TSA's X-Ray Nude Body Scanners Output 50% More Radiation Than Admitted to by TSA

http://tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/tsas-x-ray-nude-body-scanners-output-50-more-radiation-than-admitted-to-by-tsa/

by tsaoutourpants • 12 years ago

160 72 12 years ago

tsaoutofourpants.wordpress.com

autism_hurts• 12 years ago

Opt out. Just opt out, every single time.

I've flown every month this year, sometimes multiple times. I opt out every single time.

More irritating is the randomness of metal detectors vs. scanners. It's the luck of the draw.

tsaoutourpants5• 12 years ago

Opting out is the easiest way to protest these machines. Just tell the person running the machine, "I opt out!" before entering it, and they will pat you down instead of using the scanners. Considering the false-positive rate of the scanners, you may get pat down anyway, so might as well protest and skip the dose.

sitkack• 12 years ago

Funny thing is, when you opt-out, they don't send you through the metal detector. Or even wand one down with a metal detector. Whole thing is a farce.

cjensen• 12 years ago

My pet peeve: when you opt out, they say "please stand right next the machine for a few minutes while we get somebody."

pavel_lishin• 12 years ago

"MALE OPT OUT!"

And then you get to watch the employees' form of protest as they chit chat for a few minutes before heading over to fetch you.

mindslight3• 12 years ago

If you're opting out, you're already not blindly following their orders. So why would you stand right next to the machine just because they said so? I make sure to stand a comfortable distance away, and if harassed I tell them that's as close as I'm comfortable with. It also seems to cause a bit of confusion to the lemmings going through the microwave^wmilliwave, who feel bad about cutting in front of me. I also wouldn't be surprised if that turbulence causes the molester to arrive quicker than they would otherwise.

ddelphin• 12 years ago

Random? What are you talking about? You've never seen that amazing iPad app that the TSA officers use to tell you which line to get in? You know... the one where they tap on the screen and a large arrow tells them whether to send you to the left or right? And for which they probably paid tens of thousands of dollars (maybe more) to have built? Wish I had gotten that contract! :-p

saryant• 12 years ago

That just picks whether or not you get PreCheck if you weren't already on the list. It doesn't necessarily determine if you're in a metal detector or MMW line (though PreCheck lines only have metal detectors).

jff• 12 years ago

I opt out whenever I can, but not because I'm afraid of radiation--I just don't think the new scanners are necessary or useful.

mindslight3• 12 years ago

And therein lies the rub. When rule by science is declared to be just, it leaves those trying to preserve autonomy ultimately at odds with science. (As well as corrupting science by people seeking power)

It bothers me to play on fears about radiation and sexual paranoia to get people to see that government interests diverge from theirs, and that perhaps maybe there is something wrong about eg deploying these ridiculous scanners.

But whenever I try the ideological approach, people resist applying abstract concepts to judge the concrete situation. Either they have little experience doing so, or the more erudite have merely used their intelligence to internalize all the flimsy justifications that, by common law, have destroyed any basis of this government's original charter.

I guess the analog of my initial observation applies to rule by the masses (with respect to rationalism) as well so, at least for this topic, hysteria it is.

clairity• 12 years ago

yay for opting out! wish everyone would opt out... i look at it like getting a mini-massage to relieve the stress of going through all that security theater.

i read somewhere that if we were serious about security, we'd be better off hiring a couple dozen sniffer dogs per airport and letting people walk right through, but the tsa looks to me more like a national jobs program than a security force (which is fine if it didn't make travel such a hassle).

joshfraser2• 12 years ago

I've flown in New Zealand where you don't need to talk to anyone or go through even a metal detector before boarding. I felt safer and happier than flying in the US.

Steuard• 12 years ago

I've finally given up on opting out, or perhaps I should frame it as finally declaring a partial victory and moving on. I still think the scanners are a huge waste of money and time, but they've gotten better.

The x-ray versions are gone (and with them any small chance of dangerous radiation exposure). And I'm told that they no longer show your naked body to agents, but rather a generic outline that labels potential objects of concern. So the things about them that I've felt had the potential for a direct negative impact on me personally are mostly in the past.

Because of that, the last time I flew, it struck me that opting out was purely a political protest, and that the only effect it was likely to have was to make things flow a little bit less smoothly for all the other poor folks standing in the long line behind me. I just didn't see the payoff anymore. So for the first time, I went through the blasted machine. They did a quick patdown anyway, but I guess that's par for the course.

I wish I knew a way to take an effective stand against this system. But I've ceased to believe that opting out is it.

DanielStraight3• 12 years ago

Actually, the agents don't see anything unless the machine detects a "potential threat item", then they see the generic outline. See: http://www.tsa.gov/ait-how-it-works

_up• 12 years ago

I have no doubt that the NSA stores all the naked pictures. The data is far to valuable.

jghn• 12 years ago

One could argue that making things flow a little bit less smoothly is a positive effect in and of itself. If the powers that be see that they're getting no actual security and snarling lines perhaps they'll come to their senses.

Ok, probably not, but still ...

JadeNB3• 12 years ago

the only effect it was likely to have was to make things flow a little bit less smoothly for all the other poor folks standing in the long line behind me.

Why should it have this effect? When I opt out, they have me stand in a little area off to the side until a scanner is ready for me. I don't hold up the line, and, as far as I know, most people don't even notice that anything is happening (except that some wonder curiously why I am electing to stand around, apparently for recreation, without belt or shoes).

dangoor• 12 years ago

I signed up for Global Entry with the Customs and Border Patrol and it definitely makes things faster and I don't have to go through the millimeter wave machines (just the traditional metal detector).

HelloMcFly• 12 years ago

I don't even see the X-Ray machines anywhere these days. Where do they still have them? I only see the other kind, the millimeter wave or whatever they are.

DanBC• 12 years ago

That woman, who had a letter from the TSA saying that breast milk didn't need to go through the xray scanner, didn't have a fun time when she asked for her breast milk to not be xrayed.

http://rt.com/usa/154672-tsa-breast-milk-settlement/

But she did get a settlement and so -if you have the time and know your rigts and can keep calm[1]- it might be a good idea to opt out.

[1] calm because otherwise tasers or guns.

ben0x5392• 12 years ago

150% of "not worth mentioning" is still not worth mentioning.

ben0x5392• 12 years ago

tho they probably mean 100% more, I'm confused

DanielStraight3• 12 years ago

So apparently the TSA says: "Each full body scan produces less than 10 microrem of emission, the equivalent to the exposure each person receives in about 2 minutes of airplane flight at altitude."

And the author says the dose is really 14.76 microrem, but doesn't dispute the equivalence to flight time. So really it's equivalent to 3 minutes of flight, not just 2.

50% of trivial is still trivial.

Oh, and the author says that the margin of error on these measurements is large. So perhaps the TSA didn't lie at all, they just measured 10 microrem. Even if the margin of error is 1000% the result is still trivial.

So... basically this is non-news about a technology which isn't even in use anymore. The TSA now uses millimeter wave technology as the author is aware ("these backscatter x-rays are decommissioned and sitting in a warehouse").

There are a lot of good reasons to be concerned about the TSA's use of imaging technology. This is not one of them.

astrodust• 12 years ago

I'm just concerned a wildly mis-calibrated machine might output 10 millirem of radiation and nobody would notice.

Considering how oblivious some companies are to the difference between $0.02 and 0.02 cents, milli and micro might be way beyond the ability of some TSA technicians to understand.

DanielStraight3• 12 years ago

...because then the dose would be equivalent to about a day of natural background radiation.

I think "nobody would notice" is a pretty accurate description of what would happen in that case.

IvyMike• 12 years ago

That was my concern, too. There's a precedent for a radiation-emitting machine failing in a very bad way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

Of course these new machines cannot fail the exact same way as the Therac 25. But could they fail in a new, unpredicted way? I dunno. I am not familiar enough with how the backscatter machines are implemented to be able to predict how they could fail. But I maintain neither are most of the people who defend these machines as safe.

No1• 12 years ago

A well-founded concern. When the CDC inspected luggage scanners in 2003-2004, more than 2% were found in violation of federal radiation standards.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/healthcare/go...

CamperBob2• 12 years ago

It's very safe to say it's beyond their ability to understand, considering that the TSA operators were never required to take the same health physics courses that literally everyone else whose job involves exposing the public to X-rays must undergo.

tsaoutourpants5• 12 years ago

The article has a reply to you built-in :)

"While these scientists still conclude that this is a low dose of radiation, it shows that, if correct, we were lied to, again, and anyone who walked through those scanners was given nearly 50% more radiation than they signed up for."

The point is not that 14µrem is dangerous to an individual on occasion, it's that the government irradiated us at a rate different than what they promised.

It will also have societal effects. I've seen calculations that estimate that something like 6 people will die from cancer as a result of the radiation from 700M TSA screenings given per year. That estimate should now be adjusted, and we should again say, "How many lives does the TSA save that justifies this?"

DSMan1952763• 12 years ago

He answered your point in his comment. The TSA said these measurements had a fair amount of error associated with them, and since their still trivial amounts it's unfair to say the TSA lied when the number is within what they said it would be.

fleitz2• 12 years ago

I haven't seen the particular estimate but it's very difficult to extrapolate repeated low doses into a high dose.

Lets take the case of water toxicity, if you're a little dehydrated and you drink 5 litres of water in one sitting you'll die. However, if you drink a few litres of water everyday over the entire day you'll have no issue.

gojomo• 12 years ago

What's your opinion on why the X-ray machines have been decommissioned?

splat2• 12 years ago

There's still a difference between the kind of radiation exposure that occurs during a flight compared to during a screening. My understanding is that radiation exposure during a flight is due to cosmic rays which are equally likely to cause damage throughout the body. The X-rays used by the TSA are at lower energy and are deposited almost exclusively in the skin. Since the volume of skin is much less than the total volume of your body, the radiation dose that your skin is receiving from the TSA is much larger than the dose during a flight.

mortenjorck2• 12 years ago

While I'm very glad they're no longer in use in airports, I never saw a satisfactory answer to this. Perhaps I misunderstand the physics here, but wouldn't 10µrem across 100% of tissue be equivalent to, for instance, 1,000µrem across 1% of tissue?

mortenjorck2• 12 years ago

Actually, they're not sitting in a warehouse; they've been repurposed for use in prisons: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fullbody-scanners-airp...

tsaoutourpants5• 12 years ago

In fairness, they did do such a good job of giving the airport that prison-like feel...

mncolinlee• 12 years ago

Perhaps the reasons given in the article were not compelling on their own, but the author's point was that the TSA overstated their case.

Researchers have pointed out that international pilots and stewardesses may already receive more cosmic radiation than may be safe due to high altitudes and long duration. This is why they're allowed to skip the scan. Why shouldn't frequent international business travelers receive the same treatment?

Also, all machines have a percentage of possibility of breaking down or misbehaving. Do we want to subject someone to the possibility of being irradiated by a damaged scanner when the odds are greater than harm from terrorism?

toufka2• 12 years ago

See this letter by UCSF biophysicists & oncologists written to the Whitehouse with concern for these scanners.[1]

Their point is that the 'overall' dose is, not only unknown, but measured in a non-meaningful way. "Garbage-in, Garbage out." A full body scan produces 10 microrem of emission, concentrated to the first few microns of skin - (which happen to be where gonads, breast tissue, skin & eyes are...). This is very much unlike riding in an airplane where the exposure is truly whole-body. The "expose per cell" in these two cases is wildly different.

[1] http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

Houshalter• 12 years ago

Does this actually matter? If each cell has x% probability of becoming cancerous when hit with a single ray of radiation, then shouldn't the probability of getting cancer is the same either way?

kolev4• 12 years ago

I've always opted out, but they (on purpose?) make you wait and get nervous about your belongings. Sometimes I've waited 15 minutes for the pad down guy to show up and my stuff was unattended all this time.

tfe2• 12 years ago

I always hold my stuff up before it enters the scanner; this serves the dual purpose of making it harder to ignore my request and keeping my bags safer. Usually they'll then ask you to hold your belongings outside the line or put them on a shelf somewhere in eyesight.

kolev4• 12 years ago

I've never been allowed to. They always make me run them thru the X-Ray and wait in the separate line until the guy shows up... which varied between 5 and 15 minutes. Then the guy usually shows up and starts making faces and keeps reciting the rules. I told him: I'm in a hurry, I agree, I've heard this a million times already, but, no, he needs to repeat the same thing over and over again.

r00fus• 12 years ago

This gets much harder if you have a family and all want to opt out. Of course, a crying or annoyed kid usually provides sufficient motivation to TSA to not keep you waiting as long as you stay courteous (as much as possible given the conditions).

Apofis• 12 years ago

Last time I opted out at JFK, the TSA agent I told I wanted to opt-out was like "You want to what?" and stared at me in complete confusion. After I finally made her understand that I didn't want to go through the machine, she was extremely rude. It was very strange.

mark_l_watson• 12 years ago

I don't want to get too down on the TSA corporation since their public facing staff have always been polite and pleasant enough to interact with. I always opt out, so I have to get searched, but they are polite about it.

That said, I don't like it that TSA staff don't wear radiation badges, at least I haven't noticed any. One lady working for TSA, at the backscatter device, was very pregnant and I wondered about the radiation hazard for her, if any.

tsaoutourpants5• 12 years ago

They're actually prohibited from wearing dosimeters... imagine that...

smtddr• 12 years ago

To add to this reply... http://blog.tsa.gov/2011/06/tsa-cancer-cluster-myth-buster.h...

Q: Why aren’t your officers permitted to wear dosimeters?

A: There is a really good reason for this. The emissions from our X-ray technology are well below the requirements that would require their routine usage. To help reassure passengers and employees that the technology is safe, however, health physicists with the U.S. Army have been conducting area dosimeter surveys at multiple airports nationwide.

Sounds like nonsense to me... at the least, I'd like to see the resulting data from those surveys posted online and kept up to date so the public can see it.

mindslight3• 12 years ago

They get quite defensive when you ask why they don't wear dosimeters. Their immediate answer is that the machines have been proven to be safe. But when you point out that one of the purposes of dosimeters is to measure accidental exposures in otherwise safe environments, then the cognitive dissonance really starts :>

uptown• 12 years ago

I opt out every time, but I'd hate to be one of the TSA employees standing next to these machines day-in and day-out for hours on end.

jstalin• 12 years ago

I travel a lot and I haven't seen these machines in a while. I thought they were all phased out in favor of the radio-wave types.

Regardless, I always opt out too.

pdonis• 12 years ago

I thought they were all phased out in favor of the radio-wave types.

They are.

bnolsen• 12 years ago

The bigger problem are the TSA agents operating the scanners. They are constantly getting exposed to these machines during their workshift. I think that's the biggest upcoming "disaster" surrounding these lame ineffective scanners.

tedchs• 12 years ago

The "body scanners" do not use X-rays. They use millimeter waves, which are totally different. Most importantly, millimeter waves are non-ionizing and therefore safe, unlike X-rays.

crystaln• 12 years ago

Unworthy of hacker news:

- Inflammatory headline irrelevant to content ("Nude" Body Scanners)

- 50% more than an insignificant amount of radiation is still insignificant, and likely difficult to measure precisely. The idea that the TSA would "lie" about this is silly.

- I'm not a fan of the TSA, however inflammatory articles are not what I look for on HN.