terrorist. Pick any other crime and tell the public that you'll have a one in 388 million chance of catching a bad guy if they would just allow the cops to stop and search people at random, and there would be torches and pitchforks marching towards D.C. Yet we think that's "reasonable" when we want to get on an airplane?!?!