5 ms·
If its bad for film, would it not be bad at some level for people?
by coldcode 7y ago
If its bad for film, would it not be bad at some level for people?
- colejohnson66 7y agoThis is for the checked luggage, not the people scanners.
- cguess 7y agoIt's for carry on. Checked luggage goes through WAY more radiation and you should never put undeveloped film or anything else that's radiation sensitive in your checked luggage.
- morsch 7y agoDetails: https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q12361.html https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q12361.html
- tbihl 7y agoFor reference, 300-350mrem is a decent estimate of your annual dose of radiation. If you fly a lot, smoke, or live in areas where the ground releases significant amounts of radon, your own annual dose can be twice that.
- uptown 7y agoSometimes they’re one and the same. https://twitter.com/CaughtCctv/status/1212381004591255553 https://twitter.com/CaughtCctv/status/1212381004591255553
- pdonis 7y agoIf you mean the people going through screening, they don't get CT scanned, only the carry on luggage does. The machines are shielded.
- mirimir 7y agoAs others imply, it's the flying itself that delivers the potentially worrisome dose. But that's not an issue, unless you fly every day.