Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TSA Puts Off Safety Study of X-ray Body Scanners

Posted by samzenpus on from the we'll-get-to-it-later dept.

zokuga writes "ProPublica reports that the TSA is backing off a previous promise to conduct a new independent study of X-ray body scanners used at airport security lanes around the country. Earlier this month, an investigation found that TSA had glossed over research about the risks from the X-rays."

12 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We wouldn't want them to figure out that the scanners are hazardous until the contract to buy all those scanners has been fulfilled. You just know that some lucky contractor will make boatloads off of this.

    1. Re:Of course by residieu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Once they have paid for all the scanners, just think of how much the NEXT lucky contractor will make when we have to replace all the dangerous ineffective scanners with the new big thing that is just as untested as the last one was.

  2. Re:And we're surprised by this? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really?

    Where's the accountability?

    There's accountability and accountability.

    Perhaps they're backing down because of the cost - someone wants government spending to be less liberal (Ha!)

    OR

    Perhaps they're backing down because the cost of revealing the dangers, and thus potential lawsuits, scare them.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  3. This is what happens... by atari2600a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When we let fear control us into letting an "elected" official create a cabinet department called the Commission for State Securit--err I mean Department of Homeland Security, even though WE ALREADY HAVE A NATIONAL GUARD AND A CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. Seriously, did someone miss the possibility of alterior motives when it was announced we were reinventing the wheel?

  4. Give me the security I traded my privacy for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Weren't these scanners put in place for safety reasons? I.E. protecting people from harmful terrorists? Why do they want to protect us from harmful terrorists and not harmful cancers?

  5. Purchasing requirements should have had limits. by RichMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why were the radiation levels not a purchasing requirement? I would expect any radiation unit to have the exposure level very clearly identified.

    Either specify that all units supplied must be under a maximum exposure (at all points in their operating life) set by the TSA or the supplier is liable.
    Or the supplier can specify an exposure level when delivering the unit and the TSA can decide to accept or decline the purpose.

    In either case the design limit should be easily available. And publishable as a start.
    If the design limit is not available, then on what criteria where the purchases authorized and who authorized the purchases without strict exposure limits. Because it would just be sheer stupidity to operate like that. (Of couse I expect a governemnt agencey to be operating within the stupidity realm).

    1. Re:Purchasing requirements should have had limits. by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because this was not a program put in place to increase traveler safety.

      This was a program put in place to shove money into the pockets of Michael Chertoff, the former head of the DHS. It is doing remarkably well at that, and the TSA is appropriately doing its damnedest to cover for the fact that they owe their existence to a scumbag with a horrible conflict of interest who is continues to take this country for a ride.

      I'd spit in this man's face if I met him in person.

    2. Re:Purchasing requirements should have had limits. by DM9290 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why were the radiation levels not a purchasing requirement?

      The point is that ANY ionizing radiation increases the risk of cancer, and therefore, statistically speaking, over a large population these scanners WILL kill people, its just a matter of how many lives are we willing to sacrifice for the facade of security.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
  6. Re:Small risk by jasno · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ain't it great?

      - you get to pay for the useless clusterfuck that is the TSA.
      - in 20 years you get to pay for the cancer settlement arranged with the TSA union.
      - By then, I'm sure we'll have socialized medicine... so you get to pay for their care.

    I'm a contractor, so I understand fully how the government gets paid to fuck-up, and then gets paid again to fix the fuck-up.

    --

    http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. Re:Shocking by tftp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll have to find some sources, but didn't they refuse to allow the TSA employees to wear radiation exposure badges or something like that?

    If airport personnel starts wearing radiation exposure badges the number of travelers will drop down to 1% (if not 0.1%) of what it was before.

    TSA wants to banish the thought that anything dangerous might be occurring in those booths. Because of that no outward signs of such danger will be ever allowed. TSA drones will be gladly sacrificed.

  9. Install one ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... in the TSA headquarters employee entrance.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.