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."
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%.
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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.)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
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
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.