Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
To never use commercial airflight again.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
Need a vascectomy? Fly the friendly skies instead! The more miles you log, the fewer kids you'll spawn!
I gave up religion for Lent.
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?
And the worms ate into his brain.
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".
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
You can't build a jobs program around a locked cockpit door.
"Why Does Liberal Academia Hate Security?"
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Fail. You don't need to reach the cockpit. You just need the message, "I have a bomb" to reach the cockpit.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Bobb9000 - raised by the wolves,
Oxford education as phrased by the wolves.
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.
qntm.org
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
And...
Yet.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
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.
404: sig not found.
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).
Qxe4
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.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
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.
People, what a bunch of bastards
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
Bobb9000 - raised by the wolves,
Oxford education as phrased by the wolves.
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.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
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.