Don't you love having conflicting advice from two trusted sources? It's not as if I just looked up the topic online and formed my own opinion. These completely opposing views came straight from the mouths of medical professionals! In this instance, we're erring on the side of caution and staying home for the holidays. The whole situation is very frustrating, not only because it threw our plans out the window (costing us several hundred dollars in the process), but also because this is the 10th ear infection my son has suffered this calendar year, despite the fact that I have begged to be referred to the ENT for tube surgery. My poor little guy has been on enough antibiotics to keep a small country disease-free for quite some time. Each ear infection requires several rounds of medication and by the time they get it right and knock it out, we usually have about a week before the next one hits.
On the bright side, we won't have the pleasure of any long waits at airport security or potentially hazardous radiation exposure in one of the new scanners. I'm not sure how I feel about the scanners -- though I do understand that some appear safer than others. Perhaps the discomfort and time involved in a "pat down" is a decent alternative to a possible health risk? Luckily, the controversial backscatter scanners that seem to carry a higher risk of exposure, are not the type currently being used in Atlanta (though they are in place in several other cities we routinely visit).
What most travelers may not realize is that they are exposed to significantly higher levels of radiation during air travel in general. Since radiation originates from the sun, anytime we are higher in altitude, our level of exposure goes up. According to the experts, the amount of radiation we are exposed to through airport scanners is the same amount we are exposed to in flight for two minutes at 30,000 feet. The jury is still out on exactly how much a frequent flyer (or airline employee) is exposed to on a regular basis, but adding other exposure risks, like scanners, is certainly not a good thing (medically speaking). Sure, I want our country to be safe from terrorists, but not at the expense of hundreds of lives lost to future cancers that might never have occurred had people not been exposed to more radiation than necessary.
Technically speaking, there are all sorts of everyday items that expose us to radiation, not least of which -- our cell phones -- are in near constant use. I recently received an email from an old friend who now lives in Israel, a country often on the cutting edge of medicine. He tells me that the governing body there is considering instituting cell-free zones near schools in an effort to curb student's exposure to electromagnetic radiation. Not such a bad idea?
Speaking of which, beware of those charging pads often being touted as easy ways in which to charge all your electronic devices without cords. I was just told that the plates that work to charge multiple devices at once actually spew a "cloud" of electromagnetism that can easily expose those around it to controversial levels of radiation. And amazingly, when I was recently in my doctor's office getting a chest x-ray, I asked about the levels I was being exposed to and was told by the technician that people who live near Stone Mountain, Georgia (a town known for it's large, granite "mountain") are routinely exposed to more radiation on a daily basis due to their proximity to the granite -- a naturally radioactive material. In fact, he says that many of us are unknowingly exposed daily through our granite countertops. While a quick google search does find that these home upgrades do contribute to some level of exposure, just how much harm they emit is up for debate.
Kinda gives new meaning to the idea that the kitchen is often the most dangerous room in the house.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment