Review of the TSA X-ray backscatter body scanner safety report

http://myhelicaltryst.blogspot.com/2010/11/tsa-x-ray-backscatter-body-scanner.html

by adulau • 15 years ago

75 37 15 years ago

myhelicaltryst.blogspot.com

matusz13• 15 years ago

I wonder how many americans live in fear of terrorist attacks vs. cancer.

DiabloD3• 15 years ago

So, when they said the terrorists have already won, I wonder if they meant this

thornad3• 15 years ago

Terrorist have already won. They ARE the government and the corporations. TSA scanners are a HUGE business for the ex-head of Homelad Security and his clique.But they had to invent the terrorist first, to make people accept being irradiated like that and pay for it while getting screwed. Also may want to google "depopulation agenda" (Kissinger & all). Then it will make even more sense. It's not just about the money.

mootothemax• 15 years ago

Terrorist have already won.

Also may want to google "depopulation agenda"

Do you not see the problem with the above? If you want to successfully argue against what the TSA is doing, you need to drop the conspiracy stuff. It's not a question of being right or wrong: it's making sure that valid complaints can't be brushed aside by snide remarks such as "Yeah, whatever, he's a conspiracy nut."

And just for the avoidance of doubt, when the first page of Google is littered with links discussing the Illuminati, that does, sadly, damage your credibility.

thornad3• 15 years ago

Thank you for your kind message. You are right from a certain perspective. I just post the information I find interesting enough to make people think. Some people will dismiss it. There is nothig I can do for them, despite the fact that more and more conspiracy theories are turning out to be facts in one form or another. I'm not attached to any of it, nor do I believe everything in the form it is presented, and I wish people can make up their own minds.

yummyfajitas• 15 years ago

By eyeballing the graph, it looks as if about 8% of the x-rays emitted are soft. This is interesting, and it is troubling that the TSA was not more clear about this point. Kudos to the author for spotting this.

But some of his conclusions don't make much sense. "With that being said, because the scanners have both a radiation source AND a detector in the front AND back of the person in the scanner, it is actually possible for the hardware to conduct a classic, through-the-body X-ray...So the hardware has the capability to output quite high doses of radiation..."

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. I would expect any backscattering system to have a detector behind the subject for the purposes of calibration, if nothing else.

Overall, nothing he says (apart from the vague speculation above) cuts against the fundamental point of the report: the dose is exceedingly low and is highly unlikely to cause any significant damage.

I'd also like to point out that much like the TSA report, this blog post is "NOT authored by anyone with either a Ph.D. or a M.D., raising serious concerns of the extent of the expertise of the individual". (Not that this should matter, but the OP seems to think it does.)

benmccann• 15 years ago

The blog was written by a Ph.D. candidate at UC Davis with expertise in the biochemistry of DNA repair. I'd say that he has some expertise and he likely has a greater knowledge of the effects of ionizing radiation than a mid-level TSA official would.

ck2• 15 years ago

Even if a study existed that found them 100% safe, here's the thing about science: the later discovery of a missing fact or understanding about some small unknown behavior can change EVERYTHING. But then you are left with people who simply flout the original study for political reasons or ignorance. Happens in every field.

This is also why modern nuclear power plant design seem so safe. And then something they didn't factor in shows up, or someone takes a sloppy shortcut in building or regulations that wasn't accounted for and suddenly there's no way to undue the damage (and no way to stop the failure).

If they won't let TSA agents wear dosimeters, well then you'd have to be a moronic zombie to become a TSA agent and work around these machines. And that's predictably who is left working there. But hey you can sue for lack of benefits when you are dying of cancer, only to be told on your deathbed that you fall within the range of people who get cancer anyway, couldn't be the machine.

I'd say "stop flying" but of course these machines are now in portable versions in vans and they can just drive down a street and expose everyone to it, opt-in or not (this really exists, it's not tinfoil hat paranoia http://google.com/search?q=backscatter+vans ).

rimantas2• 15 years ago

  > This is also why modern nuclear power plant design
  > seem so safe.

Have you got any proof thet it is not safe? Or are you talking about 40 years old reactors struck by once-in-millenia earthquake and cunami?

madflo• 15 years ago

A safe design for a device producing nuclear waste can't exclude once-in-millenia earthquakes and tsunamis parameters.

ugh• 15 years ago

What evidence could convince you of the safety of these devices?

Vivtek• 15 years ago

Thirty years of use and demonstrable, well-documented lack of increased cancer rates in the users. That's why it's irresponsible to use them for political reasons. Or are you among those people who think they make you more secure?

brg• 15 years ago

I would be less worried about proving them safe ex ante than maintaining the safety of those around them. Regular monitoring for leakage and exposure would be a great start. The reason gate agents are not allowed to wear monitors is political. If there is any problem found I think it that workplace rule should be considered malicious.

gcb• 15 years ago

So, what one should do to avoid this?

fragsworth• 15 years ago

Request a pat-down, which you are entitled to, but it can get you harassed by annoyed TSA agents.

swombat2• 15 years ago

Unfortunately, the pat-downs are not an option in Europe. If you're selected for the Porn Scanner, and you refuse, they won't let you on the flight.

po• 15 years ago

I requested a pat-down two days ago coming in through Detroit while transferring and they said "sure!" and were pleasant about it. I was expecting a battle. Also, it's not that invasive a process. I think we hear horror stories about it but I think more people should opt for it.

This is not to say that the whole process isn't stupid and broken. Certainly I was separated from my belongings on the belt which I didn't like.

cincinnatus• 15 years ago

Anecdotally, flying yesterday when I went through security I declined the scanner and was simply waved through a regular metal detector. I also did not remove my belt or shoes. Kind of a pre 9/11 screen. 2 months ago at the same airport I got the full-on scrotum poke.

suking2• 15 years ago

Ditto - I opted out a few months ago and basically got a hand job - a few weeks ago it was nothing, quick wave of the wand.

gravitronic• 15 years ago

I went through the scanner a few weeks ago.

I was a bit jetlagged so I didn't raise my concern quick enough, which I fully admit is my fault.

They basically herded my fiancee and I through the machine without telling us what it was or that we had any option for a pat down. That's what bothers me the most I think. They seem to be ok with subjecting people to this without telling them or presenting them with the choice.

After careful consideration being molested by the state would have been my preferred method of security authentication, given the opportunity.

Sukotto• 15 years ago

In addition to the radiation risk from the Rapescan machine (and the potential problems of overexposure raised by the OP), you also need to consider the extra radiation exposure you get from the flight itself. Some numbers here [1] and a calculator here [2].

[1] http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflig...

[2] http://www.sievert-system.org/WebMasters/en/evaluation.html

Review of the TSA X-ray backscatter body scanner safety report

Related Stories