Scientists Question Safety of New Airport Scanners

An anonymous reader sends this quote from a story at NPR about the accelerated deployment of new scanning machines at airports: "Fifty-two of these state-of-the-art machines are already scanning passengers at 23 US airports. By the end of 2011, there will be 1,000 machines and two out of every three passengers will be asked to step into one of the new machines for a six-second head-to-toe scan before boarding. About half of these machines will be so-called X-ray back-scatter scanners. They use low-energy X-rays to peer beneath passengers' clothing. That has some scientists worried. ... The San Francisco group thinks both the machine's manufacturer, Rapiscan, and government officials have miscalculated the dose that the X-ray scanners deliver to the skin — where nearly all the radiation is concentrated. The stated dose — about .02 microsieverts, a medical unit of radiation — is averaged over the whole body, members of the UCSF group said in interviews. But they maintain that if the dose is calculated as what gets deposited in the skin, the number would be higher, though how much higher is unclear."

Comments

The main danger is

[Anonymous Coward]

People getting in fights over their cock size.

Re:The main danger is

[Shakrai]

The fact that we soon may not be able to board an airplane without a government bureaucrat looking at our cocks is ample proof that the terrorists won. Fucking FUD -- all that we needed after 9/11 was a locked cockpit door.

Re:The main danger is

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Hey, they just don't want cocky people to fly in their airplanes, that's all.

Re:The main danger is

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't build a jobs program around a locked cockpit door.

Re:The main danger is

[blair1q]

Fail.

A locked cockpit door would just keep the screams of the passengers from reaching the pilots as the aircraft split in two from the bomb. It would do nothing to alleviate the need to search people and luggage getting on aircraft.

Re:The main danger is

[prgrmr]

a locked cockpit door and a the metal detectors at Boston's Logan airport set to the correct threshold.

Re:The main danger is

[MoonBuggy]

Completely agreed. I don't know which is worse - the fact that people can't accept that the risk from terrorism is minimal, or the fact that an awful lot of this is simply security theatre which probably won't be exposed as such because the threat is minimal.

I've mentioned it a few times before, but one of the major reasons I refuse to believe the sincerity of measures like this scanning technology is that one can purchase large glass bottles in any airport departure lounge. A glass bottle is a far more effective weapon than many of the other items that they'll confiscate from hand luggage, yet I've never even seen the issue mentioned.

Re:The main danger is

[Anonymous Coward]

Fail.

The thing that makes an aircraft so interesting as a target is because it can fly anywhere. If you can't reach the cockpit the aircraft is no more intresting as a target than for example a train or a bus.
For some reason we don't need to strip-search bus or train passengers so to me it sure seems like this would solve the problem.

You see, one of the best ways to be protected is to not be a target.

Re:The main danger is

[Shakrai]

No, you fail. I didn't say we didn't need to search luggage or people. All I said was that you could have prevented 9/11 with a locked cockpit door. The plane itself may still be a target but we can mitigate that risk to manageable levels without forcing people to go through machines that paint picture perfect images of their genitalia.

Re:The main danger is

[b0bby]

The risks from bombs was understood & mitigated for a long time before 9/11. The use of the plane itself as weapon was new, and OP is right - that problem is solved with a locked cockpit door. Sure you still need to screen, but that was always the case.

Re:The main danger is

[Lumpy]

There has not been a midair bombing of a plane since December 1988 with Pan AM Flight 103, and that was a non US flight.

If you are afraid of bombs on a airplane, you really need to go get therapy for your paranoia. It's not healthy and is probably a danger to those around you.

Re:The main danger is

[spun]

Fail. You don't need to reach the cockpit. You just need the message, "I have a bomb" to reach the cockpit.

Re:The main danger is

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the fact that after a couple of attacks the USA suddenly became the world experts on terrorism. It's funny if you think that UK have been dealing with terrorists far long more and that it was a lot less stressful and safe to travel.

But since every country need to kiss USA's butt security measures were enforced all over the world for no reason.

Also you can buy matches, zippos, glass items at the duty free shops past security and some carriers give you metal forks and knives in first class (eg. Air France).

Still you could choke anyone you want with a perfectly legal ethernet cable/power cord.

Re:The main danger is

[Monkeedude1212]

When was the last bomb that set off on an airplane? 85?

They started searching luggage - and that has worked. The whole body scanner is a solution to a problem solved years ago. It does nothing to assist the need to search people and luggage prior to boarding a plane. People got used to the idea of being patted down at an airport.

In recent news, all of the failed bomb attempts have been mostly due to shoddy materials or poor bomb makers. The Government is using that as an example of how their efforts are working over in the Middle East. They claim that they are being successful in taking out bomb makers and that the third or fourth string recruits are the only ones left, and they are failing.

I'd be fine and dandy with that if it meant they could take out the body scanners and Lax airport security a bit. Have they found any bombs since introducing the body scanners? If so, why aren't they reporting them? If not, then they aren't necessary.

Any arguement you make about Scanners making things safer, I can also say that routine police raids into your home to ransack and a search for weapons couldn't equally achieve. Would you consent to your neighbours taking nude photos of you anytime you wanted to leave your house? At what point does invasion of privacy become acceptable? Because body scanners have definately crossed some lines.

On top of all of that, are you also willing to risk your health?

Re:The main danger is

[Shakrai]

How is a flight on an American airline traveling to New York City considered a "non US flight"?

Re:The main danger is

[mh1997]

I've mentioned it a few times before, but one of the major reasons I refuse to believe the sincerity of measures like this scanning technology is that one can purchase large glass bottles in any airport departure lounge. A glass bottle is a far more effective weapon than many of the other items that they'll confiscate from hand luggage, yet I've never even seen the issue mentioned.

A pen and pencil are also very effective weapons.

Re:The main danger is

[toastar]

Completely agreed. I don't know which is worse - the fact that people can't accept that the risk from terrorism is minimal, or the fact that an awful lot of this is simply security theatre which probably won't be exposed as such because the threat is minimal.

I've mentioned it a few times before, but one of the major reasons I refuse to believe the sincerity of measures like this scanning technology is that one can purchase large glass bottles in any airport departure lounge. A glass bottle is a far more effective weapon than many of the other items that they'll confiscate from hand luggage, yet I've never even seen the issue mentioned.

With apologies to the late great comedian:

Personally I think we shouldn't let anyone with really big hands on an airplane.

Re:The main danger is

[RobertM1968]

The fact that we soon may not be able to board an airplane without a government bureaucrat looking at our cocks is ample proof that the terrorists won. Fucking FUD -- all that we needed after 9/11 was a locked cockpit door.

...while at the same time potentially causing/triggering, or worsening certain medical conditions for those prone to it (such as melanoma - where the wrong type of radiation can "trigger" it), something my sister in law - who has had relatives of hers die from it - is predisposed to).

I agree... we lost this round... and slowly more and more battles on this front.

Re:The main danger is

[bluie-]

a pen or sharpened pencil could also be used as a weapon.

Re:The main danger is

[Bobb9000]

While a locked cockpit door is a big plus, people could still threaten the entire plane with a bomb. Frankly, other than possible health dangers, I find the millimeter-wave scanners to be a very promising thing - if I could go through airport security just by walking through a scanner instead of all the rigmarole of three different detectors and randomized pat-downs, I'd be a much happier traveler. I really don't care if some homeland security person is looking at my penis. I'm not that insecure, and I'm not that wrapped up with stupid modesty taboos. Looking doesn't hurt me. Long lines do, and to my mind pat-downs are a heck of a lot more invasive than a greyscale picture on a screen.

Re:The main danger is

[newcastlejon]

How is a flight on an American airline traveling to New York City considered a "non US flight"?

Depends, did the flight start from within the US too?

Re:The main danger is

[Lord Bitman]

No, the use of the plane itself as a weapon was well understood and ignored, just as the risk from bombs is currently well understood and ignored.

If you really think that taking your shoes off, partial luggage searches, etc, are anything similar to security measures, I suggest that you give your passwords to someone else for safe-keeping.

If you want to be safe and comfortable:
  - Nobody should ever be awake on a plane.
  - All passengers should be drugged
  - Any passenger found awake should be immediately killed
  - No luggage. No carry-ons. This includes clothing. This will not be more than a minor inconvenience. FedEx has been dreaming of this day and will be ready to pick up the slack.

If you want to be uncomfortable for a day or so and maintain a shred of dignity:
  - Don't be a paranoid jackass.

Re:The main danger is

[bFusion]

I've heard they are more effective than a sword even.

Re:The main danger is

[SamSim]

The terrorists haven't won. "The terrorists" have nebulous and ill-defined victory conditions which vary greatly from terrorist to terrorist - if they even have a clear idea of what they want. But you can be sure that "Waste Americans' time at the airport" wasn't the objective.

You have lost, but it's not a zero-sum game.

Re:The main danger is

[Intron]

Umm. Because the people screening the passengers as they got on were in England maybe?

Re:The main danger is

[Aranykai]

Yes, confiscate the purple translucent toy gun from the three year old in front of me but let me walk in with a metal ink pen in my pocket. Very intelligent.

Re:The main danger is

[Shakrai]

While a locked cockpit door is a big plus, people could still threaten the entire plane with a bomb.

So what? Hint: Nothing in life is completely safe. The sooner you accept this the better you'll feel. That's not to say that we shouldn't take steps to mitigate this risk -- but the last in-air bombing that I can think of was Pam Am Flight 103 in 1988.

I really don't care if some homeland security person is looking at my penis. I'm not that insecure, and I'm not that wrapped up with stupid modesty taboos.

Good for you. Some of us value our privacy more than we value expediency.

Re:The main danger is

[Lord Bitman]

Do you really think that all the failed bombing attempts which have been foiled prior to boarding a plane are due to anything other than shoddy planning and poor hijackers? I suppose there is the elephant in the room: It is highly unlikely that anyone actually wants to take over and/or destroy your plane, and more lifetimes worth of man-hours have been wasted due to airport security than have ever been lost due to terrorism.

Re:The main danger is

[frosty_tsm]

A pen and pencil are also very effective weapons.

The pen is mightier than the... oh forget it.

On a separate note, I've been shown how to make a normal sheet of printer paper into a deadly weapon. In this case, it's death from a single paper cut.

Re:The main danger is

[1s44c]

The problem isn't people seeing your bell-end, it's the unknown and non-zero risk of these scanners giving you cancer.

Re:The main danger is

[Dthief]

Nor does the current system, or any proposed system.....scanning just makes people feel safe, it doesnt make them any safer

Re:The main danger is

[HeckRuler]

Attention flight 1403, this is SUX ground control, we're detecting less then .03 ops* in the cabin. That's below regulatory levels so we advise a hard-bank at the next refreshment run.

*Obscenities per second

But really, if da ebil tewwowists can't manually fly the plane into a sky-scraper, then the majority of the security hole is closed. Sure, a bomb causing hundreds of dead is bad, but it's not the sort of threat that is a matter of national security. It has been nearly a decade, and the powers that be are still working on this. Unbelievable.

Re:The main danger is

[thedonger]

The long lines and endless searching of passengers is to break down your will so that when the plane is turned into a weapon you will simply welcome death because you realize you don't have to worry about flying ever again.

Re:The main danger is

[LifesABeach]

well, i thought the insight was funny, anyone that reads /. would know why; but i still think it's funny.

Re:The main danger is

[g0bshiTe]

Search people and luggage getting on an aircraft.

Search them for what? A bomb, a gun?

All these checks will they stop the bomb placed on the aircraft by the worker on the tarmac? Will they stop a pilot from crashing a plane cause terrorists have his family and will kill them if he doesn't? Will it stop a gun from getting on board?

Yeah I know alot of these scenarios are far fetched, about as far fetched as our need for a TSA, or for scanners for us to board a plane. Where will it stop? A full body scan to get into your local Starbucks?

Sound ridiculous? If it does, then that's about how ridiculous it sounds to have scanners at airports.

No matter the checks, the security, or what have you, people that wanted to hi-jack planes have always found ways, and always will.

Re:The main danger is

[Vectormatic]

because a pilot would rather kill himself, the people on board and hundreds of unsuspecting tower-dwellers rather then saying "suck-it" to the guy *claiming* to have a bomb?

Before 9-11 the default MO for plain-jackers was

1) land at airport
2) trade hostages for new fuel/freedom of el presidente
3) profit

So anyone aboard a jacked plane knew, if we co-operate, we will likely survive, even if one or two hostages get offed to make a point. Now on 9-11, that pretty much changed to everyone on board knowing they are dead, unless they regain control of the situation.

Re:The main danger is

[Mindcontrolled]

Exactly. Just look at the last "terrorist" - what did we have there? Some bozo setting his pants on fire, some other bozo strapping fireworks to a propane bottle? Jesus, I can come up with better plots while drunk like a bloody skunk. We are expected to be afraid of that freak show passing for terrorists these days? Gimme a break.

Re:The main danger is

[silverglade00]

Search them for what? A bomb, a gun?

Apparently, search them to make sure they don't have more than 3 oz. of suntan lotion. No, I'm sorry... make sure the drop of suntan lotion they have left isn't contained in a container marked over 3 oz.

The part I don't get is what's stopping someone from splitting up bomb component chemicals into 3 oz. bottles and then pouring them together on the plane? Maybe in a shoe that has been recently been declared Not-Terrorism.

I'm sure this post just got me added to a list somewhere.

Re:The main danger is

[moonbender]

For what it's worth, holding up an airplane with nothing more than an ink pen would be so badass.

Re:The main danger is

[GameMaster]

Actually, I agree with you for the most part but have to say that it's not just the locked door. I believe it's the locked door paired with 9/11. As others have pointed out, before 9/11 no-one ever thought of the terrorists just running the plane into a building. Even with a locked door, the pilots would have, probably, opened the door to the terrorists in the belief that the worst thing they could do was take the whole plane down and opening the door would just increase the possibility of the hostages being bargained for.

Re:The main danger is

[spun]

You still have not demonstrated how a locked door obviates the need for a search. That locked door is not going to keep a terrorist from blowing up a plane full of passengers and fuel right as it flies over a densely populated area.

Re:The main danger is

[Anonymous Coward]

FedEx has been dreaming of this day and will be ready to pick up the slack..

Pick up the slacks, surely?

Re:The main danger is

[GameMaster]

Yea, right, you've been watching too much A-Team my friend. There is no magic knock-out drug that makes you go to sleep. There will always be some people for whom it doesn't work or doesn't last long enough on. There will always be a small portion of the population who will have lethal allergic reactions to the anesthetics. This is why we require trained anesthesiologists present during all serious surgeries and people STILL die. Also, good luck with FedEx. There's no way anyoe would trust them to get the luggage there safe and on-time. This goes double for business people with expensive/fragile laptops full of confidential information.

Re:The main danger is

[Bobb9000]

And as I said, fair enough - I'm concerned about possible health dangers too. But one group of scientists is not a consensus, and nothing has zero risk. I think these concerns should be responded to, and if they turn out to be a problem, then that's an excellent reason not to deploy these scanners.

Re:The main danger is

[b0bby]

Let's put it this way - basic screening that will catch someone bringing or loading powerful explosives on board? I'm in favor. Draconian screening that stops my 8 year old bringing on a pair of nail clippers? Stupid. I kept flying after Pan Am 103 (a flight I had regularly been on) was blown up, and I'm not paranoid. I think that after 9/11 they should have made the cabin doors locked, and then carried on more or less as before.

Re:The main danger is

[blackraven14250]

Pics or it didn't happen.

Re:The main danger is

[MiniMike]

Did the shoe bomber (or the 'crotch' bomber) try to hijack the airplane? No, they just wanted to destroy it. An airplane will always be a more interesting target than a bus.

Re:The main danger is

[Bobb9000]

Hint: Nothing in life is completely safe. The sooner you accept this the better you'll feel.

A fact of which I am well aware. The issue is not my failure to accept that fact, but that, as you note, acceptance does not mean we should stop trying to prevent terrorism. The fact that the last successful mid-air bombing was twenty years ago does not mean it couldn't happen again (as the recent attack indicates: he wasn't thwarted by security, but by poor bomb-making skills). If new technology allows us to avert more threats with less hassle and (to my mind) less intrusion, then I support it.

Good for you. Some of us value our privacy more than we value expediency.

I understand that not everyone shares my lack of concern about people seeking my penis, but when it comes to risking a successful attack on the lives of at least several hundred people vs. something which does no physical harm and does not significantly expand the power of the state, I really have trouble bringing myself to care about your concerns. A government employee seeing my penis, or my wife's breasts, or even my kids' respective same, does not allow the state to learn any more about my private behavior, beliefs, or predilections than it already knows (aside from piercings, I suppose, but the metal detector already does a fair job of that). There is thus no harm from such machines other than treading on an illogical and tradition-based taboo, unless the concerns of this article turn out to be well-founded, of course. I'm sorry that you consider that an important part of your privacy, but there can be no such thing as absolute privacy - it's always a matter of deciding where to make the tradeoffs. I don't really understand why you consider a fairly minimal invasion of the nudity taboo more important than averting a small but non-trivial threat to your life.

Re:The main danger is

[Anonymous Coward]

In their defense, it's really hard to develop a healthy amount of experience at something like suicide bombing due to the high attrition rate inherent in the job. This, inherently, suggests that the vast majority of them will be beginners...

Re:The main danger is

[kaiser423]

Have you ever been through one? They're slower than a metal detector. You still have to put your bags through the conventional scanner. Then rather walk through and wait for your bags on the other side, you have a 30 second procedure to get yourself scanned also.

And everyone stands in there wrong, or is used to carrying their wallet (which you can't do into these), and so on and so forth. Based upon standing in line and counting numbers at Albuquerque, NM the millimeter wave system is anywhere from 2x-5x slower than traditional systems largely based upon the ability of the people going through it to understand advanced instruction....

All of this to see if you have a conformal bomb strapped to you. Something that, obviously, a bomb-sniffing dog would be very good at doing......But you can't build a job program around bomb sniffing dogs.

Re:The main danger is

[laron]

And perfectly safe airplanes with naked passengers securely chained to their seats would not prevent a terrorist from detonating a bomb in a densely populated area. He and his bomb just wouldn't be on this plane.

Re:The main danger is

[thegnu]

The fact that we soon may not be able to board an airplane without a government bureaucrat looking at our cocks is ample proof that the terrorists won.

i play by my own rules, and i play for points. the more bureaucrats i can get looking at my cock at once, the better. 20, and i win.

Re:The main danger is

[Culture20]

The thing that makes an aircraft so interesting as a target is because it can fly anywhere. If you can't reach the cockpit the aircraft is no more intresting as a target than for example a train or a bus.

People can always attempt to stop or jump off of a train or bus when a guy starts lighting his crotch on fire. A plane can get a 100% casualty rate easily. The captivity of the victims makes it seem scarier.

Re:The main danger is

[Shakrai]

I don't really understand why you consider a fairly minimal invasion of the nudity taboo more important than averting a small but non-trivial threat to your life.

Because the act of getting into a motor vehicle and driving to work significantly more dangerous than boarding an airplane under the pre 9/11 security protocol.

From a practical standpoint the body scanners are useless anyway. They do not scan body cavities. A really determined individual can still bring an explosive on the plane. When someone pulls a stick of TNT out of his ass and tries to bring down a plane will you be meekly submitting to cavity searches?

Re:The main danger is

[hey!]

But a reasonably superficial examination of the passenger would make it extremely unlikely that a terrorist could blow up a plane with stuff he's carrying on his person.

If you posit an explosive powerful enough that 50cc of the stuff can blow up a plane from inside the passenger cabin, then your fancy scanners won't catch it anyway. The terrorist could tape it behind his scrotum, or carry it on-board in a suppository.

This is basic engineering. There's no point in making one part of a system perfect if the rest of the system is far from perfect.

Re:The main danger is

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me a terrorist that don't have access to the cockpit and still is able to time a detonation in such a way without accurate knowledge of the planes position and velocity. (Yeah, good luck finding a GPS that gives accurate readings in an aircraft.)
Trust me, if you find such a person I can assure you that he/she has no problem getting explosives past the current security.

Thing is that a person who has such skills would not need to resort to terrorism because such a person could get quite good paying jobs and live a wealthy life anywhere.

If you don't think there is enough measures taken to remove my freedom and dignity then the only advice I can give you is this:
Building more fences will not protect you, becoming less of a target will.

Re:The main danger is

[ooshna]

Or someone with the New York Times.

Re:The main danger is

[ImNotAtWork]

And then the pilot hits the autopilot lock in for nearest landing spot (for safety) and passenger sleeping gas button. Cabin is neutralized. Plane lands SWAT team + Steven Seagal rescue the plane.

Re:The main danger is

[Bobb9000]

Because the act of getting into a motor vehicle and driving to work significantly more dangerous than boarding an airplane under the pre 9/11 security protocol.

True, and if there was a way I could significantly lessen the danger of driving by having a government employee see me naked with minimal hassle I'd probably do that too.

When someone pulls a stick of TNT out of his ass and tries to bring down a plane will you be meekly submitting to cavity searches?

No, because I don't think the discomfort and time involved in a cavity search is worth it compared to the risk of someone hiding a stick of TNT up their ass. If they invented a scanner that would detect items concealed in such a manner without all the trouble of a cavity search or the risk of high radiation exposure, then I'd be ok with it. Slippery slopes aren't actually all that slippery unless you have your eyes closed.

Re:The main danger is

[ooshna]

I don't think anyone threatening with a bomb would have much of a chance today. Either you use the bomb or get destroyed by the rest of the passengers. People are not going to just sit around and do what you say anymore. They know what there fate will be if they listen and know that even though fighting back could end up with them dead its not set in stone like it is with doing as your told.

Re:The main danger is

[ooshna]

No but I'm quite sure being the reason why every year Americans loose more an more of their freedoms (which we love to brag about) would be considered a won battle. Maybe not winning the war but its still a victory.

Re:The main danger is

[Shakrai]

Slippery slopes aren't actually all that slippery unless you have your eyes closed.

Your eyes are the ones that are closed if you can't see our airport security regime for the ineffectual security theater that it is.

Re:The main danger is

[Tetsujin]

The thing that makes an aircraft so interesting as a target is because it can fly anywhere. If you can't reach the cockpit the aircraft is no more intresting as a target than for example a train or a bus.

People can always attempt to stop or jump off of a train or bus when a guy starts lighting his crotch on fire.

Nuh-uh, Dennis Hopper is watching the bus very carefully - if anybody tries to get off he'll blow it up!

Re:The main danger is

[The Spoonman]

before 9/11 no-one ever thought of the terrorists just running the plane into a building

Well, that's not ENTIRELY true.

Re:The main danger is

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are afraid of bombs on a airplane, you really need to go get therapy for your paranoia.

But what about the motherfucking snakes on a motherfucking plane?

Re:The main danger is

[Foobar of Borg]

The person who modded parent troll apparently missed this article.

Re:The main danger is

[Roman Coder]

Fucking FUD -- all that we needed after 9/11 was a locked cockpit door.

And/or U.S. Air Marshals.

Still waiting for someone to tell me where they were on the 9/11 flights.

Re:The main danger is

[VCAGuy]

And perfectly safe airplanes with naked passengers securely chained to their seats...

FAA regulations prohibit the chaining of passengers to their seats.

Re:The main danger is

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not an alternative to existing security, this is an addition. It won't detect anything in your bag, so you'll still need to have your bag scanned. It won't detect anything in your shoes, so you'll still have to remove and x-ray your shoes. They're wickedly more expensive than the magnet/sniffer you walk through now, so there will be fewer. They're slower than existing scanners. They won't detect explosive residue, so you'll still need to go through a sniffer. These scanners offer the potential to detect devices which are less threatening than things you can buy on the concourse at great expense.

You, personally, may not have a nudity taboo, but that places you in the minority. May even make you the creepy guy parents tell their kids to avoid.

Re:The main danger is

[Protoslo]

You make a good point. If future terrorists are dead-set on blowing up planes (because terrorists these days just lack the imagination, apparently), they can secret more explosives in their rectums/stomachs, GI tracts, etc. than they can in their underwear anyway. If someone is going to (attempt to) blow up a plane while still on it anyway, there should be no problem with even detonating explosives before removing them. As seasoned internet denizens, veterans of years of trolling, we should know better than anyone just how cavernous the human rectum and anus can be.

(In-) effectiveness aside, TSA goons scrutinizing my naked body is not an acceptable tradeoff for some theoretical infinitesimal increase in safety. The entire threat of airplane terrorism cannot justify such a step. Besides, this reactionary bullshit has only become popular because of an incident on an international flight that had not yet touched at a U.S. airport. Unless every other country with airplane traffic to the United States embraces identically draconian policies, these scanners would not even have prevented the very incident that has prompted their deployment!

The only dilemma here is whether one can legitimately oppose airport body scanners through exploitation of the public's irrational fear of ionizing radiation. Anything that finally turns opinion firmly against expansion of TSA power is good, but the irrational fear of ionizing radiation is a double-edged sword (remember nuclear power).

Re:The main danger is

[Protoslo]

I think that Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor is the canonical example of anticipating that method.

Re:The main danger is

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not that insecure, and I'm not that wrapped up with stupid modesty taboos. Looking doesn't hurt me.

Tits or GTFO. What, you dissent? But..but I thought.. damn.

Re:The main danger is

[grrrl]

hahahahahhaha best post of the day.

Re:The main danger is

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, these aren't the only things being used to fight the whole concept of body scanners. Its just the another piece against their usage. In fact there are other, more better arguments against these scanners. Arguments like the images being used in 'less then professional' ways. Another problem being is they just don't work well enough.

Re:The main danger is

[adolf]

I guess I'll be on the list, too:

It doesn't take that big of a boom to cause a plane to depressurize. A small charge, of the right shape and in the right spot (ie: up against the wall, and not directly under a window) is all it takes.

Now, I'm not at all any sort of chemist, but: 3 ounces of one part, plus 3 ounces of another, sounds like plenty of explosive material to rip a giant fucking hole in an airplane.

After that, terror ensues. And, since we're talking about terrorism (instead of hijacking or mass murder), that's all that matters.

Re:The main danger is

[T Murphy]

The only counter argument I can come up with is a jet comes with a huge amount of fuel for your bomb to ignite, while getting a similar amount of material to a ground target would be just about impossible. Not that I think a plane would still make a better target.

Re:The main danger is

[T Murphy]

Airport security isn't just what goes on in the airports. The Christmas attacker shouldn't have been on that plane because we had intel from elsewhere to flag him. If we can just make the in-airport security good enough that out-of-airport security covers most of the rest, we should be good. I think full-body scanners should be available to airport security (assuming they are safe), but I do agree using them for general screening is overdoing it. I just hope the TSA realizes it is simply one part of a larger security network, and that they don't have to address every single threat because of that.

Re:The main danger is

[crashandburn66]

See, this is why I've never understood the rule that prohibits pilots from carrying firearms. Believe me, if a terrorist really wants to get through that door, he's going to do it one way or another. Just the other day, I just about tore the gate off my fence with one kick. A door just isn't going to cut it. It just doesn't make much sense that we allow pilots to drive hundreds of tons of steel and explosive fuel around the sky, but we won't allow them to be armed in the cockpit.

I mean, come on, the 9-11 guys used *box-cutters* to take over the plane, for god's sake. If even *one* person had had a gun on those flights, the number of dead bodies leaving the plane would have been much, much lower.

Just a thought.

Re:The main danger is

[smart_ass]

The clear problem is our lack of programs to train bomb-sniffing humans.
Seriously ... if people can't be trained to do the same as dogs ... then what is this world coming too?

Re:The main danger is

[Protoslo]

Sure, I've read the story about the TSA guy beating the other down in the parking lot because of continuous harassment concerning his (alleged) small dick. A hilarious taste of things yet to come. I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't (legitimately) oppose this, just that it might not be the best idea to do so based on a fear of RF.

Re:The main danger is

[Anonymous Coward]

The terrorist could tape it behind his scrotum, or carry it on-board in a suppository. This is basic engineering.

Excuse me, where did you study engineering?

Re:The main danger is

[shadowbearer]

  Sure you can.

  It involves government contracts with no overspending oversight.

SB

Re:The main danger is

[exomondo]

You still have not demonstrated how a locked door obviates the need for a search. That locked door is not going to keep a terrorist from blowing up a plane full of passengers and fuel right as it flies over a densely populated area.

And what's to stop a terrorist from blowing up a train full of passengers as it goes through a busy interchange under a densely populated city? He isn't saying it averts terrorism, he's saying why this focus on planes when trains or buses would be a MUCH easier and probably much more effective target.

Re:The main danger is

[dkf]

They started searching luggage - and that has worked.

They also started making sure that luggage is matched to a known passenger, and checking (even if cursorily) that people aren't taking things on for others. Those are both key parts of anti-bombing measures.

Re:The main danger is

[HopefulIntern]

When I was in Zurich waiting to fly out from Switzerland I had a gander in their Swiss Army shop. You know, pen knives, folding knives etc. I wondered why they would bother selling this stuff at the airport, if you cant take this stuff on board. So I asked the lady. She asked me where I was flying to. England, I said. She said thats fine then, you can take any knives you want on board in your hand luggage....(?)

Re:The main danger is

[HopefulIntern]

Forgot the funniest part: she said "you can take it on board as long as you dont take it out of the packaging(!)"

WHAT?!?!?!

Re:The main danger is

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, I don't know... Even Yagami Light could hold up an airplane with nothing more than an ink pen.

Re:The main danger is

[batistuta]

The idea of terrorism is to spread terror, while inducing people to doubt about the capability of your government to maintain control of the society and institutions. That's the definition I was told by a Peruvian friend who lived through their Sendero Luminoso era. Based on this definition, terrorists have somehow won against North America, and partially everywhere else too. Osama Bin Laden even said it himself "Americans won't live in the same way anymore", and by looking at how U.S.A. has reacted, I'd say he's right. We can say that Western and freedom has won because we have controlled the situation and always manage to chase and punish those responsible. But for them dying for the cause is not an issue. So depending whom you ask, both terrorist and democratic western countries (or however you wanna call them) will claim that have won. Now if you ask me, I think we have all lost. Both parties are investing millions of man hours and monetary resources just to fight, instead of working together towards a joint goal. From the perspective of humanity that's a sad loss.

Re:The main danger is

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking doesn't hurt me. Long lines do, and to my mind pat-downs are a heck of a lot more invasive than a greyscale picture on a screen.

It doesn't matter- The problem is that 1. it's still an invasion of privacy and 2. By accepting it, we give away yet another bit of hard-won freedom (and it doesn't end there).

It's also a bit hypocrite- I might as well walk around without clothes but that's not allowed because it's supposedly indecent.

Somehow, if I travel by boat, underground/subway, train, or bus, I don't have to submit myself to this theater- as if terrorists wouldn't be able to blow those up if they wanted to (in fact they have a track record for targeting any form of public transport, not just airplanes). Somehow for those purposes CCTV is enough (and I don't like those either- why do I need to be watched if I'm not doing anything wrong?)

Not that I'd want to give anyone any ideas, but what's next? X-ray back-scatter scanners instead of CCTV? Plenty of CCTV images have been leaked- how long before everybody shows up naked on youtube? The problem is, Can anyone tell me where this madness ends?

Re:The main danger is

[Hatman39]

Ha, this reminds me of a story of my own. I was flying from a small regional airport in Turkey (Kayseri) to Germany and was sitting in the boarding area, after the final safety scan. And this elderly Turkish woman next to mean takes an apple out of her bag, takes a knife out of her pocket and starts peeling it.... apparently airport security seems to vary massively on where you fly from and to.

Re:The main danger is

[ckaminski]

Especially since 4 months after 9/11 scanners at Boston's Logan airport, let me take 6" barbers shears in my ditty bag onto a flight to Norfolk.

They didn't really appreciate the 4" kbar mule, though. Or the swiss army knife.

Re:The main danger is

[Bobb9000]

Sorry, I don't think you want to see my tits. Due to the aforementioned penis, they are far less shapely and far more hairy than (I hope) you might like.

Re:The main danger is

[Bobb9000]

I can see that our current airport security system is largely theatre; anyone with an inquisitive mind can't help but think up all the interesting ways to circumvent the current system. Hence why I'd like to see more effective measures in place. Backscatter machines seem like an effective way of checking for a number of different threats in a minimal amount of time. Combined with luggage x-rays, that seems like a good compromise of speed and effectiveness. I know they probably won't implement it the way I'd like, but if I cried about it every time government failed to do that I'd die of dehydration. I'm mostly complaining about the notion that this is somehow taking away our liberties more effectively than various other options that people seem much less freaked out about.

Re:The main danger is

[Bobb9000]

No, I haven't actually. I'd expect that they'd be slower than metal detectors, but since they do so much more and, in a sane system, could replace some existing detectors I still see them as a net benefit. 30 seconds seems excessive, though. As to people's inability to understand instructions, I would guess that would improve over time. People always get confused when the systems change. If they do cause such a slowdown, and that can't be improved, I'd see that as a good argument against using them. It's not relevant to my earlier point, however, that people are freaking out disproportionately to the privacy invasion involved.

Re:The main danger is

[Bobb9000]

The issue I'm concerned with isn't so much hijacking (though that is still a concern), but people who just want to blow up the plane. No warning or threats.

Re:The main danger is

[torkus]

I don't have a nudity taboo. However I still have an issue with being forced* to expose myself against my will.

Do you think this will actually lessen the searches? It's not the metal detector that takes forever, it's x-raying every bit of luggage, cell phone, SHOES, etc. Want to bet shoes still go on the conveyor belt?

*granted you can just not fly

p.s. best related verification word ever - outcries! :)

Re:The main danger is

[tehcyder]

England, I said. She said thats fine then, you can take any knives you want on board in your hand luggage.

I can assure you it's not the same when you leave England. I've had fucking nail clippers removed from my hand luggage.

I think if you tried to take a knife on board at Heathrow, they'd just shoot you dead and bill your family for the blood stain damage to the concourse.

Re:The main danger is

[networkBoy]

There is no magic knock-out drug that makes you go to sleep

I think loss of cabin pressure will do that fairly quickly.

Re:The main danger is

[networkBoy]

it's 3 oz of liquid.
Some dude brought on all the components to make gunpowder...
Also, thermite when broken into it's components is not at all interesting (rust, aluminum). Would not take much to make things interesting. go to the bathroom, mix in sink or toilet, light.

Re:The main danger is

[HopefulIntern]

I know, which threw me quite a bit. I live partly in Surrey so I fly out from Heathrow or Stanstead several times a year, and they once told me to take a belt off because the belt buckle had a revolver embossed on it...

Re:The main danger is

[blair1q]

Did the shoe and underwear bombers even try to reach the cockpit?

The thing that makes aircraft so interesting as a target is that one small piece of damage to it causes a flaming ball of wreckage raining bodies and shards of metal down on the countryside.

Re:The main danger is

[ooshna]

Then as many have said its the same as setting a bomb off at a crowded mall, train terminal, or even a state fair. Unless they make you go through the same routine to go to those places we need to go back to pre-9/11 security plus the locked cabin door.

Re:The main danger is

[matfud]

They take far more than 30 seconds. The last time I went through one was probably 2 years ago at LHR. You got pulled out of the queue at random.It was optional at the time (go through it or get strip searched) It took about 3 mins but at least you got to jump the queue. Unless the technology has improved a lot then it is still going to take far too long to get everybody going through one.
Spread your legs and put your feet on the dots. raise your arms and put your hands on the yellow dots. Wait a while. Now turn around and do similar. All after you have removed any belongings from yourself.

Re:The main danger is

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess those people shouldn't fly.

hang on slashdot

[nimbius]

didnt these types of scanners get covered a few months ago with negative side effects from a scientific study proclaiming evidence the radiation can unzip DNA?

how about this for airport security: stop blowing up brown people and start working with countries other than china, canada, and mexico to ensure we're better global citizens...

Re:hang on slashdot

[Opportunist]

Your idea could actually work and, worse, eliminate the reason to wage war, which would cost thousands of jobs in the defense industry. Thus, sorry, but I think we have to reject it.

Re:hang on slashdot

[dgatwood]

didnt these types of scanners get covered a few months ago with negative side effects from a scientific study proclaiming evidence the radiation can unzip DNA?

No, that's millimeter wave, which is the other type of full body scanner. Both backscatter X-ray and millimeter wave scanners cause cancer, they just do it in different ways.

Either way, you won't see me setting foot anywhere NEAR one of those scanners. If enough people demand to be hand searched that it brings air travel to a grinding halt, maybe this bullshit will stop.

Re:hang on slashdot

[blair1q]

Fail.

We'd blow up white people too if they were the ones shouting "Jihad!" and strapping C4 to their children.

Re:hang on slashdot

[lazorz]

Actually, can you request to be hand searched without going through the scanner, or do you HAVE to go through it?

Re:hang on slashdot

[MoonBuggy]

Looks like it's mandatory.

Re:hang on slashdot

[commodore64_love]

I work in defense and would gladly give-up my job if the U.S. vs. Whoever war ended next month. Peace is preferable to war, and I can learn to do something else (maybe coding for Linux or ReactOS).

Re:hang on slashdot

[yotto]

You don't HAVE to do anything. Unless you want to get on the plane.

That's why I choose ahead of time to not get on the plane. Or go into the airport.

Driving may take more time and cost more money, but it's a hole lot prettier and nobody assumes I'm a terrorist.

Re:hang on slashdot

[yotto]

We'd blow up white people too if they were the ones shouting "Jihad!" and strapping C4 to their children.

So watch out, Teabaggers.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Shakrai]

Driving may take more time and cost more money

When you find a way to drive from the United States to Europe and Australia let me know. I'd like to visit both locales again during my lifetime :(

Re:hang on slashdot

[commodore64_love]

Technically you have a choice, but given the monkeys that work for security today, they probably don't know that. They will insist vehemently that you HAVE to be scanned, just as they held-up this guy for carrying a lot of cash (not an illegal act): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0SXuclz47Y

People in authority often make-up laws ("You must comply") right on the spot even when the actual law says otherwise.

Re:hang on slashdot

[MoonBuggy]

I'm more than aware that "don't fly" is, at best, a poor option, but if you've got some extra time there's always sea travel, which is actually often a lot of fun. Costs are variable, and can be very steep, but it's often possible to pay a reasonable rate for a spare room on a working ship (usually a big freighter).

Re:hang on slashdot

[vlm]

Both backscatter X-ray and millimeter wave scanners cause cancer

False. I know quite a bit about RF and millimeter wave is harmless. Just the typical american content-free knee jerk response of don't understand = scared. Go ahead, just try to provide any logical explanation other than "I don't understand physics therefore mm-wave must be evil".

X-ray, in comparison, is not good for you.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Shakrai]

I'm more than aware that "don't fly" is, at best, a poor option, but if you've got some extra time there's always sea travel, which is actually often a lot of fun.

I would love to take a sea voyage. Only problem is that it's time consuming and not real feasible unless I want to quit my job :(

So it looks like my choices are to submit to the Orwellian security theater or abandon my desires to travel around the world and limit myself to exploring the United States and Canada. *sigh*, the fucking terrorists won....

Re:hang on slashdot

[dgatwood]

In the U.K.

Everywhere else but the U.K., you have a fundamental right to be hand searched. That's why I've decided that instead of going through Heathrow like I usually do, for future trips to Europe, I'll be flying through Charles de Gaulle instead.

For everyone who thinks U.S. air travel policies are absurd, the U.S. allows you to request a manual search. Only the U.K. is so fascist that they will not allow hand searches.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes let's be better global citizens ignoring the fact that already if you're a foreigner in China you're very likely to have been sent through a back-scatter radiation scan without your consent.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Work with other countries? You mean like Japan? Oh wait, they' re one of our closest allies. What about European countries? We have the usual differences, but they aren't blowing up office buildings full of Americans. Most Latin American countries (aside from Venezuela) get along with the US pretty well. Most African countries work with the US, aside from a few controlled by fanatics who want to destroy the US just because. Same with the majority of Asian countries.

Re:hang on slashdot

[phantomcircuit]

That dude really should have been asking "Am I under arrest?".

Re:hang on slashdot

[GigG]

What makes you think the grinding to a halt will have any effect? These aren't in most airports and even where they are and I haven't seen that much backlash or grinding to a halt.

Re:hang on slashdot

[commodore64_love]

Precisely. I haven't flown on an airplane since 1999. Not because I am boycotting planes, but because I've never traveled anywhere that required flying. Almost everywhere I go is within one days drive (16 hours or less). The only exception is when I drove to Alaska, but driving the Highway was the whole point of the trip.

It's also nice when your employer hands you a big fat check. Getting almost $1000 to drive to Minneapolis and back is better than getting $0.00 if I had flown instead.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Nexusone1984]

Nimbius, not sure where you get we are at war with brown people, unless you mean Arab people? Are you too PC to say the word? I know many brown skinned people and last time I check we are not blowing them up in a daily basis. The real problem comes from the fanatical religious members of religion called Islam, no I don't think all members of Islam support blowing up planes and themselves up. But our focus should be on the group that is doing it right now, and not little old ladies. And the last time I check we work with all nations, just more cozy with those who have nukes that could harm us. My only work with Mexico is to get the illegal drug dealers and thugs out of the country. "Better choose now, if your the one hanging on the cross or the one banging in the nails."

Re:hang on slashdot

[dgatwood]

There are a number of scientists who disagree with you. Either way, this is the sort of thing that should have been studied further BEFORE rolling out these things to hundreds of airports.

And even if it proves not to be harmful, at least that would have delayed this privacy-invading absurdity a few more years.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

And here I thought I had a fundamental right to travel without being searched.

Re:hang on slashdot

[networkconsultant]

In soviet united states the government controls the people.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Lord Bitman]

Oh no! You need to restrict yourself to a mere THIRD of the landmass of the planet Earth! What has the world come to?!

Airline travel was only for a few elites fifty years ago, what's so wierd about it being only for a few elites now?

Re:hang on slashdot

[questionsaddict]

in any case.. i'm asking a friend of mine what's the book that regulates this things, and start taking them with me to the airport.

I've seen my lawyer friends work their way out of cocky-cops just by saying they're lawyers; it scared the shit out of them hehehe.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Pence128]

I don't think you know which came first. The US has been sticking it's collective dick in places where it doesn't belong for a very long time.

Re:hang on slashdot

[DeadCatX2]

What's wrong with millimeter wavelengths? That's the same stuff as cell phones, wireless routers, your microwave...

Reading wiki shows that it was sub-mm wavelengths that were doing the fancy DNA unzipping.

Re:hang on slashdot

[phantomfive]

how about this for airport security: stop blowing up brown people and start working with countries other than china, canada, and mexico to ensure we're better global citizens...

I like your idea, and think it could work, but I object to your blatant racism. The US has blown up lots of non-brown people since the end of the cold-war.

Also, it's not just a matter of being better global citizens, we are dealing with people who object to our way of life, our 'immorality' (think of Katy Perry). Consider some of the things Osama Bin Ladin wants from America:

What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you? ......
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam......
We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.
You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.
You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants.
You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object. Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office?

They want us to return to prohibition, and arrest Bill Clinton. They want us to get rid of homosexuals. But obviously that's not going to happen. So fixing the problem is a little harder than just being better global citizens (incidentally, why do you think we only deal with China, Canada and Mexico? Even saying that makes you sound a bit ignorant).

Re:hang on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll make it mandatory. Having the option to be hand searched was part of getting the nose under the tent.
I give it two years.

Re:hang on slashdot

[MoonBuggy]

Airline travel was only for a few elites fifty years ago, what's so wierd about it being only for a few elites now?

The fact that the barrier is an artificial consequence of government imposed asshattery rather than of the expense of air travel?

Re:hang on slashdot

[Pence128]

who want to destroy the US just because we've been fucking them up for decades.

FTFY

Re:hang on slashdot

[penguin_dance]

how about this for airport security: stop blowing up brown people and start working with countries other than china, canada, and mexico to ensure we're better global citizens...

Yeah tell the swedish cartoonist or the Dutch cartoonist Kurt Westergaard who get death threats for drawing political cartoons how they need to be better global citizens.... You cannot appease terrorists.

How about profiling some of those "brown people" coming from countries on the watch list instead of insisting parents remove leg braces from their 4 year-old?

We know which countries the vast majority of the people coming after us are either from or traveling to for training, but we are so damn politically correct we let the real terrorists board planes.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you need to look into the wonderful world of private charter aviation... it might be quite expensive solo, but find a few friends, charter a jet and pilot - see the sights, on -your- timetable, not the airlines, and you can carry whatever the fsck you -want- onto the aircraft. No security theatre - and I believe there are a few private jets that can make transoceanic voyages in one go of it.

Re:hang on slashdot

[StikyPad]

No "we" wouldn't, because "we" are still mostly white. As an obvious test of your argument, consider that most terrorists are also men, but that men aren't disproportionately targeted for increased security, nor is anyone advocating such measures. This isn't because men aren't more likely to be violent or aggressive (they are), but because we respect the rights and liberties of individuals.

Re:hang on slashdot

[zenyu]

Airline travel was only for a few elites fifty years ago, what's so wierd about it being only for a few elites now?

Fifty years ago you had to pay half the cost of a small car for a seat on a passenger airline to fly somewhere with dignity. Now you have to rent an aircraft with staff at the cost of several luxury cars. And it's not because the cost of flying has gone up 10000% in fifty years, it's government policy has been captured by a small number of paranoid fools.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Bearhouse]

I would love to take a sea voyage. Only problem is that it's time consuming and not real feasible unless I want to quit my job :(

So quit your job.
Part of the charm of sea travel is that you *get* time...you can earn plenty by blogging and/or writing a book.

Start here: http://www.freightercruises.com/

Re:hang on slashdot

[blackraven14250]

Too bad they're not digging through comments on /. all day in order to find this one, totally-not-spammed comment on the matter.

Re:hang on slashdot

[sjames]

Sorry, you're going to have to let the probable pedophile with the minimum wage job have a look under your little girl's clothes.

Odds are that at least one of them spends a little too much time thinking about the children.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Linux_ho]

There are a number of scientists who disagree with you. Either way, this is the sort of thing that should have been studied further BEFORE rolling out these things to hundreds of airports.

If you're concerned about your exposure to terahertz radiation, you'd better hide in a cave because it's everywhere. Don't go anywhere near a microwave oven. It's less energetic than visible light radiation, so keep all the lights off. Watch out for that high energy TV remote too, that thing's spitting out infrared, for God's sake. Won't somebody think of the children?

The only studies I've seen which showed any medical effect at all from radiation at frequencies lower than UV was if the intensity was high enough to actually heat the tissue (like in a microwave oven). It is POSSIBLE to damage tissue with low frequency radiation if the intensity is high enough (through heating), but you're not going to see that kind of intensity from a terahertz airport scanner.

Now, X-rays are a whole different kettle of fish. There is some risk of DNA damage from X-rays at any intensity. Sure, the X-ray scanners are putting out far less radiation than the average person gets from even just background radiation, but people get cancer from background radiation too.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

No place like /. for incomparable naivete and arrogance.

Disclosure: I am a "brown" person.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Culture20]

how about this for airport security: stop blowing up brown people and start working with countries other than china, canada, and mexico to ensure we're better global citizens...

Was it the most recent war in Afghanistan that prompted the 9/11 attacks? Maybe it was Desert Shield/Storm? I just want to get my "cause and effect" straight. How many "brown people" were blown up by US forces in 2000 and the first 3/4 of 2001?

I've already predicted your response, and "Iraq didn't cause 9/11" is a strawman because I never said it did.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way, this is the sort of thing that should have been studied further BEFORE rolling out these things to hundreds of airports.

Sorry, can't have science, logic, or testing get in the way of the police state.

Re:hang on slashdot

[vik]

You know, it's funny but I'm doing the self-same thing.

Vik :v)

Re:hang on slashdot

[maxfresh]

No, millimeter waves are at least 10 to 100 times shorter in wavelength than the other items you mentioned.

Millimeter waves, by definition, have a wavelength between 1mm and 10mm. A microwave oven, wireless router, or cell phone all have a wavelength of around 125mm or longer. So the energy in each photon of millimeter wave radiation is 10 to 100 times greater than the energy in each photon from a wireless router.

It is possible, therefore, that it could be sufficient to trigger adverse effects in living cells. And it is just common sense and basic respect for human rights and dignity to investigate the long term health effects of repeated exposure to millimeter waves, before irradiating hundreds of millions of innocent people every year.

Re:hang on slashdot

[dgatwood]

Microwave ovens are at 2.4 GHz, the oscillating frequency of a water molecule. That's why they heat things.

Yes, there's THz background radiation, but it is not used by much in terms of man-made equipment.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Nidi62]

Technically you have a choice, but given the monkeys that work for security today, they probably don't know that. They will insist vehemently that you HAVE to be scanned,

If they do that, just point to the sign right by the scanner that says: "you have the choice between being scanned and a hand search". There's bound to be at least one TSA guy there who can read, and will let you just get the hand-search.

Re:hang on slashdot

[DeadCatX2]

Okay, so I was off by one order of magnitude. There's still at least six more orders to go before you get enough energy per photon to ionize a DNA bond.

And the Sun does not care about our rights or dignity. It has been bombarding us with all kinds of radiation, including mm-wavelength, for billions of years. Our atmosphere does not stop all of it. Life has evolved under selective pressures that account for exposure to this kind of low-energy radiation.

As well, there are other posters who pointed out that flying at that altitude for a few hours results in more radiation exposure than the scanner would give you.

Re:hang on slashdot

[FrameRotBlues]

No.

The distance measurement you're using (millimeters, portions of the meter) is not an energy measurement, it's a wavelength distance used to measure frequency (usually peak-to-peak). Hertz (or cycles per second if you're old enough to remember that) is another measurement that is directly related to wavelength distance: the smaller the wavelength, the higher the frequency. Ham radio guys know this because they transmit on 160 meters thru 23 centimeter bands, which if you knew anything about what you were spouting, you'd already know. Wattage is the proper measurement for the amount of energy being produced.

And FFS, wattage is not measured in photons, it's measured in watts, or portions of watts, such as a milliwatt. You look like an idiot when you do it wrong.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Linux_ho]

Microwave ovens are at 2.4 GHz, the oscillating frequency of a water molecule. That's why they heat things.

??? That's simply not true. Dielectric heating will work at any frequency, on any polar molecule. Water is an example of a molecule with a strong dipolar moment, which is why it heats more than other molecules with weaker dipole moments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_heating

Re:hang on slashdot

[Tetsujin]

And here I thought I had a fundamental right to travel without being searched.

This right was violated even on public transit (i.e. subway, etc.) when the Democratic National Convention was in Boston...

I can understand the need for heightened security when major contenders for the presidency are in town and you've got subway rails going directly underneath the building, but still...

Re:hang on slashdot

[Tetsujin]

You don't HAVE to do anything. Unless you want to get on the plane.

That's why I choose ahead of time to not get on the plane. Or go into the airport.

Driving may take more time and cost more money, but it's a hole lot prettier and nobody assumes I'm a terrorist.

I like traveling by train, myself.

It takes loads more time than flying, and I think it's more expensive, too - but the boarding process is almost completely stress-free, and even if I'm on the train for 20 hours, 30 hours, whatever, I can spend that time sleeping, reading, using my computer, or whatever else I want to do, as opposed to the time wasted at airports where I'm in line, awaiting my next boarding call, etc. I can relax.

Like you, I don't want to give my money to the airlines until the process of flying can once again be made enjoyable. I don't realistically expect my stance will change the state of things any time soon, but I am happier with my approach than I would be if I used airlines.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

So they're Baptist-Republicans?

Re:hang on slashdot

[treeves]

By "Wattage" you mean the output power of the transmitter. This relates to the photons as the flux of the photons multiplied by the energy of the individual photons. And the energy of individual photons is given by e=h*nu where nu is the frequency, h is Planck's constant, so the GP is correct in relating wavelength to energy. And this is significant because "wattage" doesn't express the damage that will be done. Increasing the flux of low-energy photons won't make a difference to your DNA but using higher energy photons may.

Would you rather stand in front of, a few feet away from, a:
(A) operating 50,000W AM radio transmitter antenna
(B) operating 1000W microwave oven with door interlock defeated and an open door
(C) Co-60 source with effective radiated power of 10W.

Pot, meet kettle.

Re:hang on slashdot

[dgatwood]

Okay, fair enough. I've fallen victim to an often-repeated urban legend about the oscillating frequency of water. Now that I think about it, that really didn't make much sense.

The point I was trying to make (and should have stopped with) was that no microwave oven on the planet produces THz frequencies. They're typically 900 MHz or 2.4 GHz.

Re:hang on slashdot

[FrameRotBlues]

Hi there; I'm Pot, and I stand corrected.

Re:hang on slashdot

[ceoyoyo]

"If you're concerned about your exposure to terahertz radiation, you'd better hide in a cave because it's everywhere."

Not going to help. Everything that won't freeze you to death emits terahertz radiation. Including your own body.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Protoslo]

Well, there was a sign in the Syracuse (NY) airport a year ago that said removing your shoes was optional (if you thought they wouldn't set off the metal detector), but when I pointed it out to the TSA goons, they were unimpressed. Granted, Syracuse is not exactly metropolitan, and perhaps cannot live up to national TSA literacy rates, but I think more likely outcomes to your scenario will be either that in fact none of them can read, or else that they will merely assert "the sign is wrong."

Re:hang on slashdot

[Foobar of Borg]

we are dealing with people who object to our way of life, our 'immorality'

So, when are we going to deport Pat Robertson?

Re:hang on slashdot

[Protoslo]

If everyone loses their shit about millimeter-wave radar, you are going to be a very unhappy camper when they come to take away your automatic parking Lexus! You can just forget about fully autonomous cars, too.

I would prefer to oppose this on the basis that it is an insane invasion of privacy and reduction of liberty.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Protoslo]

I'm sure you're right. Wait, what's this? Pilot Crashes Into Texas Building in Apparent Anti-IRS Suicide. Boy, that's at least as terroristic as all of these recent clownish would-be bombers. After all, this guy succeeded! In a suicide attack!

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said the incident was a single act by a sole individual, who appeared to be targeting the federal building. He refused to classify it as terrorism.

"I call it a cowardly, criminal act and there was no excuse for it," Acevedo said at a news conference.

Oh. I guess it's only a "criminal act" when non-Muslim people do it. I don't guess we'll be passing any absurd, reactionary anti-teabagger legislation either...

Re:hang on slashdot

[VShael]

nobody assumes I'm a terrorist.

Unless you drive through Arizona.

Haven't you heard? Out of state drivers licenses are not considered a valid proof of citizenship.

The actual text of SB 1070 says:

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

        1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

        2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

        3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

        4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

See here, here and here.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I am surprised you do not know what trigered 9/11.

Presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia was one thing.

The blind support of a murderous Israel, including rushing extra arms supplies to them on request.

As to brown people, the US had at the time of 9/11
bombed 16 coutries since WW2, do you not see that may have caused some resentment?

Like it or not 9/11 was your own chickens come home to roost.

Re:hang on slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the same government asshattery which has artificially deflated airline prices for decades. Do you have any idea how expensive airline travel would be if not for government subsidies?

It costs a lot of money to send 200 people halfway across the world in under a day. This is not strange. If you want fast and efficient, find a way to drill a hole straight through the Earth, then just jump to your destination.

Reason #76

[Itninja]

To never use commercial airflight again.

Re:Reason #76

[godrik]

I wish I had the choice. I travel for work between the us and europe at least 4 times a year. Taking a boat is not really a comparable solution...

Re:Reason #76

[Anonymous Coward]

if (have own private airplane)
or ((never travel domestically for business) and (never travel overseas for pleasure))
then (reasonable to never use commercial airflight again)

Re:Reason #76

[Itninja]

Or if you simply choose to live by your principles, no matter the cost. But that's not really something most people do.

Re:Reason #76

[Anonymous Coward]

To never use commercial airflight again.

Reason #1 to use commercial airflight again:

Swimming across the Atlantic sucks.

Re:Reason #76

[Dalroth]

You do have a choice. Get a new job.

Re:Reason #76

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. What's human dignity to stand in the way of security theater?

Re:Reason #76

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't recommend using cargo flight either

Sterilization....the easy way!

[ImpShial]

Need a vascectomy? Fly the friendly skies instead! The more miles you log, the fewer kids you'll spawn!

Re:Sterilization....the easy way!

[Anonymous Coward]

Will these scanners work with wheelchairs?

Re:Sterilization....the easy way!

[blueg3]

This is already true, without the X-ray imagers. In fact, a scan from the imager only gives you radiation equivalent to a few minutes in an airplane -- the flight itself does a much better job.

Re:Sterilization....the easy way!

[Reziac]

Yeah, but they'll each have two heads, so they'll count as two kids anyway.

Re:Sterilization....the easy way!

[Rand310]

Apparently this is true for your 'body' as most of the radiation doesn't get much past the skin. But for the skin it can be "1 to 2 orders of magnitude" greater than background cosmic radiation even at altitude according the scientists.

So yeah, your heart sees no more radiation than the trip into the air. But your neck, your eyes, your breasts if you have them, and your testicles if you have them all receive a great deal of local radiation - far more than would be considered safe for a routine examination. But the way the safety is 'calculated' by the people who designed the machine it looks okay on paper.

Re:Sterilization....the easy way!

[blueg3]

This gets tricky, because a lot of the background radiation you're exposed to (less cosmic, more solar) behaves the same way -- concentrated at the skin. Solar UV radiation, for example. So comparing the relative amounts of those sources vs. the scanner is still relevant.

By my very rough estimates, concentration at the skin vs. over the whole body is a two order of magnitude difference at worst.

Idiotic

[FrankSchwab]

Regardless of the health issues, why should I be electronically strip-searched when the next terrorist is going to shove explosives up his ass and remove/detonate them during flight?

What invasion of privacy is going to happen after that event?

Re:Idiotic

[Shakrai]

What invasion of privacy is going to happen after that event?

I'm not sure but I suspect that K-Y Jelly will be involved.

Re:Idiotic

[h4rr4r]

What do you think?
Electronic orifice scanning.

Re:Idiotic

[B2382F29]

I'm not sure but I suspect that K-Y Jelly will be involved.

If you're lucky... I think you'll get the K-Y Jelly in first class only...

Re:Idiotic

[FrankSchwab]

Great, I only fly coach.

Does this mean that the "inspector" is just going to spit?

Re:Idiotic

[Shakrai]

Sad but true. I have this image in my head of the future of air travel. Picture an explosive decompression. Oxygen masks drop from the overhead in first class. Coach travelers get a credit card reader. "Please swipe your credit card here for 5 minutes of oxygen...."

Re:Idiotic

[MightyMartian]

Washington, DC - Newly installed director of the FBI, Warren B. Upass, has announced a registry for all K-Y jelly and related "intimate lubricants".

"Clearly," Upass said in a recent press release, "the terrorists who threaten our fine, upstanding heterosexual way of life will be shoving bombs up their anuses. We need to be one step ahead of the terrorists. From now on every purchaser of intimate lubricants will have to provide their name, phone number and nearest cheap motel to the FBI. In the meantime, I am personally overseeing the new Anal Bomb Lab, with the hopes that we can produce a device that can scan the rectal area for explosive devices."

Re:Idiotic

[Shakrai]

No, business class gets spit. Coach passengers get no lube at all and the examiners will use rods with spikes on them.....

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, no fluids on the plane

Re:Idiotic

[kungfugleek]

I'm not sure but I suspect that K-Y Jelly will be involved.

If you're lucky... I think you'll get the K-Y Jelly in first class only...

And only in a 2 oz. bottle contained in a clear plastic bag.

Re:Idiotic

[maratumba]

Who said they are going to do it in a flight?

These long lines cause more people to stand in a smaller area.

Doesn't that make it a far easier target for those people?

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Rusty... Trombone

Re:Idiotic

[demigod]

What invasion of privacy is going to happen after that event?

Free colonoscopy before each flight.

Re:Idiotic

[Quiet_Desperation]

I'm not sure but I suspect that K-Y Jelly will be involved.

Nope. Sorry. Budget cutbacks.

Re:Idiotic

[StikyPad]

You can have it in coach too; you just have to pay.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

Why stop in the rectum? Mule them in your stomach, too. Wait a sec...

Implantable explosives. Lots of people travel after surgery and before they are healed up. Hook it up to an implantable shock-generating device like a defibrillator or just call it one. This is the future, folks, but only after we have technological solutions to weed out the lower hanging fruit.

Maybe we should just stick with mostly getting the low hanging fruit?

Re:Idiotic

[Puppet Master]

Probably a body cavity search similar to Goatse.cx (I won't link to it :) )

Re:Idiotic

[networkBoy]

Schnier already covered that.

I mentioned it to someone at work, that these queues, some C4, and ball bearings would work wonders... They looked at me like I was a terrorist.

go figure.

Re:Idiotic

[kalirion]

Hell, consider yourself lucky if he even uses a glove.

Re:Idiotic

[Anonymous Coward]

I fully anticipate that laxatives will be distributed along with boarding passes, so they may induce an irresistible movement while waiting in the security line. Then, the bowels may void when it's time for search, thus also voiding the need for an intrusive internal search. It saves time for the body inspectors, and keeps the line moving! Everyone wins!

Nobody cares

[TheMeuge]

There's already been studies looking at changes in gene expression following millimeter-wave irradiation of skin: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18302488

Overall, given the reviews of the literature it's still unclear whether there's a potential for long-term health damage.

However, even if there was, I doubt anyone will care. The security theater must be kept up, even if it means that people would be harmed by repeated exposure.

"Sir, we will protect you from yourself, even if it kills you".

Re:Nobody cares

[phantomfive]

On thing the article points out is that the level of x-ray radiation you receive during your flight (because of the high altitude) is going to be higher than the amount of radiation you're going to get from the scanner. Essentially spending 4 minutes at cruising altitude will expose you to the same level as the machine.

Also, the average person in the average year receives 3,000 microsieverts of radiation just from the environment (cosmic radiation, etc). So the .02 received from the machine is probably negligible, unless it really is significantly concentrated in certain places on the skin.

Re:Nobody cares

[Linux_ho]

I strongly doubt millimeter wavelength radiation (somewhere around microwave/low IR) is going to cause any problems unless it's at such high magnitude that it actually causes tissue heating. These scanners probably operate at 1-10nm. Very high energy. Even at very low intensity, X-ray radiation imposes some risk of DNA damage. But I'd probably be more concerned about cataracts in frequent flyers and airport security employees. http://lowdose.energy.gov/abstracts/kleiman_cataract.aspx

Re:Nobody cares

[dgatwood]

Who cares? Radiation exposure is cumulative. And high altitude flying is basically unavoidable; these stupid little machines aren't.

Saying that it doesn't matter because you're exposed to more of it in your daily life is like saying that picking up a possibly-loaded revolver, putting it up to your head, spinning the cylinder, and pulling the trigger on Cinco de Mayo is not dangerous because people are shooting guns up in the air anyway and one of those bullets might hit you. What matters is not the million times that the unavoidable background radiation misses everything and causes no irreparable damage. What matters is the one time that the radiation does cause damage. Thus, unnecessarily increasing that risk is stupidity, pure and simple, no matter how little you might be increasing it.

Deliberate ionizing radiation exposure should NEVER be allowed for non-medical purposes, and even then, should be targeted to a single area of the body, not spread across your entire person.

Re:Nobody cares

[Anonymous Coward]

This space is more complex than simple comparison of figures. Exposure (localized vs full body) type of radiation and exposure intensity over time have a huge impact on outcomes. The sivert measurement is intended to normalize biological effects but details are still relevent.

Its true especially for international travelers radiation exposure difference at altitude is much higher than x-ray scanners. Comparisons are helpful to understand each individuals realitive exposure risks but my question is why roll dice when there is absoultely no reason to? Other imaging technologies are available with the same costs and properties minus the radiation exposure.

There is a LOT of unsettled research surrounding the linear hypothesis of radiation exposure. If correct it means while your individual risk of developing cancer (ie winning the lottery) as a direct result is quite small if you put millions or billions of people thru the scanners SOME of those people will win the lottery and die as a direct result of moving thru the scanners. We will never know who they were since about 20% of the worlds population will die from cancer during their lifetimes no statisticaly significant signals will ever be detected but real people are still being killed as a result.

Deaths from chernobyl have been calculated in the thousands from cancer due to this very same line of thinking.

The way I look at it as an individual you have nothing to worry about. As a policy maker your actions are likely to be causing real deaths. This is why the researchers care quite a bit about this and are sounding alarm bells.

Re:Nobody cares

[phantomfive]

Saying that it doesn't matter because you're exposed to more of it in your daily life is like saying that picking up a possibly-loaded revolver, putting it up to your head, spinning the cylinder, and pulling the trigger on Cinco de Mayo is not dangerous because people are shooting guns up in the air anyway and one of those bullets might hit you.

If you look at the levels of radiation involved, it is more like walking across the street an extra time today, even though that does add a small degree of extra risk to your day. We're talking about less than .0007% of your total annual radiation. It's good to be aware, but you need to learn to keep things in perspective.

I don't think these devices will stop terrorists, but they are more likely to catch a terrorist than you are to die from radiation from them.

Re:Nobody cares

[phantomfive]

I should add that my statement assumes the .02 microsieverts figure is correct, obviously if we find out there are 100 microsieverts focused on a particular part of the body, that changes things.

Re:Nobody cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Same folks the decry claims of cancer causing cell phones and ridicule anyone that suggests their wireless toys might be a health problem are certain these scanners will turn their balls green. Selective outrage. Yeah, yeah, I know; ionizing radiation. You live in a world full of ionizing radiation.

Re:Nobody cares

[leoaloha]

Woo, Check out this babe! Let me turn up the power just a bit.hehe

Re:Nobody cares

[phantomfive]

hehe yeah, then I can see her bones

Re:Nobody cares

[cmburns69]

What a nice skeletal structure!

Re:Nobody cares

[Carnildo]

So the .02 received from the machine is probably negligible, unless it really is significantly concentrated in certain places on the skin.

That's the whole point of the article: if the radiation were deposited uniformly throughout the entire volume of your body, it would be an 0.02 microsievert dose. However, the technique they're using concentrates the radiation in the upper layers of the skin. The actual dose is at least two orders of magnitude higher, but nobody knows just how high.

Re:Nobody cares

[Anonymous Coward]

> And high altitude flying is basically unavoidable; these stupid little machines aren't.

Huh? They're only at airports, right? So if you don't fly, you don't go through the machine either...

Re:Nobody cares

[shadowbearer]

  Indeed; if these exposures are safe - even for frequent flyers, then why have we been repeatedly warned over the last thirty+ years about cumulative exposure to xrays in dentist and doctors offices?

  SB

Re:Nobody cares

[Rand310]

Read the letter sent by the scientists. This is true overall, but not true locally. It is true that the total dose your body sees is less than what it sees from cosmic rays (if you average each cell in your body with the total amount of radiation). But it is NOT true at all locally. Your skin cells (and anything near the skin, like white blood cells, breast tissue, testicles, cornea, etc.) all receive VERY high local doses. These do not permeate into the body well, so the average is measured as 'safe' even though for cells on the surface of your body is extraordinarily high.

Re:Nobody cares

[TheTurtlesMoves]

The point however is what tissue received the dosage. In the backscatter cases its a thin layer of skin. While in the normal Xray or at high altitude (not xrays by the way) its the whole body.

The problem is that they quote the scanner dose as if the whole body is absorbing the xray energy. Thus the does level measured in this misleading way for a increased chance of cancer is much much lower.

For example if the whole dose is absorbed by just a 1 millimeter of skin, thats probably less than 100th total body mass. So the "true" does for exposed tissues is about 100 times higher than the quoted value.

Re:Nobody cares

[Magada]

It is a calculated whole-body dose, i.e. disingenuous bullshit.

Re:Nobody cares

[Anonymous Coward]

So the .02 received from the machine is probably negligible, unless it really is significantly concentrated in certain places on the skin.

That's the whole point of the article: if the radiation were deposited uniformly throughout the entire volume of your body, it would be an 0.02 microsievert dose. However, the technique they're using concentrates the radiation in the upper layers of the skin. The actual dose is at least two orders of magnitude higher, but nobody knows just how high.

Actually, they said the localized dose was 1 to 2 orders of magnitude higher, not at least two orders of magnitude.

Radiation exposure is normally calculated using the linear no-threshold (LNT) model, which makes calculation of effects very easy. It does, however, seem to overestimate effects at low doses so the actual effect may be less than the conservative risk calculation.

Suppose instead of the same dose being distributed evenly throughout the body, it is entirely concentrated in 1% of the body (outer layers of skin). This means you have a 100 times higher risk in 1% of the tissue and zero risk in the other 99%; the calculated risk, therefore, has not changed. Or if it is 10% of the body getting 10 times the dose and the other 90% getting zero, same results. Concentrating the dose, unless you are doing it on an extremely susceptible area, does not matter unless the dose is extremely high (radiation burns). In this case, we are talking about moving the dose away from internal organs and towards the skin where cancers are easily detected and treated. Even if it is just below the skin, lumps are easier to detect there.

If anything, the skin is a portion of the body that is particularly adapted to resisting cancer as it receives the bulk of some forms of radiation, particularly UV light. Don't let all the scare mongering about melanoma fool you; this scare mongering is killing large numbers of people. UV radiation on the skin causes the production of Vitamin D which has a cancer preventative effect throughout the body. One study concluded that for every skin cancer fatality caused by sunlight, 10 other fatal cancers were prevented. It is also rarely reported that a disproportionate number of melanomas occur in areas like the bottom of the feet where sunlight exposure is likely to be minimal. Note, however, that sun burns are still bad because when you burn, the skin has already stopped producing additional vitamin D but the damage continues. Perhaps x-ray radiation concentrated in the skin might even stimulate vitamin D production through the same mechanism as UV light.

The letter claims that people over 65 might be at particular risk. This seems to overlook the fact that cancer takes time to develop and statistically the person will die of other causes before any tumors started by the exposure have a chance to kill the person.

The dose you receive flying in an airplane for 1 hour is 150-450 times higher than the dose you get from going through the scanner. In other words, the dose from the scanner is equivalent to an extra 24 seconds in the air or less. Or the amount of radiation the average person in the US gets from natural sources only just standing around doing nothing for 3.5minutes. Or eating 1/5 of a banana. The dose going from the scanner, by the way, is the same dose as the dose you already get by standing near the x-ray machine while your carry on baggage was x-rayed. Going through the machine 35 times per year is equivalent to the dose you get from having porcelain crowns or false teeth. The dose from one trip through the scanner is as much radiation as your own body naturally emits in 42 minutes.

If you average over the last 15 years (which would include 9/11), you are more likely to drown in a bath tub than a terrorist attack.

Whatever it takes...

[Ryvar]

I don't honestly care whether there's a real medical issue here. I don't care if it takes Fox News-style "gotcha" tactics to make the hysterical cries of "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" echo up and down the corridors of the powerful.

Anything that kills this program needs to be seized upon, hyped, spun into something it's probably truthfully not - the lies and paranoia that have been eating away at us like a cancer need to be repurposed toward actually helping us.

--Ryv

Re:Whatever it takes...

[DarkKnightRadick]

the lies and paranoia that have been eating away at us like a cancer need to be repurposed toward actually helping us.

Or, you know, we could just stop lying. (:

Re:Whatever it takes...

[calmofthestorm]

Security theatre evangelists first. Then me.

Re:Whatever it takes...

[phantomfive]

No, doing things for the wrong reason gives science a bad name, and often gives you unpleasant side effects. Consider that allowing people to think that radiation can never be handled safely may push the transition to nuclear power plants out even further (even though they are a safe, green alternative).

Re:Whatever it takes...

[Ryvar]

The truth is that there is little to nothing society can do against lone individuals or extremely small groups bent on damaging it. Better technology and increasing reliance upon technology necessarily create more opportunities for disruption. Dependency chains for the features in our lives are growing longer, and it's increasingly easy to find weak links.

As a society we can't bear to face the truth of this, so we use lies to pretend the problem doesn't exist. You can't change people at the level necessary to prevent this, so you have to make sure that the lies you do tell them are less damaging to personal freedom ...and where possible more damaging to corporate freedom.

--Ryv

Re:Whatever it takes...

[kungfugleek]

Whatever it takes... except, you know, driving instead.

Re:Whatever it takes...

[shadow_slicer]

That's a really bad idea. Sure that may help in this particular case, but then you're just creating more problems down the road. As long as people are not making a rational evaluation of the issue on an individual level, then these mindless "stampedes" will occur every time something hits an emotional chord in the population. It would be better to simply analyze each issue independently and try to encourage the promotion rational thought instead of emotional reaction.

OT: Speaking of which, maybe we /.'ers should form a political organization to reform education to promote rational thought and critical thinking. If the young earth ID people can infiltrate school boards and rewrite education, then we should be able to too.

Re:Whatever it takes...

[shadowbearer]

  That would destroy both the political and legal professions in this country, along with many others...

  Think of their children! I assure you that they do ;-)

SB

Re:Whatever it takes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here - Here!

The culture of fear that we have created for ourselves is being seized upon everyday by the government, corporations and other organizations that do not always have our best interest at heart.

Any little tidbit of information that can work to stop this program should be blown out of proportion until the government is put back into the box where it belongs and out of our lives, our business and every other place that they have encroached upon in the last 100 years.

Re:Whatever it takes...

[CondeZer0]

I really wish someone would sue the TSA for producing "child pornography" with its new scanners.

Lets see how they square the circle of the unopposable force of terrorism paranoia vs. the unmovable object of "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!" hysteria.

Love the company name

[Em Emalb]

Rapisca. Rape is Ca? Rape is Canadian? WTF? Is this some weird product from Canada, like the Penis Mightier?

(Well does it work? C'mon man! Tell me!)

Re:Love the company name

[maxume]

Well, it was Canadians who decided that rapeseed oil wasn't good enough, and started calling it canola oil.

Re:Love the company name

[selven]

Guess what Canadian-invented Canola is made from.

Eighth word in the article, it's rapeseed.

Issue not with the passengers

[jacks smirking reven]

As someone who has done a fair share of work in airports (digital signage) and has been badged in a couple of term, I can say this from observation and from talking to people in the airports and the TSA, the issue is not the passengers, it's the workers. The passengers are checked to ridiculous measures, but if you work at an airport your protocols are entirely different. All the tarmac entrances and any "employee only" entrance isn't guarded by the TSA, but rather independent security companies hired by the airports themselves, so every airports strictness at these points are anywhere from stricter or far more lax, especially if you're a regular employee that they recognize. I have had to throw gear into the back of an electricians truck many many a time and driven it onto the tarmac without them opening or even swabbing the boxes. At that point I am less then 30ft away from a 767.

All this extra effort at the checkpoints is to keep up what most people here already know what it is. The illusion of absolute safety in a system where it can never be guaranteed 100%.

Re:Issue not with the passengers

[Shakrai]

The passengers are checked to ridiculous measures, but if you work at an airport your protocols are entirely different

That's an understatement. I have a friend who used to work at the local airport. I've been on behind the scenes tours with him and the security folks (ranging from TSA, to law enforcement to rent-a-cops) never even batted an eyelash when he took me past the checkpoint. They didn't ask me to go through the metal/explosives detectors or to wear a guest badge of some sort. We just walked right past them and my friend says "He's with me." Granted, this is a small town airport with not a lot of activity (three flights per day) but the ease with which it was possible to get into the secured areas seemed to make a mockery of all the FUD we've been fed about airport security. It occurs to me that if somebody wanted to do bad things he could just buy off the right person(s) at the airport to gain access.

Re:Issue not with the passengers

[Lumpy]

Dude, you realize that all I have to do is go to one of the private or corporate hangers and dress correctly and I can get on the tarmac without anyone even questioning me?

I was dressed wrong, had my tool box and a huge cardboard box of equipment that I walked from Hangar A to the other side past commercial aircraft and nobody even stopped to ask me what I was doing.

airport security, even at O-hare is a utter joke. It's not just theater, it's cardboard cutouts.

Re:Issue not with the passengers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, I do a lot of work out at a major U.S. Airport and to get in on the tarmac you just have to have 1 badged person per every 6 un-badged people. The 6 un-badged just have to present a driver's license to get in.
At my company we feel fairly secure that the people we bring in are safe, and the badged person is supposedly responsible for keeping an eye on them... but it would be pretty easy for a determined terrorist to get themselves in a position to do damage.

One construction company was working near our crew and when they went to lunch they left all their demolition tools sitting out with no one watching them. The TSA and homeland security didn't like that and questioned our guys' thoroughly before realizing it wasn't us that had left the sledgehammers, axes and knives sitting out unguarded. The offending company was threatened with having their contract and all their badges pulled, but in the end they weren't even fined.

Re:Issue not with the passengers

[rodgster]

Here is an example of airport workers arrested for smuggling drugs, guns and even grenades on airplanes. And this was in 1999.

http://articles.sfgate.com/1999-09-10/news/17698252_1_undercover-agents-baggage-handler-smuggling

Security of any system is based upon the strength of the weakest link.

Re:Issue not with the passengers

[carp3_noct3m]

Yep. Basically, if a "terrorist" was smart, motivated, and had proper training and funding, they could recreate 9/11 in a heartbeat. Mostly through the lax measures regarding personal aircraft. The security normal people go through is simply just made up shit from an organization TSA and Homeland Security, that inconveniences us, but does almost nothing to prevent attacks by anyone but the most idiotic attackers. Even if there were absolutely no security on flights all across the nation, you are still more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist threat. By restricting freedom we have fallen in the trap they laid for us in the first place.

Re:Issue not with the passengers

[Anonymous Coward]

I work summers at the Atlanta airport(this is the world's busiest airport). One summer, a co-worker of mine accidentally brought the slide of a handgun and live ammunition in with her into the secured area(she had been to the range before work and forgot to take them out). Luckily, her husband worked as a bomb squad/SWAT member for the airport, so she called him and got him to take it before anyone found out. However, it just shows how easy it is for airport employees to bring banned items into the airport. Going AC just in case, because you just never know.

Re:Issue not with the passengers

[Al Dimond]

Small-town airport with 3 flights a day? Could you be talking about Cody, Wyoming? Well, if you are, you may know that a couple years ago someone tried to board a plane in Cody carrying a wrapping paper tube he'd filled with toys for his kids or something. Security thought it might be a pipe bomb and shut down the airport and all roads within a mile of it. That includes the main route into town from the east and south.

So... that indeed sounds like a pretty big gap between treatment of passengers and employees. I also saw a woman wearing a TSA uniform enter an employees-only area by just reaching over a half-height door and flipping a latch (like you'd do to get a baseball out of the neighbor's yard).

Despite this gap, I've never heard of a terrorist plot by an airport employee and we've all heard of plenty of plots by passengers. Maybe they really screen their employees well enough that they can be trusted.

Re:Issue not with the passengers

[Sinical]

And checks are only "at the edge": you can choose whatever place is easiest to breach (like your small town airport), and then you are inside security. So you bring in your 20kg of explosives at Podunk Airport with a flight (however indirect) to New York and from there...

Next on Fox...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"Why Does Liberal Academia Hate Security?"

Re:Next on Fox...

[Opportunist]

Because if I wanted theater, I'd have bought a different ticket.

Re:Next on Fox...

[BobMcD]

I'd just like to point out that only three or four posts up another slashdotter was slamming Fox for soon publishing a panicky 'think of the children' piece.

Re:Next on Fox...

[blair1q]

Fail.

"Academia" has three syllables. Use "Elites" instead.

Re:Next on Fox...

[Patch86]

The thing about Fox is you can never guess what particular crazed, easily ridiculed direction they're going to lunge in next. They just make the jokes come so easily...

Re:Next on Fox...

[BobMcD]

Yeah, no.

The thing about Fox is they've become a whipping boy around here, without regard for occasionally checking with reality as a basis.

In my humble opinion, and even though I don't particularly care for that channel, it diminishes us all to blame one media outlet for this behavior when they ALL do it.

Re:Next on Fox...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fail.

"Academia" has three syllables.

I count five.

Re:Next on Fox...

[Anonymous Coward]

It has five. Try again next time, moron.

Re:Next on Fox...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget how the average Fox News viewer is going to pronounce it.

"Ak-day-muh."

Three, count them THREE, syllables.

At least they get the right number of syllables in "nuclear".

Re:Next on Fox...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's also why it is 'Librul' not 'Liberal'

Re:Next on Fox...

[Chris Mattern]

Fail.

"Academia" has three syllables.

Er, five. Actually.

Re:Next on Fox...

[shadowbearer]

  Macbeth, perchance? ;-)

SB

i could be wrong

[circletimessquare]

but i read somewhere that the simple act of flying is equivalent to getting an x-ray because you're so high in the atmosphere

i also read that living in denver for a year is equivalent to getting an xray (as compared to living in say miami: at sea level, rather than a mile up)

not that i'm justifying these scanners, but if you're worried about extra unnecessary irradiation, then don't fly (or live in the mountains)

its too much of a hassle anyways, even without the scanners, flying sucks

Re:i could be wrong

[Ultimate Heretic]

You are correct. One of the highest radiation dose jobs in the world is pilot, followed by co-pilot and flight attendant. This is drilled into those taking radiation safety courses. Of course, one must be aware of the different affects the specific energy particles/rays have on DNA to give a complete picture of the long term hazards. Interestingly enough, the NPR piece, which had an expert stating that they were not worried about excessive x-ray dosages from equipment malfunction, was immediately followed by one on the accidental excessive x-ray doses from medical scanners. Whoops!

Re:i could be wrong

[Patch86]

Surely if you're already getting a hefty dose of radiation every time you fly, the last thing you want to do is give someone another hefty dose of radiation.

Re:i could be wrong

[calmofthestorm]

I seem to recall the party line is that the radiation from one of the scanners is about two minutes of flight time. Of course the government would never lie to use or misstate facts, would it?

We need to kill this thing but I don't think we can do so on safety grounds. Better to appeal to genital insecurity and think of the children panic, in my mind.

Re:i could be wrong

[TopSpin]

or live in the mountains

Yes, the altitude exposes you to a great deal more radiation. The Rocky mountains in particular also have a higher than normal concentration of Uranium. The NRC sayeth:

people residing in Colorado are exposed to more natural radiation than residents of the east or west coast because Colorado has more cosmic radiation at a higher altitude and more terrestrial radiation from soils enriched in naturally occurring uranium.

Despite this, should you wish to encounter a large amount of scanner/TSA hysteria (or any other form of chronic malcontentery) one need only visit Boulder, CO, the San Francisco of the Rockies nestled beneath the Flatirons.

Re:i could be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, one must be aware of the different affects the specific energy particles/rays have on DNA

You mean "effects".

This or full body cavity search Take your pick!

[Joe The Dragon]

This or full body cavity search Take your pick!

Re:This or full body cavity search Take your pick!

[durrr]

Can't i have both?

Re:This or full body cavity search Take your pick!

[BobMcD]

This or full body cavity search Take your pick!

Hmm. One might kill me. The other might cause me to kill you. Decisions, decisions...

Re:This or full body cavity search Take your pick!

[Anonymous Coward]

If full body cavity searches become the norm, I'll develop a ritual of Taco Bell with a side of curry the night before every single flight.

Re:This or full body cavity search Take your pick!

[calmofthestorm]

Becuase they full body cavity search 2/3 of people who fly? Wow, the odds of my never being searched (which I wasn't) are like 1/11057332

Re:This or full body cavity search Take your pick!

[Kittenman]

How's a full body cavity search going to find the guys with their stomachs replaced by sentex?

I know! Maybe the searchers shouldn't cut their fingernails and wear those 'special' gloves. The ones with no fingers ...

But no one cares about cosmic ray exposure...

[ThreeGigs]

Cosmic rays at 30,000 feet, plus other ionizing radiation is significantly higher than at ground level. 4 hours on a plane is something like a month's worth of ground-level exposure. Yet people still fly. I don't think this will have any impact on air travel.

Re:But no one cares about cosmic ray exposure...

[dgatwood]

Quit exaggerating. The background radiation level doubles every 6,000 feet, so an entire 24-hour day at 30,000 feet is like a month on the ground. A four hour flight is roughly the equivalent of 5 days on the ground.

Also, remember that radiation exposure is considered cumulative. There is no safe level of radiation exposure. The more you are exposed to, the greater your risk of death, period. Thus, it is utterly irrelevant whether the backscatter machine only adds... say a tenth as much radiation as the rest of the flight. That's still 10% more than you would have gotten otherwise. (And yes, I pulled that number out of thin air solely for example purposes.)

Besides, if you need to get somewhere quickly, the radiation absorbed while flying is an unavoidable risk. The radiation from backscatter machines isn't. It's like the worry about CT scans. Do they increase cancer risk? Yes. Are they sometimes medically necessary? Also yes. So the risk outweighs the damage when they are medically necessary, but nobody in their right minds would argue that everyone admitted to the hospital should get a full-body CT scan just in case one of them has something wrong. (I know we're talking about several orders of magnitude difference in dosage here, but the principle is still the same.)

Re:But no one cares about cosmic ray exposure...

[guruevi]

Even though you're sitting in a Faraday cage? Citation please! I'll take one of my wife's x-ray badges next time I go through the airport, they will be analyzed to see if you've been exposed to an unhealthy amount of x-ray radiation.

Re:But no one cares about cosmic ray exposure...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you're sitting in a big metal box certainly helps. How much? Don't know. I do know that it's not an invincible wall by virtue of it being a concern for space travel. At some point the level increases to the point that a metal box isn't enough to be sure that you're safe. Where that point is, whether airliners are already shielded beyond being a big metal box, and what the actual dosage for a four hour flight - I don't know. But I'd lay money that some researcher somewhere has looked into this, so a quick search of research databases would likely turn up an answer. Either way, it's not as simple as looking at the background level at a given altitude.

Re:But no one cares about cosmic ray exposure...

[ThreeGigs]

Citation:
http://www.epa.gov/radtown/cosmic.html

Try Googling cosmic ray exposure airplane flight.

Ya, my memory was off by an order of magnitude or so, 6 hours in the air is a week's worth of radiation, not a month's.

And note to self: Reply to an earlier post instead of the story, gets you so much higher up the 'food chain' that is the Slashdot comment system.

Re:But no one cares about cosmic ray exposure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Six digit UID and you only figured that one out now?

Re:But no one cares about cosmic ray exposure...

[Anonymous Coward]

According to your figures compared to the GP, that's not an exaggeration, but an understatement in fact. Quit throwing things out of proportion.

Re:But no one cares about cosmic ray exposure...

[Culture20]

Well, some people care. You've got a one in four chance of being permanently misshapen, but a guarantee at some kind of super power.

Re:But no one cares about cosmic ray exposure...

[dgatwood]

Huh? The post I replied to said that 4 hours in a plane was like a month on the ground, when in reality it is only like 5 days on the ground. How was the original statement not an exaggeration of the increased risk?

Re:But no one cares about cosmic ray exposure...

[mirix]

You notice they tend to use lead to shield ionizing radiation, and not thin aluminum sheet?

I wonder why that is.

Re:But no one cares about cosmic ray exposure...

[adolf]

So. People in Denver are doomed?

Re:But no one cares about cosmic ray exposure...

[TheTurtlesMoves]

As i have noted before, you are missing the point. The point isn't the *total doseage* its the fact that its only in a thin layer of skin. Hence total doesage is missleading compared to tissue doesage.

So if the xrays only penetrate 1 mm and we guess that thats about 100th of a persons body mass. The effective "cancer causing" dose is much higher than a "whole body does" by a factor of 100 or so (ignoring tissue sensitivity).

itis not the same

[aepervius]

Backscatter x ray is *not* the same as millimeter wave. Millimeter wave is about of the order of magnitude of milli-electron volt and not an ionizing radiation energy. OTOH x ray is at least on the order of magnitude from 100 electron volt and is definitively an ionizing radiation. There is a reason they were measuring the amount of radiation absorbed in millisievert, whereas for millimeter wave scanner there is no concern (around near infrared).

Re:itis not the same

[TheMeuge]

Thanks for correcting me. I'm writing my thesis, so my brain is deep-fried.

Just think of all the poor souls...

[pizzach]

Who are going to involuntarily contract google-itis from this. :'-(

Oh c'mon!

[fustakrakich]

Who here isn't willing to sacrifice a few years off their lives to protect our children from people with a bomb laden (please!) SUV in their underwear?

Re:Oh c'mon!

[selven]

Who here isn't willing to sacrifice a few years off their lives to protect our children from people with a bomb laden (please!) SUV in their underwear?

Clearly, we must ban people who are too fat from planes.

Even the evil Schneierist cult of anti-security would have to admit that would be nice for the rest of us.

The millimeter back scanner...

[pizzach]

Every time your 5-year-old child steps through, it's just like you made them smoke a cigarette. Would you make your 5-year-old child smoke a cigarette?

Re:The millimeter back scanner...

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Would you make your 5-year-old child smoke a cigarette?

Maybe. Are all of his friends doing it?

Re:The millimeter back scanner...

[ceoyoyo]

Come on mods, this is funny, not insightful. Someone might take it seriously with the insightful mod.

Re:The millimeter back scanner...

[pizzach]

To be exact, I was modded:

30% Informative
40% Insightful
30% Interesting

There is still a chance I might get a mod point for funny. Though this kind of modding is usual for me for some reason. When I think I am funny I am modded insightful, when I think I am insightful, I am modded funny.

Re:The millimeter back scanner...

[ceoyoyo]

Ack, informative is even worse. Maybe it's the dry sense of humor. You're not British, are you?

Re:The millimeter back scanner...

[pizzach]

Ha ha. No I am not. I did live in Canada for a while.

One thing I have learned over time is that that the mods just don't have that much meaning and can sometimes impede on an interesting conversation.

1. Marking posts as overrated has become the new -1 "I don't agree".
2. Modders tend not to read the modding guidelines or at least choose to ignore them.
3. People who disagree but can't state their feelings in a reply will just mod a post "troll", basically mooting what could be an interesting conversation and information exchange.
4. Try starting off a post with a rhetorical question that flares up feelings. Even if you hold the common view on the question and/or you answer it yourself, people will ignore everything after the first sentence. You will get at least 5 people who will re-answer your question which you answered yourself with the same exact answer.
5. People don't know a post is funny until someone mods it funny. Only then will other mods mod it funny.

In the end, everything on slashdot is fickle. You can't take it too seriously. :-p

It's a typo

[amstrad]

The company name is Rapiscan.

Re:It's a typo

[Yvan256]

Rape is scan? Okay then, that explains everything.

Scanning Containers on Trucks?

[stephanruby]

Can someone tell me about the scanners for containers in ports? My neighbor is a trucker, and he asked me about that. Apparently, as the driver, he has to go through the scanner himself pretty frequently (it's the port of Oakland in California if that makes a difference).

Re:Scanning Containers on Trucks?

[MoonBuggy]

There's an article here from a few years ago that says they're either gamma or high-energy x-ray scanners. I'm no medic, but I'd be inclined to think that powerful ionising radiation sources like that are the kind of thing you'd do well to avoid.

Oddly, though, despite the fact that the article subtitle poses the question "do they cause any harm to personnel?", I don't actually see any reference to an answer in the text.

Re:Scanning Containers on Trucks?

[oddTodd123]

The answer is both gamma and x-ray. Odds are it is one of these: http://www.saic.com/products/transportation/icis/

flying is 5 microsevierts an hour

[peter303]

A couple of orders of magnitude more for the average flight. That would be whole-body, not skin.

have fun !

[aepervius]

I remember writing mine, by the end I was very brain adled. But I look back at that time with fondness :). Afterward it can get even worst trying to find a post doc :p.

Oh please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, who smoked their dope and decided to mod this Insightful?

Let's look at the alternatives:

a) Non-commercial flight. You have two options: rent or buy a private airplane or attempt the do-it-yourself-armchair-and-helium-balloon idea. One's very expensive, eliminating it for the majority of the population. The other will assure that you'll never fly again, because you'll be dead.

b) Use an alternate method of transportation. By land, take a train (because if you can drive it, you wouldn't fly it). For trans-oceanic flight, take a boat. Both options are slow and expensive when compared to an aircraft. And if you know your history, one option involves the risk of developing scurvy.

Look, nobody likes being thought of as a potential terrorist. But at least you don't need to bend over for a special exam every time you show up at the airport.

Re:Oh please.

[Itninja]

If there are no alternatives, then I guess one is stuck. Personally, I don't fly unless it's a chartered plane. I will drive, take a train, or a ship. I have yet to find a place that I cannot get to that way. Sure it's takes longer and costs more. Kind of like going to the Farmers market instead of Wal Mart for my fruits and vegetables. Call it living by ones principles I suppose. I lot of people do; until it starts to cost them time and money. I am not most people.

And...

Look, nobody likes being thought of as a potential terrorist. But at least you don't need to bend over for a special exam every time you show up at the airport.

Yet.

Re:Oh please.

[shadowbearer]

  Maybe they should start working with the hospitals.

  You know, combine it all. Do full MRI/Xray etc, have doctors look those over alongside the security "experts", that would surely save money on hospital visits, wouldn't it?

  Then they could combine the special back room treatment with breast cancer exams, rectal exams, etc, etc...

  They could even make recommendations, such as jeezuz, you're still using head and shoulders shampoo? There's much better out there now...

  Yeah, it's silly. But so is much of the crap they force people to do in airports. I certainly won't go thru it for any reason. I was born in the US, raised here, been paying taxes since I was 14, have had numerous background checks including the two I get every year at my current job, clean criminal record, good credit, registered gun owner, hell, one of my jobs is working with one of the biggest and oldest charitable organizations in the world whose level of background checks would make the FBI blush, so why can't I get a Pass To Fly without going thru all this bullshit?

  Because it's not about terrorism anymore. If my government thinks I may become a terrorist - and I am an outspoken critic, as any patriotic citizen should be - perhaps my government should put it's house in order.

  SB

Not about us

[drumcat]

Clearly the TSA values the planes higher than the commodity of We The Travelers. The planes cost more than the people, thus the people get shat upon.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I am an employer at an airport

[Anonymous Coward]

I DO NOT have a security clearance. But I have a card from an airline (I am a simple check-in peon...). One time I went in the back of a big itnernational hub airport to find a better way with bicycle to go to work. At some point I found myself on the FRAKING TARMAC and nobody had stopped me. I got angsty that some camera sees me and I lose my job so I went away quickly. But yeah, the back yard of many airport is not much protected. Those security ? They are not always for show, but mostly they stop dumb people. The real reason no terrorist try that shit anymore is that it ain't worth the effort and planning.

Pointless waste of money

[melted]

If you don't mind to die, then what's to stop you from hiding a few sticks of C4 (with ceramic shrapnel, of course) inside your body by, you know, having a surgeon sew it in? Stick a simple fuse triggered by a Hall sensor into it, and carry an inconspicuous looking magnet with you onboard to trip the fuse.

I said it before and I'll say it again -- any determined engineer will find a way to completely bypass these "security" measures without even straining his/her brain too much.

Re:Pointless waste of money

[FrankSchwab]

I looked into this one afternoon (oh, the things that Google thinks it knows about me!) just to figure out how big of a threat it is.

The stories I found said that, basically, the human body is excellent at absorbing explosions. Your sewn-in explosives, unless much, much bigger than otherwise needed, would mostly be muffled. Now, that's not saying that you couldn't take down a plane with sufficient internal explosives (I carry around 30 more pounds of fat than I need, and no one looks at me for a second; that's a lot of potential C-4 storage space), simply that it would be easier if you could remove the explosives before detonating them.

"Keistering" is one simple, low-tech approach to this, though I don't know how the volume of explosive one could carry compares with the volume necessary. Using a two-stage explosion, with the first stage ripping the mule open and the second stage then exploding outside the body is a far more sophisticated approach which is also possible.

There are dozens of approaches to this "problem" from the terrorist's perspective, none of which have an answer in the current security handbook. Various terrorist cells WILL realize that they'll be far more successful by giving their jihadist a premade suppository or implant that can securely and reliably be both carried to the US and detonated (rather than by having them trying to create and package bombs ala the "underwear bomber").

Us standing in line to have our naughty bits examined by some pervert in another room won't have a damned bit of impact on such an attack.

Re:Pointless waste of money

[91degrees]

That's actually pretty sophisticated compared with just about any terror attack I can think of though, and more protective than you need to be. 9/11 was carried out with box cutters and seizing control of the plane. The IRA would just plant a bomb in a car. In Israel, terrorists blow up buses rather than planes.

Re:Pointless waste of money

[Pence128]

There have been a few posts about how easy it is to get on the tarmac. Just put a bomb in a suitcase, go around the back and throw it on one of the luggage trains.

Re:Pointless waste of money

[melted]

Yup. And neither of us have any experience (perceived or real) with the actual terrorism and sabotage. I bet a determined pro can come up with three dozen workable plans within an hour.

This could be a considerable overdose

[mbone]

The stated dose — about .02 microsieverts, a medical unit of radiation — is averaged over the whole body, members of the UCSF group said in interviews. But they maintain that if the dose is calculated as what gets deposited in the skin, the number would be higher, though how much higher is unclear."

Well, a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation says it could be a lot. Suppose you model a person as a cylinder 2 meters high by 1/2 meter across. The volume is 0.4 meters^3, the surface area is 3 meters^2. If the skin is 0.1 mm thick, then the volume of the skin is only 0.0003 meters^3, a factor of > 1000 smaller. So a dose of 0.02 microsieverts for the whole body would be 25 microsieverts for the skin.

If you read the original article, a chest X ray is about 100 microsieverts, but of course that is absorbed in the body, not the skin. Radiation therapy causes skin "burns", but I couldn't find in a quick search the level of radiation absorbed by the skin to make that happen. However, if this is a problem as indicated, then flying one round trip per week (100 flights/year) would mean an exposure of order 2500 microsieverts, or 25 chest X rays, a level I don't think Doctors would be comfortable with.

Re:This could be a considerable overdose

[pclminion]

0.4 cubic meters is 400 liters. Approximating the density of a human as that of water, that's 400 kilograms, or 890 pounds. I think your average passenger is somewhat less than 890 pounds. Oh, you were talking about the United States? Nevermind.

Re:This could be a considerable overdose

[mbone]

Yes, I noticed that. However, this is back-of-the-envelope, and being off by a factor of 3 is quite acceptable IMHO. If you use a radius smaller by a factor of X, the radiation load on the skin goes up by a factor of 1/X, in this crude model, so this just makes the problem worse.

Re:This could be a considerable overdose

[silverglade00]

However, this is back-of-the-envelope, and being off by a factor of 3 is quite acceptable IMHO.

And thousands of college student Slashdotters begin their plot to replace Scantrons with envelopes on campus.

Re:This could be a considerable overdose

[Anonymous Coward]

Some joker pulled that trick on a midterm in an undergrad physics course. He turned in his midterm written entirely on the backs of envelopes and as he turned it in he said "It should all be correct to within an order of magnitude." The professor got the joke, laughed really hard, then gave him a D.

If the dose was calculated right, not a problem

[phoenix987]

To put the dose in perspective, the ICRP 60 recommended dose limit to the whole body for the public is 1000 microsieverts/year. A 0.02 microsievert effective dose to the whole body is nothing. You would have to fly 50000 times to exceed this limit.

Re:If the dose was calculated right, not a problem

[tftp]

A 0.02 microsievert effective dose to the whole body is nothing.

The discussion is full of explanations why this is meaningless. Let me try an analogy.

A human's body is normally at 36.6 deg C, and can be up to 40 deg on average when you are sick. Now take a blowtorch and point it at a toe on your left foot. I guarantee that the average temperature of your body would hardly change, but the toe would be toast. That's exactly what seems to happen with millimeter wave scanners - their radiation is all absorbed by skin, but for averaging purposes the manufacturer pretends that it is spread inside the entire body.

Re:If the dose was calculated right, not a problem

[Rand310]

If each individual cell received 0.02, this would be accurate. But some cells in your body are receiving a dosage of almost 0, and others of two orders of magnitude more. Such that a given cell near your skin might have an extremely high dose, while internal organs get nothing. There are a lot of sensitive sites near the surface of a human's skin. Their misuse of units is shoddy at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.

X-ray penetration depth

[Anonymous Coward]

Saw this today. What sort of abnormality did this detect and how far did the x-ray penetrate?

(AP) LAGOS, Nigeria -- Nigeria's drug enforcement agency says it has arrested a politician who allegedly swallowed 2 kilograms (nearly 4.5 pounds) of cocaine to fund his election campaign.

The National Drug Law Enforcement Agency said Monday it arrested 52-year-old Eme Zuru Ayortor at Lagos' Murtala Mohammed International Airport. [b]The agency says the pharmacist-turned-politician was trying to board a flight to Germany when a scanning machine detected an abnormality in his stomach.[/b]

Agents say they found 100 individually wrapped packages of cocaine inside his body. The agency says the politician claimed his failed 2007 run for the Edo state House of Assembly ruined him financially and smuggling drugs was the only way he could fund his 2011 election bid. He has yet to be charged.

Deployment schedule?

[Cerberus7]

Anybody know if there's a deployment schedule for these things? Airport names and dates of deployment would be nice. That'll help me figure out where I definitely won't be going, and when.

And yet...

[bartwol]

...none of the scientists in the article asserted any significant concern about the relative safety of the device.

Radiation safety issue? Gimme a break.

Nice headline; no story. You must be a student of the KDawson school of editorial?

Re:And yet...

[Rand310]

From the letter written by the scientists, not the article written by journalists:

"Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies (28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.

The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X- rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high."

I *LOVE* the 21st century so far!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Radiation! Yay! This century has been *AWESOME* so far!

I'd rather just get naked.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather just get naked than get bombarded with carcinogenic radiation.

The joke is on them!

[Anonymous Coward]

So my options are a scan with a machine that has unknown health effects OR having a strange man give me an airport massage?

I happen to be a bisexual and I have an authority fetish, so I think that I'm rather priviledged here.

Re:The joke is on them!

[Jedi Alec]

Popping a massive boner should give the guy some pause, at least ;-)

Not quite sure how they'd react though...the kind of guy that spends his days at an airport checking people tends to be of the "me big, me not so smart, me no like faggots!" variety :/

Re:The joke is on them!

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably think it was a gun and attempt to wrestle it from ya.

Oh no, not yet...

[GameMaster]

Don't get rid of them yet, I haven't had time to try any of my ideas out.

* Using metallic paint to draw a glock 9mm on my skin as if it were in a shoulder holster.

* Drawing a massive, 1 - 2 foot long, penis down my thigh in metallic paint.

* (my favorite) Shaving my head bald, drawing a full Terminator style robot endoskeleton on my back, in metallic paint, including the skull on the back of my head and letting my hair grow back enough to cover it before going to the airport.

Re:Oh no, not yet...

[ceoyoyo]

Combine 2 and 3.

sperm count...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just when I was starting to get my sperm count going up after starting a better diet and exercise program, now they're going to go ahead and kill off some more of the little fellers. Greyhound here I come!

Scientists? Those quacks?

[BitHive]

If these are the same scientists that discovered "global warming" then I figure these new airport scanners, far from being dangerous, may actually cure all sorts of diseases.

Depends on their calculations!

[formfeed]

The 0.2 micro Sievert are body-equivalent, not what you get on your skin! The exposure just for your skin could be a 100-times higher. Nobody knows, the specs aren't exactly public.

For example, for a chest Xray they tell you that it is 20 micro Sievert. Again Body-equivalent, of course! Meaning, it increases your cancer risk like 20 micro Sievert would for the whole body. But since I don't get lung cancer in my toe, I don't care much about body equivalent. Just looking at lung cancer, chances for lung cancer are probably 10 times of what 20 micro Sievert would give you.

So, how did they adjust their calculations for the airport scanners? Is the body equivalent they tell us a 1/10 or a 1/100 of the dose to the skin?
The backscatter Xray in airport scanners will cause skin cancer. What isn't known is the yearly rate. 2 deaths per year or 200? Would be nice to know, wouldn't it?

Missing the point

[skywire]

It's odd that almost all the posts on this story sidestep the issue that the article actually raises, which is that if this kind of radiation is almost entirely absorbed by the skin (which has been a selling point), it is misleading to also treat it as though the dosage were spread uniformly through the recipient's body. To get a better idea of the health effects of the scans, we need to determine the fraction captured in each different layer of the human skin and consider what is known about the effects of dosages to those layers. If you want to convince us of the safety of these scans, offer an argument that the stratum corneum absorbs the bulk of it, rather than posting yet another beside-the-point comparision of the expected total body dose against that received from other kinds of ionizing radiation exposures.

The real classic example of this

[dbIII]

A good example of this was at an airport in Australia where thieves in overalls made multiple trips into a secure area to steal a rack load of computers that contained some sort of security database. The looked as if they belonged and they were not taking any strange or dangerous things into the airport. Of course when it was reported the initial press release stated they had a "middle eastern appearance" but it turned out that was a lie added in to try to make it look like airport security was a victim of some vast terrorist conspiracy instead of a couple of local thieves.

Ironic?

[Lost Penguin]

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. /Here's hoping the TSA guys get testicle cancer from it.

Re:Ironic?

[RoboRay]

When did TSA guys get testicles?

Mod Parent Back Up Please - unfortunately accurate

[billstewart]

It's not just a joke - a couple of TSA employees just got in the news for getting into a fight because one of them said the naked-passenger-scanner showed that the other guy had a small penis.

General/Small aviation is a much lower threat

[billstewart]

In some of the Hawaii airports, the small inter-island flights are at the commuter terminal, which doesn't go through TSA inspection theater line. They still want to see your papers, and the other privacy invasion is that they need your weight, which is going to determine where you sit on the plane (I end up in back with the Samoans :-), but basically the security rules figure that crashing a 10-seater Cessna into a building isn't enough Mass Destruction to be a National Security Threat. General Aviation seems to work about the same way - at least at SFO, you can just drive up to the executive terminal and park. If you wanted to get onto the runway, a pair of bolt cutters would get you through any security.

Barak Hussain Obama ....

[Anonymous Coward]

The greatest enemy of the United States of America!

In addition: Two words

[shadowbearer]

  Press badge.

  One of my cousins works in DC as a political correspondent; she says it's still incredibly easy not only to get access to the tarmac, but to baggage areas as well, if you push hard enough. A few years after 9/11 she was part of a group that walked thru security and placed a stuffed animal into a bag on the baggage line after it'd cleared security. Wish I still had the link, the article was hilarious. Anyone remember it?

SB

obligatory XKCD

[BetterSense]

http://xkcd.com/651/

Next up at 11

[shadowbearer]

  AP: Experts Disagree.

  (was listening to NPR at work and heard that one as well, it was the best laugh I've had in weeks, thanks for the reminder)

SB

Air Port Security!!!! Yes!`

[Anonymous Coward]

Strip me roughly.

.

Take all my clothes off.

.

Give me an anal cavity search with the elbow length rubber glove.

.

Yesssssss - And to protect public safety - I have even bought my own rubber glove....

.

Praise Jesus.

The Scientist's Letter of Concern

[Rand310]

LETTER OF CONCERN
We are writing to call your attention to serious concerns about the potential health risks of the recently adopted whole body backscatter X-ray airport security scanners. This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary screening step for all air travel passengers.
Our overriding concern is the extent to which the safety of this scanning device has been adequately demonstrated. This can only be determined by a meeting of an impartial panel of experts that would include medical physicists and radiation biologists at which all of the available relevant data is reviewed.
An important consideration is that a large fraction of the population will be subject to the new X-ray scanners and be at potential risk, as discussed below. This raises a number of ‘red flags’. Can we have an urgent second independent evaluation?

The Red Flags
The physics of these X-rays is very telling: the X-rays are Compton-Scattering off outer molecule bonding electrons and thus inelastic (likely breaking bonds). Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies (28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.
The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X- rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high.
In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist. A search, ultimately finding top FDA radiation physics staff, suggests that the relevant radiation quantity, the Flux [photons per unit area and time (because this is a scanning device)] has not been characterized. Instead an indirect test (Air Kerma) was made that emphasized the whole body exposure value, and thus it appears that the danger is low when compared to cosmic rays during airplane travel and a chest X-ray dose.
In summary, if the key data (flux-integrated photons per unit values) were available, it would be straightforward to accurately model the dose being deposited in the skin and adjacent tissues using available computer codes, which would resolve the potential concerns over radiation damage.

Our colleagues at UCSF, dermatologists and cancer experts, raise specific important concerns:
A) The large population of older travelers, >65 years of age, is particularly at risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of melanocyte aging.
B) A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesis- provoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because these women, who have defects in DNA repair mechanisms, are particularly prone to cancer, X-ray mammograms are not performed on them. The dose to breast tissue beneath the skin represents a similar risk.
C) Blood (white blood cells) perfusing the skin is also at risk.
D) The population of immunocompromised individuals--HIV and cancer patients (see above) is likely to be at risk for cancer induction by the high skin dose.
E) The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to have been fully evaluated.
F) The policy towards pregnant women needs to be defined once the theoretical risks to the fetus are determined.
G) Because of the proximity of the testicles to skin, this tissue is at risk for sperm mutagenesis.
H) Have the effects

Harmful radiation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would SPF 50 help?

We're looking in the wrong direction

[Nefarious Wheel]

The entire threat of airplane terrorism cannot justify such a step

Agree, but for a different reason.

Guys, the airplane threat is over. Way too much coverage. Way too much coverage.

The next terrorist act will be neither aircraft hijackings, anthrax in envelopes, or blowing up an ancient stone Buddha. It will be something entirely else, perpetrated while we have our attention elsewhere.

Like any good hunter, we need to focus on where they'll be, not where they've been. Look around you - what civil infrastructure is vulnerable? All of it? Do we need to fence the stuff off or just change our patrol patterns? Software behind cameras?

Think ahead, please. If it's a problem, let's work the problem.

Re:We're looking in the wrong direction

[Gilmoure]

It will be something entirely else, perpetrated while we have our attention elsewhere.

ddos Twitter?

Don't you dare!

[Anonymous Coward]

I need my pens! I have to have something to divert me when we're delayed an hour on take-off, my laptop battery flat-lines, my book's in the bag I had to check because we've been stripped down to carry-on, and I've read the in-flight magazine three times and am ready to convert to Marxism.

Re:TFA: dose INCORRECTLY averaged over whole body

[GargamelSpaceman]

Almost all the radiation ends up in the skin. Other radiation in total may be higher for a flight, but it is of differing kinds and is absorbed by other parts of body.

I would let them scan me because I hardly ever fly, but I'd be concerned if I had to walk through one of these every few days.

Great...

[SeaCrazy]

Now I have to wear lead underpants in addition to my tinfoil-hat.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion