Slashdot Mirror
TSA Puts Off Safety Study of X-ray Body Scanners
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."
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.
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
meanwhile, Europe bans them. A lot smarter than these fools running the US, g*d damn them. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=europe-bans-x-ray-body-scanners
Earlier this month, a ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation found that the TSA had glossed over research that the X-ray scanners could lead to a small number of cancer cases.
Because cancer is clearly not a big deal. From another perspective, I wonder what dosage TSA agents get when they stand around those devices all day. I'm not particularly fond of them, but I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone. And these scanners are probably increasing their chances significantly. I wonder if anyone is up for conducting a large-scale clinical trial to show the low-level employees that these devices are hazardous and that they too should be against them.
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?
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? (To determine if they were being over exposed)
They probably don't need to do any studies on if the scanners are safe or not, seems like they already know the answer.
If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
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?
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).
What cost? Ionizing radiation is bad for you. There, no charge. When there's a benefit, then the risk may be justified, such as in medical applications, but security theater is not a good enough reason for exposing people to ionizing radiation.
However her husband fared better: "Pierre Curie died in a street accident in Paris on 19 April 1906. Crossing the busy Rue Dauphine in the rain at the Quai de Conti, he slipped and fell under a heavy horse drawn cart. He died instantly when one of the wheels ran over his head, fracturing his skull."
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Cancer risk, or terrorism... I mean, what's the harm in increasing - hypothetically, of course; they haven't proven it yet - a person's cancer risk when compared with the risk that, by not scanning everything and everyone, a terrorist will get on the plane and, absolutely, positively, undeniably cause that plane to crash into the building that causes the most deaths and financial damage?
Let's be reasonable, people... /snark
...There is such a thing as a middle ground.
These body scanners are on one end, having nothing is the other. I'd prefer something in the middle.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
And yet in all the months I've been running into these damn X-ray machines, I think I've only seen one other person opt out in favor of a pat down/groping session.
The rest of this country seems to be full of sheep.
And the theoretical safe levels would only apply if these machines are set up properly. There have been cases where xray machines have been mis-calibrated and put out much higher levels than were safe. And that was in a medical facility dedicated to safety.
Of course I am sure that the TSA calibration records and maintenance records are a matter of public record on these powerful sources of radiation, and that scientists have been allowed access to these machines to confirm the governments assurances... They aren't? And they haven't?
Science is not about taking someone in powers word for the truth, it is about confirming the truth independently. It is inconceivable to me that these machines were deployed without any independent testing and with complete secrecy about dosage, calibration and maintenance records. It stinks and it stinks bad.
Only time will tell how deadly these machines are. I will bet anyone a crisp clean hundred dollar bill that these machines are at a minimum 3 orders of magnitude more harmful than the government is admitting (6,000 deaths from cancer). I am hoping they are no more harmful than 4 orders of magnitude more harmful (60,000 deaths from cancer) but fear 6+ orders of magnitude more harm (600,000 additional deaths from cancer).
But is anyone else worried that even at the levels the government admitted to that they are willing to kill 6 Americans with cancer for security theater?
Questionable agency with questionable methods disapproves of mandate to test the questionable efficacy and questionable safety of their questionable equipment.
Seriously, is this a surprise? The public support for the intrusiveness of the tsa is dwindling rapidly, and a bombshell like "airport and transit station scanners linked with cancer" would set fire to that particularly nasty powderkeg.
Of course they want to ostritch headplant and hum to themselves rather than operate reputably! Their entire operation is a farce all the way down!
What cost? Ionizing radiation is bad for you. There, no charge. When there's a benefit, then the risk may be justified, such as in medical applications, but security theater is not a good enough reason for exposing people to ionizing radiation.
Preaching to the choir, AC.
I underwent Radiation Therapy for 6 weeks after having a malignant tumor removed. My doctors, ever since, have tried to minimize how frequently I have X-Rays taken, opting for MagRes or Ultrasound to check things. I feel I've been baked and now must be wary.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Repost cuz I can't stand being a coward:
Why is it that I can't just put one in my pocket and go through the machine to find out?
You know, For Science!
It's odd... I opt out and when I do the TSA employees are very, very helpful and friendly. I know that they have a strict script to stick to, but I also get the impression that they are not all that happy about the exposure risk, and are happy when others recognize the risks as well.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The TSA security fees alone flying from Texas to Orlando (given a connecting flight) could be $5 alone, so I don't get the snark. You'd be hard pressed to find a ticket from TX to FL for less than $140 after taxes. The Federal Government (courtesy of the TSA) enormously overspends on aviation security based on the risk of death to any particular individual versus other common risks we experience every day.
Part of this is due to the fact aviation security threats (and operational risks like crashing) can affect people on the ground who never fly. Part is due to the way an aviation problem can make the entire US populace apoplectic for some strange reason. And part is the general authoritarian streak of our government. So I don't think it is unreasonable aviation security is partly subsidized, when most transportation related infrastructure and fuels in the US are massively subsidized as well.
Incidentally, I flew from Austin to DFW last week, and all the gates I saw were using millimeter wave scanners.
Honestly... I think someone needs to talk to some hospital workers. Any hospital could easily help with this, and could probably be convinced to do it for cost just for the fact that this really is a public service to test. Even if not, there are a lot of people in healthcare who need to wear them, so theres many options there.
My mother wore a dosimeter for years. She was an x-ray tech and was told on her first day of training "By choosing this job, you are taking 10 years off your life". Thats probably less true now. Hers was just a piece of film in a plastic case. Every once in a while they get collected and developed. Cumulative dose over time is measured and sometimes resulted in some extra mandatory vacation. um... w00t? :/
Sure its simple, you can make one, or buy them, but, having them processed by someone who is competent to do it, and can stand by their results is key for something like this. If someone at the local Hospital radiology department wanted to help, they could put this issue to rest... without much problem. Anybody can claim numbers on a device, anybody can say they developed their own film and calculated the dose.... but people who do it every day can give you results that are harder to ignore.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
the amount of ionizing radiation they are talking about being covered up " is extremely low, equivalent to the radiation a person would receive in a few minutes of flying"
You gladly put yourself into a hot tub that is heated by a 2 kW electric heater. However you will not be happy if someone takes a hot soldering iron that has only 40W of power and sticks it up your body where it doesn't belong.
Or, you are happy to go to a beach and spend a few hours there. But you won't like it if someone takes a large magnifying glass and focuses the Sun's image onto your skin.
This demonstrates that talks about "total power" or "total radiation" are misleading. It is essential to understand how this power is used.
Have gnu, will travel.
This demonstrates that talks about "total power" or "total radiation" are misleading.
Really poor analogies. What you are referring to is energy concentrated in a small part of the body as opposed to the whole body. The scanners distribute the energy over the whole body and any breakdown with the scanning mechanism will be immediately evident in the image. Also remember when dealing with total doses on the milli-rem level, it doesn't make much of difference whether the dose occurred during a microsecond or over a day. Starting around 25 rem or so, there is a substantial difference in getting the dose in much less than a day as opposed to a couple of years.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
What you are referring to is energy concentrated in a small part of the body as opposed to the whole body. The scanners distribute the energy over the whole body
That's not what I read. Most of the energy of the scanner is absorbed by the skin, and the analogy is very much correct. I'm not copying the entire content of that URL here, please go there and have a look - the letter with concerns is written not by a couple of nerds in a basement but by scientists (unless membership in the National Academy of Sciences means nothing.) Let me just cite one small paragraph:
any breakdown with the scanning mechanism will be immediately evident in the image.
That would be of little consolation to you. Let's imagine a real world scenario: the scanning stops - because, for example, someone shoved a blob of chewing gum into the gears. The machine starts working slower, slower and finally stops, with the X-ray beam focused on something totally unimportant, like your eyes or your brain (upper or lower :-) Let's say the interlocks failed and the beam is not shut off.
What would you expect from a team of inept users of this technology? Do you believe they have a clue how the machine works? Do you think they care to know? Maybe there is one geek in the whole TSA, and he is not operating the machines anyway.
The operator sees that the image is bad or incomplete. What do you think will happen? The operator WILL REPEAT THE SCAN - again and again and again, potentially burning raster tattoos into your skin with the X-ray beam. Only after several attempts he will give up. You will not be told what happened. You will be told to go to another machine or you will be molested by hand. You will not know what just occurred, and the TSA will get rid of you as fast as they can (or not, even if they themselves have no idea what they just did to you.) In any case, you will be getting radiation burns on your body within days, and good luck matching this to any specific machine in any specific airport. TSA will tell you that "safety of passengers is #1 concern of TSA and nothing like what happened to you could possibly happen to anyone, you included."
Sometitmes you gotta choose: radiation from a nuclear power plant or more radiation & CO2 & other nasties from a coal plant (you didin't believe fly ash was not radioactive I hope). /.
And there is no way I am going to give up power (and thus computers) because then I would be unable to read
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Problem is, that's a very unscientific way to measure the radiation dose and very inaccurate.
The main problem with determining dose to the body from ionizing radiation is that different tissues and organs of the body absorb radiation in different ways. Additionally, some tissues and organs are more sensitive to cellular damage that could potentially lead to cancer more than others. And finally, the absorption is also heavily dependent on the energy levels and spectra of the radiation itself. Some types of radiation are basically harmless and pass through the body without being absorbed. Other types are heavily absorbed and can lead to health impacts.
Accurate does measurement is challenging and even among experts in the field there are differing opinions how to weight the different measurements and come up with an accurate dose representation that translates into meaningful risk assessment.
As an engineer working in the medical imaging field over 20 years, I'm well versed in radiation safety and the effects of radiation on biological processes. These backscatter machines should have NEVER been put into public use. There is literally zero scientific evidence on their efficacy for intended use and safety for both the operator and subject being scanned. In medical imaging, the doctor makes an assessment of risk vs. benefit when deciding to take an X-ray on the patient. If the benefits outweigh the risks, then the X-ray is justified. The major problem with these scanners is that the risk is unknown due to lack of studies validating the safety of the scanners and the population is being unnecessarily exposed to ionizing radiation without a medical reason to do so. This is purely security theater at its finest. I would never voluntarily submit to being scanned by one of these machines, especially with my background knowledge in radiation. If the US government were to decide that use of these scanners is mandatory, then I would cease all travel to/from/within the US by air. As an American living abroad, the end result is alienation by my own government. I for one am glad that the EU will not allow their use, so I may safely travel by air throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
How much longer are you going to tolerate this in the US? You are marching swiftly towards a completely corporate.fascist.militarist state and nobody seems to notice.