Airport full-body X-ray scanners banned across Europe as unsafe

http://www.geek.com/articles/news/airport-full-body-x-ray-scanners-banned-across-europe-as-unsafe-20111116/

by ukdm • 15 years ago

422 122 15 years ago

Keep in mind that there are 2 types of machines in common use. 1) Backscatter (X-Ray) and 2) Millimeter Wave (Radio) and they operate very differently.

Based on what I've read I'm comfortable with the millimeter wave system and have some concerns about the backscatter x-ray system. However, if the backscatter system operates correctly then the amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight. I still think I'd opt-out of the backscatter system until long term effects and performance are studied.

Tip: Millimeter wave looks like a circular telephone booth, Backscatter x-ray looks like a big rectangular wall you stand in front of.

http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/5/163631/3181/travel/Ful...

ghurlman• 15 years ago

if the backscatter system operates correctly

That's putting a lot of faith into the TSA.

_delirium• 15 years ago

Even leaving aside whether the TSA is well-run or not, the lack (as far as seems to be publicly known) of a rigorous risk analysis is a bit troubling. Not just as far as the medical questions go (e.g. what's a safe exposure level), but just standard engineering stuff.

For example, since backscatter machines work by scanning a narrow beam very quickly over the body, a particularly problematic failure mode would be the beam remaining energized but failing to move, which would give a very high localized dose. Even if that "can't happen", you would typically have some sort of failsafe that should rapidly cut off the beam in that case. If this were a medical device, there are fairly well established ways of doing failure-mode analysis to quantify that risk and the reliability/speed of the failsafes. Have companies like Rapiscan done that?

po• 15 years ago

However, if the backscatter system operates correctly then the amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight.

The most compelling argument I've heard about the dangers is that while the total amount of ionizing radiation you receive is small compared to the flight itself, the radiation is chosen such that it doesn't pass through you and more of it is absorbed at the skin.

Even if they are safe, I will probably opt-out but I definitely don't like being separated from my baggage on the belt during the pat-down process.

axiak• 15 years ago

In my experience (I've opted-out 6 times now in the past 1.5 years), they let you take your baggage with you to the pat down area, and you never have to lose eye contact.

brk• 15 years ago

Even if they are safe, I will probably opt-out but I definitely don't like being separated from my baggage on the belt during the pat-down process.

This usually isn't an issue, you can see your bags or have them set aside. The issue I have personally been running intro (I travel about 2x per month on average, meaning potentially 4 trips through these things) is that when you opt-out it seems like it is taking longer and longer for them to find a suitable pat-down attendant.

This could just be my own skepticism, but it certainly seems that the wait is getting longer and longer each time.

epoxyhockey• 15 years ago

The power of ionizing radiation being absorbed entirely at the skin (not the entire body mass) is also my concern. Those figures of the radiation being equal to "just a few minutes of flying in the plane" are totally inaccurate.

I am also notably concerned about that ionizing radiation being absorbed by my open eyes and also down below.. not to be crude.

maaku2• 15 years ago

> The most compelling argument I've heard about the dangers is that while the total amount of ionizing radiation you receive is small compared to the flight itself, the radiation is chosen such that it doesn't pass through you and more of it is absorbed at the skin.

I have a genetic pre-disposition to skin cancer. The total radiation dose may be small, but the type of radiation (ionizing), and the fact that it is targeted at, and fully absorbed by the skin doesn't give me comfort. Should I be concerned?

That's a rhetorical question, because in reality we just don't know because no one has studied it. And that's scary. I've opted out ever since these things were introduced, and will continue to do so.

bgarbiak• 15 years ago

Yes, EU only banned X-Ray scanners. As for the other technologies of full body scanning, well, these are actually green lighted, not banned: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15532933,00.html

rdtsc3• 15 years ago

> The amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight.

One difference. I get something back from the flight. I get to be in another place rather fast. I am willing to take a small radiation dose for it. I am not getting anything back from being scanned by a Rapiscan (that is the name of the company that makes most of them).

Groxx2• 15 years ago

That's horrible logic. To carry it to absurdity: the flight gets you from A to B rather quickly - why all the delays while they, you know, put fuel and peanuts into the plane? They should just do away with that, it's not the flight, all you need is the flight.

Similarly: buy 1 get 1 free? Why not just give out the free one?

As absurd as the security theater is, it's part of the packaged deal that includes "the flight". The radiation from the machines may not be part of the physical act of moving you from A to B, but that doesn't mean they can just be removed.

brlewis2• 15 years ago

What makes you comfortable with the mm wave system? My understanding is that more research is needed on how millimeter waves affect cells. http://thz.caltech.edu/

mmcconnell16182• 15 years ago

While more study is needed with any system it is my understanding that millimeter wave radio waves will not penetrate very far beyond the surface cells while x-rays will pass through the entire body mass. Just on the raw mass affected by the device the millimeter wave system seems less risky.

powertower• 15 years ago

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/

Having a tendency to shred DNA is not what I would consider safe at all.

marquis• 15 years ago

>amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight

Yes, I believe that's true however we should also consider the health of the TSA workers who are subject to constant exposure for 8 hours a day. For all that we can say, it's their choice to work there, that's not a fair assessment given today's job climate.

Symmetry2• 15 years ago

However, if the backscatter system operates correctly then the amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight.

Very true, but the danger from it is still about the same tiny magnitude as the danger from terrorists without the x-ray system.

danssig4• 15 years ago

But the tiny danger from terrorists is unaffected by the machines so we have that anyway. The machine is just extra risk for no gain.

buff-a• 15 years ago

> The amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight.

Except that you get it in a milliseconds, instead of over a period of several hours. I get a lot of sunshine in a day (haha who am i kidding i'm a programmer, but humor me), but ask an ant what its like to get the equivalent energy in a few seconds.

tallanvor2• 15 years ago

While I'm happy to see them banned for any reason, I'd much rather they were banned on the basis that they constitute an unacceptable violation of peoples' privacy.

Cushman3• 15 years ago

Is there a reason why the concept of "security theater" hasn't caught on in the mainstream? It seems like it should be easy to oppose things that make us feel safer but objectively make us less safe.

mooism2• 15 years ago

Alas too many people ignore other people's objectivity and pay attention to their own feelings instead. And then they notice that many "objective" people say the security measures that make them "safer" really put them at increased "risk", and wonder what hidden agenda these "objective" people have and whose side they're really on.

Jach• 15 years ago

Seven syllables is too many. But you're right, the article glosses over the bigger issue than the two it mentioned: these measures don't help security and very strong cases can and have been made that it actually hurts security.

martingordon• 15 years ago

I experienced "security theater" just this past weekend coming back from Nashville. As the line for the x-ray scanner started to grow, they started letting people just go through the metal detectors. Once the line shrunk back down, they started forcing people to go through the scanner again.

I opted out of the scanner just as they started letting people go through the metal detector again. The TSA agent told me, "you know these are completely safe and no human sees the pictures anymore, right?" If I had gotten in line just a few seconds later, I wouldn't have had to go through the scanner or be subject to the enhanced pat down. I mentioned this to the TSA agent doing my screening and he said, "sometimes timing is everything". If the scanners are as necessary as they want us to think, I'm glad to know that the chance that my plane gets blown up doesn't depend on how well those scanners work but simply on whether a would-be bomber went through security during a busy period.

tallanvor2• 15 years ago

I think part of the problem is that a significant portion of the US doesn't fly often enough to be greatly inconvenienced by this. And, of course, the media can always find people willing to say "Well, if it will make us safer..."

Imagine the outcry in New York if they announced that they were going to install metal detectors and x-ray machines at the entrance to every subway stop. --That would (hopefully) never be implemented because the number of people who would complain and campaign against such measures would be much higher.

Alex3917• 15 years ago

"Is there a reason why the concept of 'security theater' hasn't caught on in the mainstream?"

If Americans were intelligent enough to understand the concept, it probably wouldn't exist in the first place.

dahjelle• 15 years ago

I suspect it is the same reason that "auto repair theater" or "computer repair theater" or even "movies-that-are-garbage-but-pass-as-entertainment theater" still exist. It is nearly impossible to be well-educated in every facet of one's life, and people need to pick and choose what they become knowledgeable about. Security is both a new enough topic that most people don't realize its importance and a complex enough topic that it isn't easy to really understand.

Most people want to be safe; they don't want to understand security.

eof• 15 years ago

Because the 'mainstream' is still largely controlled by the 'powers that be' and there isn't a clear distinction between those that ultimately influence the ideas in the mainstream and those benefit greatly from a marginalized society.

Security theater benefits those in the oligarchy in two ways: highly profitable contracts for expensive machines, and a normalization of invasion of privacy.

roc5• 15 years ago

As far as I can tell, it hasn't caught on because Americans don't want to hear it. We seem to have a deep problem with denial. Sure, people might join in on chastising the TSA for a particular mistreatment of a passenger. But overall they just don't want to think about the idea that there's no real solution to terrorism.

They certainly don't want to confront the idea that sometimes, despite setting our minds and hundreds of billions of dollars against a problem, that we can't solve anything; let alone consider the notion that we might have made things much worse for trying.

Look no further than the War on Drugs. It's been clear for decades that by every objective measure it's a (barbaric, costly) accelerant for exactly the kinds of social problems it was conceived to fight. But it's still deeply unpopular to say that.

jashkenas• 15 years ago

Read the original reporting at ProPublica instead: http://www.propublica.org/article/europe-bans-x-ray-body-sca...

raldi2• 15 years ago

The original source they refer to is http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/1... ... which seems to indicate European airports can still use the scanners as long as they comply with privacy guidelines and the technology uses something other than X-rays. For example, passive-millimeter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_body_scanner

brlewis2• 15 years ago

I think "completely inaccurate" is overstating it. Here's a quote from that source:

In order not to risk jeopardising citizens' health and safety, only security scanners which do not use X-ray technology are added to the list of authorised methods for passenger screening at EU airports.

driverdan• 15 years ago

I wish it was ProPublica that had got posted instead the Geek.com article is very poorly written. He didn't even bother to take 2 minutes to verify you can still opt-out.

vizzah• 15 years ago

I couldn't remember seeing many (if any) x-ray scanners in European airports - it's almost always regular metal detector gates. X-rays do cause cancer and must not be used in airports. Enough using terrorists as an excuse, there are much easier targets - but it's been quiet for a while and hopefully continues that way.

furyg3• 15 years ago

At Amsterdam Schipol they are used for many flights (especially to the US). There is no opt-out, as there is in the US.

I don't know if these are X-Ray or millimeter wave scanners, though.

cskau• 15 years ago

> There is no opt-out, as there is in the US.

This is actually not true.

When I flew through Schipol this summer I was indeed on a flight where the scanners were "required".

However, when it was my turn I stopped up and told the guy at the scanner that I wanted to opt-out.

At first he just looked puzzled and said he did not understand what I was saying. After first repeating, and then rephrasing "I do not want to go through those scanners", he told me to talk to his supervisor.

I then approached the metal detector (which was blocked by a mobile barrier) squeezed in between the two huge scanners. The guy on the other side then tried to wave me through the scanners again at which I simply pointed to the metal detector.

After then shouting to him that I wanted to go through there he finally approached me. He removed the barrier and told me to then take off my shoes before going through (notably not a requirement in the scanners).

This is where it a bothersome experience turned into a really lousy experience. Just as I passed through the detector when I was passing in between the two active scanners (imagine the radiation there) he came up to me face-to-face, at a really uncomfortably close distance.

He asked me angrily why I didn't want to go through the scanners. Was it privacy issues? Because those were accounted for. So what could I possibly be thinking? It really felt like an interrogation.

I told him I was concerned with the health risks associated with there scanners, and that a group of American academics had signed a letter stating that these scanners weren't actually proven safe.

This is then where it got really bizarre, because at this he said plain out "Oh yeah? What do they know about these machines? What about trusting European scientists instead??". *

At this point I was simply shocked and horrified. I believe I managed to ask him if he actually knew where the machines where from, before he finally just shrugged at me and let me escape from the scanners.

I was later told by another, much nicer guard at another security check (we all actually had to go through two checks within the span of an hour), that I sure had the option to opt-out, but only until the end of this year at which point they would become mandatory for everyone.

Notably, at no point in this security circus was I or any of the other passengers told that we even had the option of opt'ing-out. And as soon as I was through the metal detector, they closed it up again, so no other passengers might get the idea that they too had the right not to be scanned.

* I do not believe these scanners have been tested for real in Europe or "by European scientists", before perhaps now.

cullenking• 15 years ago

I went through in August, and it was mm wave. Humorously enough, the security guard said, in broken english, "sound, not dangerous like your scanners".

calloc• 15 years ago

I fly through Schiphol all of the time and I have opted-out without any issues before.

They had me walk around it, and they patted me down US style. The person on duty with a clipboard was asking people why they opted out and I explained to them that I do not feel comfortable that the machines are safe and that cancer runs in my family and I would prefer to not have exposure to ionizing radiation.

I am from The Netherlands and being able to speak in the agents native tongue probably helped as well.

orra• 15 years ago

> There is no opt-out [at Amsterdam Schipol], as there is in the US.

I can't comment on that, but until this EU Commission decision, that appears to have been the case in the UK, best I can tell (for example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13990434). The goods news is that, if I'm reading the legislation (PDF: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2...) correctly, § 4.1.1.10, makes explicit a right to opt out of the naked picture scanners.

refurb6• 15 years ago

Low doses of radiation can actually reduce the risk of cancer!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

refurb6• 15 years ago

Wow, I get down voted for presenting scientific data? Nice!

danssig4• 15 years ago

A reddit user on the real reason the US is buying these scanners:

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/mdwox/eu_has_bann...

alttag2• 15 years ago

I'd prefer you share the poster's assertion with us and provide commentary as to whether you agree or think the commenter is paranoid.

Just posting a link doesn't add much.

danssig4• 15 years ago

He has links and things providing his point. I agree with him, it was clearly a corruption thing from the start. Otherwise, why would people need to be scanned while leaving the airport. It only makes sense for either (a) creating useless jobs for people and/or (b) buying useless equipment to do the useless job.

suivix• 15 years ago

""Let's not forget the REAL motivation for the US Gov't to buy these things [1] The former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff whose company, Rapiscan, miraculously won a contract worth $173 million just days after he left his office and essentially bought the company.""

[1] http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/524...

bauchidgw• 15 years ago

visit geek.com with your ipad, its such a classic example of a redicret loop. (swipeware sucks)

Spearchucker• 15 years ago

The part that annoys me is that the security clearance process at airports is invasive. It serves no purpose other than to provide the perception of security.

Policy dictates that passengers are not allowed to carry any weapons onto airplanes. The scanners and other mechanisms are used to detect firearms, knives with blades longer than 6cm, and so on and so forth.

The ridiculous part is that you clear security, go into duty free, and buy a bottle of whiskey which you're allowed to take onto the airplane.

If you're so inclined, once on the airplane break the bottle and threaten a passenger or the airhostess with it.

That makes the whole process (at huge cost to the tax payer) a complete farce.

There are other crazy things we're paying for, like finger printing, and forgoing the right not to have our laptops and phones searched. Anyone who wants to get around these measures can. It defies belief.

adnam• 15 years ago

As someone once said: "if you can hijack and aircraft with a pair of nail clippers, you can also hijack an aircraft without a pair of nail clippers".

rmc• 15 years ago

Link to the original source: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/1...

nobody314159263• 15 years ago

That's because the Europeans have never had a problem with terrorism and so don't know how to respond.

(It turns out that the IRA and ETA are just cultural groups misunderstood by the British and Spanish imperialist oppressors and Baader-Meinhof is too hard to spell so doesn't count.)

wbhart5• 15 years ago

Now that the rotten things have been banned, I can tell my story without fear of being locked up. I went through a body scanner on a trip within Europe about a year or two ago. There was no random selection, they were just forcing everyone through the machine (I assume it was an x-ray but didn't actually have time to check). This machine was of the variety that did not have an operator viewing the images in a private room, but the operator standing at the machine had a display mounted on the machine itself (some parts of Europe are much less fussy about nudity). When I went through, the image was indistinct but showed "concealments" all over me (I was also permitted to see the image). The guy looked concerned and started to pat me down so he could figure out what these "concealments" were. After twenty seconds or so it was clear to him that I had no concealments and he confidently pronounced that the machines actually don't work if you are sweaty. Hilariously, a full bottle of water went through the (bag) X-ray machine unnoticed in my backpack. I pointed it out and they were kind enough to accept that I had left it in my bag accidentally and let me have it confiscated instead of what ever else it is they do with someone who has bottles of dangerous liquids like water in their bags. Since that humiliating experience I have travelled by plane in Europe as little as possible, taking the Eurostar train wherever practical. I do not travel to the US any more for any reason. I am delighted the machines are unsafe and have been banned, but naturally I believe they should have been banned on grounds of them being ineffective and an unnecessary invasion of personal privacy.

Edit: I reviewed the information here: http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/5/163631/3181/travel/Ful... and I do not know which type of machine it was. Frankly, it doesn't match the description of either. There were no rotating walls, it did not take 40s, yet it was not a vertical wall. Unfortunate. It would have been nice to know.

apr• 15 years ago

Out of curiosity, why did you point out that the bottle of water had gone through their machine unnoticed. It was unnoticed, right?

wbhart5• 15 years ago

Because they asked me whether there were any liquids in my bag before I put it into the scanner. I initially answered no. When the bag was already through the scanner I remembered I hadn't actually taken the bottle out of the bag. I hadn't collected the bag yet though. So what is a man supposed to do?

grannyg00se3• 15 years ago

What is it about your post that would have you fearing being locked up? And what about the experience was humiliating? Your story sounds like a basic, routine scenario.

wbhart5• 15 years ago

I was not fearing being locked up for anything that happened that day as I clearly did nothing wrong. And there was no requirement for me to subsequently report the problems with this technology as the operators had that duty themselves, being clearly aware of it. But there may have been a requirement for me to not report the problem publicly myself as the machines were presumably still in operation. Obviously "locked up" is a hyperbole, but presumably it's never worth the trouble to find out by how much.

I personally find it humiliating to have a nudiscan in public, especially when it then falsely identifies me as having "concealments". Anyway the way this machine was being operated would contravene the new rules, and for good reason.

ataggart2• 15 years ago

That a strip-search is "basic" or "routine" is orthogonal to it being a humiliating violation of ones person.

jamgraham• 15 years ago

The opt-out process is very easy in America. For example: When I fly out of SFO and am in line for the body scanner I simply ask for an opt-out and they quickly take me over for a pad down. No big deal, all you have to do is ask.

ck2• 15 years ago

I think we need to start handing dosimeters to anyone working around the machines.

They aren't allowed to have them and will get fired, problem solved and I have zero pity.

noduerme2• 15 years ago

I don't think I'll be donating to the ACA or the ACLU to help out the TSA cancer victims who stood next to the machines...

techiferous• 15 years ago

> plus the fact 300+ “dangerous and illegal items” have been detected by employing the body scanners.

300+? Needs more context. What's the percentage of false positives and false negatives? And what's the cost compared to other alternatives?

prawn• 15 years ago

Just back from the US. Saw what I assumed to be these machines in use in LAX but couldn't understand the point as it was trivial to just pick the security lines that had the normal "doorway" scanners. I was pretty blatant in changing lines too once I'd seen the larger scanners ahead, and no one seemed to pay any attention.

wedesoft• 15 years ago

As far as I know the full body scanners are terahertz scanners. They do not use X-rays. An X-ray scan would show your bones! Also if you really want to reduce your exposure to radiation, you should avoid flying itself.

That said, if there is a significant increase in cancer among TSA workers, that should be a cause for concern.

nobody314159263• 15 years ago

There are two types.

Backscatter x-rays which use a low dose (hopefully) of x-rays but instead of measuring those that go through you 9as in a medical x-ray for bones) they measure the x-rays reflected back by metal objects such as guns and knives.

These do give you a dose of x-rays, hopefully a properly installed, maintained and operated system will limit this to a safe dose.

The alternative are mm-wave radar (terahertz imaging) these use similar radio waves to a mobile phone (but at lower power) They measure the change in the radio signal returned from metal and fluids in your body. Since they work on the same technology as mobile phones (but even lower power) they are assumed to be safe(r)

lgeek• 15 years ago

And yet they're still used in Manchester and probably other airports as well: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-15766544

> A spokesperson for Manchester Airport said: "Extensive tests by the UK Health Protection Agency and the US health authorities have already confirmed that back scatter body scanners pose a negligible risk to human health. It is irresponsible to suggest that because Europe has yet to complete its own health study, our passengers should be concerned."

Airport full-body X-ray scanners banned across Europe as unsafe

Related Stories