TSA Removes X-Ray Body Scanners From Major Airports

http://www.propublica.org/article/tsa-removes-x-ray-body-scanners-from-major-airports

by hornokplease • 14 years ago

257 149 14 years ago

crcsmnky• 14 years ago

Maybe I'm just naive but it seems that if the TSA were significantly more transparent about how they deploy new screening procedures, US travelers would hate them a little less.

Why not just say safety testing results were inconclusive and in the best interests of passengers we'd prefer a more efficient alternative?

Meh, whatever. I'm still going to opt-out until I'm required by law to go through whatever contraption they have deployed.

jemfinch• 14 years ago

Why should the TSA care how much US travelers hate them? Minimizing traveler ire does not affect their funding.

cwb712• 14 years ago

Maybe not in an immediate or significant way, but over time the negative public perception and constituent complaints might affect Congress come budget time.

(Please don't downvote me for being naïve.)

sologoub2• 14 years ago

""They're not all being replaced," TSA spokesman David Castelveter said. "It's being done strategically. We are replacing some of the older equipment and taking them to smaller airports. That will be done over a period of time.""

In other words: "So, we have these machines that may be harmful and cause a PR disaster, so instead of doing the right thing (protecting people from harm, and all), let's move them to smaller airports, where it's much less likely to cause a stir."

This is so messed up!

ahelwer• 14 years ago

Blatant speculation passed off as fact.

moskie• 14 years ago

How about giving credit where credit is due? This shows that the situation is better today than it was yesterday.

Yes, I know the ideal would be that all of our issues get resolved immediately. But how about we recognize that this could be a step towards that end?

daeken2• 14 years ago

How is the situation actually better? If you believe that these scanners are harmful, then it's pretty hard to argue that shuffling them around has actually done any good; it's just doing harm in a different place.

drivebyacct2• 14 years ago

How is this possibly a step in the right direction? The direction that they need to move in is one they will NEVER move it. That'd be like you going to your boss and saying "I'm redundant, useless and ironically harmful. Please throw me out."

Because that's what needs to happen with the entire security theatre that encompasses DoHS and TSA.

grandalf• 14 years ago

The spokesperson says that the machines are not being removed due to radiation safety concerns. Thus there is no credit to be given.

flatline• 14 years ago

I love how dissenting opinions get downvoted like this on HN. Moskie was not hostile or otherwise in violation of the site guidelines; this is exactly the type of comment that should not be downvoted.

mcantelon2• 14 years ago

Plus the dudes who sell these things get to make another round of cash.

JagMicker• 14 years ago

I went through security at the Dayton airport last year. I refused the L3 "body scanner" (backscatter) machine. The TSA worker asked me why. I told him I thought it was an unnecessary risk. He laughed and basically told me that I was wrong, and that the machine poses no safety risk. But I still opted for the pat-down. Shortly thereafter, the TSA issued a recommendation that backscatter workers wear "radiation badges" to monitor their exposure. Never trust manufacturers of security products (like L3) on their word alone...

talmand• 14 years ago

Never mind that having a person that stands next to that machine for hours on end wear such a thing is probably not a bad idea. It's the same thought behind an x-ray tech hiding behind the wall as they push the button.

But you did give me a thought, it would be interesting to have several people who travel quite a bit to wear these badges to see how they turn out over time. For some people you have to show the danger, not just describe it.

stfu• 14 years ago

Radiation badges, now that sounds like a kickstarter I would get behind.

rom16384• 14 years ago

Airplane crews are exposed to more ionizing radiation than the rest of the population because at the high altitudes the planes fly the thinner atmosphere doesn't protect as well as when at ground level.

borplk• 14 years ago

This happens all the time one after another.

We never know something is dangerous until someone realises, and then everyone says, well, oops.

Then it becomes common knowledge and everyone will say, of course man, X is dangerous, it's obvious.

marquis• 14 years ago

I passed through one of the largest airports in the U.S. recently, being early and prepared to opt-out, and was pleasantly surprised to see the line moving faster than I'd seen it in a long time. Perhaps it's not just public perception but the very long waits this was causing.

driverdan2• 14 years ago

Backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers. You get a much higher dose of radiation from the flight. The only real health concerns are for the workers who are exposed to them continuously.

X-ray, mm-wave, magic pixie scanners, I don't care what type they are, I'm still opting out because it's a blatant violation of the 4th amendment (when mandated, staffed, and managed by the gov).

I'll be celebrating when body scanners and other security theater is ended entirely. I'm not getting my hopes up.

gallamine• 14 years ago

Poison is about dosage and duration. The dose during the flight may be the same, but the duration certainly is not.

bradly• 14 years ago

> I'm still opting out because it's a blatant violation of the 4th amendment

Aren't you still being searched by hand when you opt out, though? It that much different?

Karunamon• 14 years ago

Given the choice between getting felt up through my clothes and having a naked picture taken, i'll take the feel up every time.

That, and I flatly do not trust these machines and who's administering them. It's a matter of when, not if someone (or lots of someones) gets a bad dose of radiation through these things.

appleflaxen• 14 years ago

It's not that it's different; it's a form of civil disobedience (which isn't even that disobedient) by requiring more time/energy/work on the part of the TSA agents. If enough people opt out, the line slows down, and the machine gets turned off.

driverdan2• 14 years ago

appleflaxen put it well. Opting out is a method of showing TSA agents that some people think about these things and care. It also puts more demand on their limited time and resources. If everyone opted out they'd have to get rid of the procedure all together.

SageRaven• 14 years ago

I'm with you on the whole government intrusion thing. I haven't flown since 9/11 because all of the security BS. My career has probably taken a hit, but we all gotta take a stand somewhere.

stcredzero4• 14 years ago

> Backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers. You get a much higher dose of radiation from the flight.

Backscatter is set up so that the majority of the energy is deposited in your skin. The problem comes from the fact that most of the data we've collected is with X-rays that deposit their energy evenly throughout your body's volume. The heuristics based on that data erroneously suggest that skin is one of the least cancer prone tissues. However, we know on the basis of microbiology that this isn't the case. It's only because the skin constitues a small fraction of the absorption cross section of the entire body that biases the numbers this way.

This is a "spherical cow" assumption applied by self-interested bureaucrats. Such an oversight wouldn't be allowed in a PhD thesis defense. Why is it allowed when applied to the health and well being of hundreds of millions of people?

Yes, the dose is low, but the geometry of the delivery is radically different. For something that affects so many, more testing is warranted.

The only real health concerns are for the workers who are exposed to them continuously.

I agree that that's also a major issue.

AngryParsley2• 14 years ago

There's all kinds of FUD surrounding these devices, and it seems like many with health concerns are engaging in motivated cognition. For example: if the dose is concentrated in the skin, couldn't that be a good thing? Our skin is constantly bombarded with ionizing radiation. UV rays, alpha and beta particles, etc. When it comes to these sorts of insults, the skin is one of the most resilient organs.

But instead of arguments, we can look at the evidence. The FDA is notoriously risk-averse, but it has done studies on the safety of backscatter devices and concluded they're safe: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitt...

According to the FDA, the dose to the skin is 89,000 times lower than the annual limit. If backscatter scanners caused harm, it would tell us something new about physics, biology, or both.

Are backscatter scanners an invasion of privacy? Yes. Are they a waste of money? Almost certainly. Do I wish airports got rid of them? Yes. But unless our understanding of physics and/or biology is very wrong, they're not dangerous.

wisty• 14 years ago

It's not a "spherical cow" assumption. It's a scaling issue. Deposing radiation over the a membrane (the surface of the skin) is different to depositing it throughout a solid body. Please don't say "spherical cow", as it's a bad analogy.

WiseWeasel• 14 years ago

I'd say your claim of no health risk is premature. Backscatter X-ray focuses the ionizing radiation on the surface of your skin and immediately underlying tissue, so the effective local dose on your skin is much higher than other types of X-ray which are distributed evenly throughout your body. This is of particular concern to men, whose reproductive organs are located near the surface of the skin, as X-ray exposure to reproductive organs in parents is associated with leukemia in their children. For medical X-rays, measures are taken to limit exposure to reproductive organs.

sjg007• 14 years ago

Indeed. I opt out, I will opt out my children. It is a unnecessary risk.

pndmnm• 14 years ago

> Backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers.

But we really don't know that, because no studies have been done using this equipment. In addition to concerns that the radiation, while lower in total than that absorbed during a flight, is absorbed over a much smaller volume of tissue, adequate validation that the machines can't break in dangerous ways hasn't been performed (and even the most basic detection mechanisms for failure such as having the operators wear dosimeters have been neglected or banned outright). It violates every principle of radiation safety.

goostavos• 14 years ago

I'm glad to hear that others still opt out.

I fly constantly for work, and I've watched the number of people opting out slowly drifting down till it feels like, well, just me.

If I'm getting my rights violated, I'm at least getting a reach around for it. Plus, even though I know it's terribly childish, being able to ask if they're happy that they grew up to make a living by touching my balls gives me a little bit of false empowerment in a crappy situation.

Ya, just can't get that satisfaction when walking through a scanner.

zacharycohn• 14 years ago

I opt out 100% of the time.

hartez2• 14 years ago

My wife and I opt out every time. Whenever possible, we just aim toward the line that's using the old metal detectors* (since the new machines are either slow or prone to breaking, this is an option most of the time). But when the only option is the new machines (backscatter or mw), we opt out.

FWIW, we have a friend who sells mw equipment, and he refuses to go through them for safety reasons. So even if I weren't opting out for moral reasons, I wouldn't go through them.

* I'm sure glad no terrorists are smart enough to do this.

tlrobinson2• 14 years ago

Free pre-flight massages. Why wouldn't you opt out?

gfodor2• 14 years ago

I opt out 100% of the time. Instead of me just feeling violated (by going through the scanner) I think it's important that the TSA feels violated too. Most of the time the person doing the opt-out is humiliated as well. I also think it's important for Americans to see it.

dkl• 14 years ago

I agree with you, but unfortunately, when I travel it's almost always for pleasure and I have my child with me. I didn't opt out last time because I didn't want him to have to deal with someone getting personal with him (he was 10 at the time).

abhimishra• 14 years ago

I and my family opt-out 100% of the time. Part of it is due to the unknown risks (however low the chance may be), part of it is on principle (violation of rights), and part of it is to have everyone else see in full-view that others are opting-out (so others feel comfortable doing so as well).

javajosh• 14 years ago

>If I'm getting my rights violated, I'm at least getting a reach around for it. Plus, even though I know it's terribly childish, being able to ask if they're happy that they grew up to make a living by touching my balls gives me a little bit of false empowerment in a crappy situation.

Bravo. I'm going to use that.

catenate• 14 years ago

I always opt out of both the new booths. Occasionally they ask why. I say I don't trust them, nobody should trust the security apparatus of the state, and they have no real concern for my safety or well-being. I also make a point of saying everyone needs to see my pat-downs, for me to be safe, and to show people how to stand for their limited choice.

JshWright• 14 years ago

I probably fly a little more frequently than the average citizen (once a quarter or so). I opt out 100% of the time. My reasons are are a little further down the tin-foil hat spectrum though... I'm not comfortable with the government having a highly accurate 3D model of my body.

rasengan0• 14 years ago

yep i opt out and consider it my tax paid free massage. TSA Blogger Bob really should highlight this feature. Almost free sorry for the dude who does it but hey he is getting paid. Unfortunately they may wise up and go full ballsy because of the flak from not doing a proper frisk. As for all this talk of low dose rads try asking anyone who's ever had skin cancer.

mhurron• 14 years ago

> it's a blatant violation of the 4th amendment

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

The US Court of Appeals disagrees.

FYI in the US, the boarder is defined as a 100 mile wide swath of land around any actual boarder. Live within 100 miles of a cost line? Congratulations, the 4th Amendment boarder exception applies to you.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-con...

macchina• 14 years ago

I'm fairly sure that full body scans do not fall under the border search exception. For one, the exception only applies to international borders, and usually, these types of searches would be performed by Customs agents—not the TSA.

Symmetry• 14 years ago

It doesn't pose a non-trivial health risk, but IIRC there's no decade of air travel where the number of deaths per flight from terrorists was higher than the number these x-rays are expected to cause.

sukuriant3• 14 years ago

Too many negatives in this sentence. Trying to parse: "It may pose a real health risk; but, iirc, for each decade of air travel, the number of deaths by terrorists has been less than the combined impact of these new x-rays."

Did I parse that right?

jlgreco4• 14 years ago

Even medical grade x-ray equipment that is seemingly well and regularly maintained operated by trained medical professionals in hospitals can go horrifically wrong.

These machines are none of those things. Why should I give them the benefit of the doubt?

waqf4• 14 years ago

I disagree with your emphasis of "hospitals", because I think of hospitals as much more dangerous and threatening than airports. Your odds per visit of being killed by hospital-acquired infections alone are hugely greater than all forms of death caused by air travel.

bcantrill• 14 years ago

As others have pointed out, there is little basis for your assertion that "backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers." As my father (a physician) enjoys pointing out: we used to use X-rays to treat acne -- they were thought to not pose any health risk either! More generally, the history of technology is littered with arrogant overshoots where risks were dismissed until evidence became overwhelming; while one cannot conclude that backscatter is at a level to be dangerous, one can certainly not conclude that it "doesn't pose any health risk."

Or to flip it around, I opt out because I happen to know something that the TSA doesn't: I pose no risk to the aircraft, and scanning me in no way makes the aircraft safer. I can therefore assert with absolute certainty that my opting out poses less risk to the travelling public than being scanned poses a risk to me. (Plus, I think I might secretly enjoy TSA agents awkwardly and apologetically rubbing the backs of their hands on my crotch.)

tedunangst5• 14 years ago

The radiation one received to treat acne was substantially more than the amount of radiation one received in the car ride to the doctor's office.

ghshephard2• 14 years ago

I'm completely comfortable with people who are concerned about the radiation we are getting from "Back Scatter X-Rays" - but I'm just wondering where they heck they were when trying to protect us from the radiation we get while flying?

If those brief, minimal x-ray scans we get during TSA searches is worth considering, then I wish someone would do something about shielding us while we're flying, and getting a great deal more radiation...

shykes• 14 years ago

> my opting out poses less risk to the travelling public than being scanned poses a risk to me

Since you are part of the traveling public, you can further simplify your sentence to: "my opting out poses less risk to the travelling public than being scanned". That's like a 5-word trim! :)

splat• 14 years ago

> Backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers.

This is possibly only true if there are no problems with the machines. If the machine is functioning properly, an X-ray beam will quickly scan you from head to toe. But if the scanner gets stuck (which happens from time to time), all of the dosage is concentrated in a single part of the body.

waqf4• 14 years ago

That sounds like a serious accusation. Can you provide a citation?

hammock• 14 years ago

Has anyone seen data on # of opt-outs?

The little bit I've seen came from a recent visit to a small regional airport in a swing state which I'll keep anonymous. This airport serves ~4000 passengers per day. The woman had a piece of paper where she kept tally of opt-outs. At mid-day there were ~40 opt outs (including mine). So 80/4000 = 2% opt-out rate I'd say is higher than I was expecting!

ble• 14 years ago

The reason for the controversy is

1) this level of dose is thought safe if absorbed throughout the body; 2) there is no consensus on whether this level is safe if absorbed solely in the skin; it sounds like the question simply has not been studied.

methodover• 14 years ago

About radiation: Let's say that the article is correct and the radiation risk is very low -- 6 to 100 additional cancer cases per year among the millions that fly.

The question I have is this: Are the machines preventing 6 to 100 injuries or deaths from a terrorist attack every year?

If so, then perhaps the extra cancer cases are worth it. But if not -- if the scanners do not reduce the risk of terrorist attacks enough to offset the very small increase in cancer cases, then the machines are a waste.

gnosis• 14 years ago

Do you really expect your typical underpaid, undereducated, and overworked TSA employee to properly calibrate, maintain, or use a backscatter machines?

Even in hospitals, which have much stricter standards of safety and training have had accidents[1] where patients have been administered overdoses of radiation (some to lethal effect).

Just give the TSA another 10 or 20 years.. I would not be at all surprised to hear of major lawsuits from travelers who've been seriously injured by these machines, due to TSA incompetence in purchasing junky machines, maintaining/calibrating them poorly, or not training their employees to use them properly.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/health/29radiation.html?_r...

fjorder• 14 years ago

I was rather encouraged by the headline, only to discover that instead of ripping out unnecessary security theater they're actually just wasting more money on new machines. Man do the companies making those things ever have good lobbyists! By screwing up they actually get even more business!

mdc• 14 years ago

I agree. I think this change is motivated by two things. First, it's a planned obsolescence by the manufacturers finally admitting a small health issue and offering a solution. Second, it's a move by the TSA to combat opt-outs and other pushback by providing the same privacy violations but now with slightly less cancer risk.

cwb712• 14 years ago

So the TSA is saying “if something slows down the lines enough and costs us headcount, we will eventually make changes?”

Sounds like a great argument to keep opting out!

pnathan• 14 years ago

Money quote by the PR person.

> The radiation risk and privacy concerns had no bearing on the decision, Castelveter said.

/sigh

rayiner3• 14 years ago

I find the people complaining about X-Ray scanners in airports as if they're some unprecedented weakening of the 4th amendment to be a little bit silly. Where we're you guys in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, when things like stop and frisk destroyed the 4th amendment for inner city minorities?

zheng2• 14 years ago

Possibly not yet born (well, at least for the 70s/80s) and probably not of voting age.

typicalrunt• 14 years ago

I was not in the inner city and I was not alive/aware for the 70s and 80s (childhood innocence and all that).

Just because we didn't stand up when it first happened, due to whatever reason, doesn't mean we can't be outraged.

rayiner3• 14 years ago

Call me cynical, but if it didn't affect middle class white people I don't think there would be much outrage. As it is, the outrage is totally disproportionate to things like stop and frisk. Searches in high risk areas like airports seems less offensive to me than searches of people who are just walking around their own neighborhood, but you don't see middle class people complaining about the latter.

Indeed, I wonder how much of the outrage is because the TSA is so ineffective. People seem to be pretty on board with how techniques like stop and frisk have helped bring crime rates in the big cities down dramatically over the last few decades.

danielweber• 14 years ago

"If you don't complain about everything, you can't complain about anything."

arthurdenture• 14 years ago

What do you mean 70s, 80s, and 90s? Stop and frisk happens today in cities like New York, and it's a problem.

I'm not sure how one government agency abusing its power in one way makes it ok for another agency to abuse its power in another way. Your argument could easily be restated as: "in World War II, the government put Japanese people in internment camps, so it's silly to complain about stop and frisk as if it's an unprecedented weakening of the 4th amendment."

rayiner3• 14 years ago

The 70's-90's is when stop and frisk became prevalent. Now it's established practice.

I'm not saying what the TSA is doing is okay. I said I find it amusing to watch the armchair civil libertarians come out of the woodwork soon as something inconveniences them and argue against the TSA from an extremely principled position.

jpdoctor• 14 years ago

Let's see: Michael Chertoff was head of the TSA, oversaw the decision about the safety of the scanners, and held a financial interest in the company that made the scanners.

Sounds legit, nice work Mike.

markbao2• 14 years ago

Digging into this turned up this Huffington Post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2010/11/23/fear_pays...

Rapiscan (the scanner subsidiary of OSI) rebutted the claims: http://www.rapiscansystems.com/en/the-checkpoint/article/the...

bcoates2• 14 years ago

The Huffington post claims Chertoff's company was doing undisclosed public PR for Rapiscan's equipment in The Washington Post, etc. misrepresenting the capabilities of their equipment, which the WP partially confirmed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12...

Rapiscan denies that they hired him to as a government lobbyist, so they're very specifically denying something other than what they're being accused of.

emidln• 14 years ago

The name of the company that makes the scanners is actually called Rapiscan? How did I miss this?

mikeash• 14 years ago

Extremely misleading headline. The body-scanning machines are being replaced with newer body-scanning machines.

majorlazer• 14 years ago

Asked about the changes, John Terrill, a spokesman for Rapiscan — which makes the X-ray scanners — wrote in an email, "No comment on this."

Rapiscan? Could they have chosen a worse name for their company?

MattSayar• 14 years ago

They're going for "rapid scan," not what you're thinking of. Still terrible either way.

hack_edu• 14 years ago

The most frustrating part of all this is the astronomical cost of the defunct X-ray scanners, and now the cost of their replacements :(

listic• 14 years ago

Is metal detector a different thing from full body scanner?

In Russia they have installed metal detectors (I believe) on entrance to suburban and subway train stations. Of course, with the huge amount of traffic the police officers simply cannot inspect every person who rings positive, so they just ignore the detector altogether.

sukuriant3• 14 years ago

Very different.

"Backscatter X-ray is an advanced X-ray imaging technology. Traditional X-ray machines detect hard and soft materials by the variation in transmission through the target. In contrast, backscatter X-ray detects the radiation that reflects from the target. It has potential applications where less-destructive examination is required, and can be used if only one side of the target is available for examination." from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray

Tipzntrix• 14 years ago

One small step for mankind....and one giant leap for privacy

lsiebert• 14 years ago

From the article, "The Transportation Security Administration has been quietly removing its X-ray body scanners from major airports over the last few weeks and replacing them with machines that radiation experts believe are safer."

Zigurd• 14 years ago

There should be plenty of time to test them now, to see if they are dangerous, and to see if they were correctly calibrated while they were deployed. Right?

linuxhansl• 14 years ago

I never went through one of these and will never go through one. I rather get a pat-down.

I'm not that concerned about the health effects... This is a matter of principle. Everybody knows the security theater is just that... a theater. No need to participate in it any more than necessary.

9-11 by its very nature can never happen again. It could only work once, because the passengers still operated under the assumption that as long as they comply they will get out of this alive. After 9-11 this assumption is no longer valid and hence passengers will no longer comply.

This, btw, is exactly what brought the 4th plane down. Some of the passengers heard what happened over cell phone and then decided to do something about their own situation.

Edit: The usual spelling corrections.

krickle2• 14 years ago

It's infuriating that we have to buy tickets to the play from the manufacturer. The whole thing is a study in unethical business practices.

gasull• 14 years ago

Right on time for the presidential election.

autodidakto• 14 years ago

"... but the TSA has not confirmed which ones" and "No study comparing the two machines' effectiveness has been released. The TSA says its own results are classified."

... who do these people work for?

TSA Removes X-Ray Body Scanners From Major Airports

Related Stories