The modality bests the U.S. standard of care, radiographic skeletal survey, in assessing the extent of the disease.
Are airport scanners safe? In another recent analysis on the topic, researchers at the University of California have estimated the cancer risk from one kind of scanners is extremely low.
When you’re standing in line at the airport, putting your shoes in bins and taking loose change out of your pockets, here’s a conversation starter: How safe is that radiation exposure you’ll get walking through the whole-body security scanner? That’s the issue discussed in a pair of articles to be released in April’s print issue of Radiology.
A phantom study suggests whole-body x-ray scanners are not effective. Backscatter scanners unlikely to detect substantial explosive amounts on the body.
Three U.S. senators have joined the debate over the safety of x-ray based whole-body airport scanners, asking federal officials to review scanner health effects on travelers and airport and airline personnel.
Living in England has inevitable consequences, ones shared with most of Northern Europe. The winter is long and dark, and, in South West England, also wet and cold.
In a recent article entitled Radiation risks: Are airport body scanners ‘a great public health experiment’?”, Leon Kaufman argues that the use of these scanners at airports exposes airline passengers to undetermined amounts of radiation without reason and with little knowledge of the consequences. I would like to address certain incorrect assertions in this article.
Since the attempted explosion of an airliner as it was landing in Detroit on Christmas Day by an alleged terrorist from Nigeria, global air safety experts have been scrambling to enact new safety measures. A quick answer has come in the form of whole-body scanners that use low-level radiation to allow screeners to see through clothing to identify hidden weapons or explosives.
Seriously injured patients have a better chance of surviving multiple trauma when they are evaluated in the emergency room with whole-body CT, according to a study of more than 4500 cases from Germany.
No clear winner has emerged in a head-to-head comparison of whole-body FDG-PET/CT and whole-body 3T MRI for non-small cell lung cancer staging. Unenhanced PET/CT proved better for detecting metastatic lymph nodes and soft-tissue involvement, while MR was more sensitive to the presence of brain and liver metastases.