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."

15 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:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      People call me malignant all the time and I hardly ever get X-rayed.

  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. meanwhile, Europe bans the farking things. by crowlogic · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  4. 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?

  5. Shocking by itchythebear · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. Re:Small risk by MadCow42 · · Score: 5, Informative

    >> 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.

    You mean based on reports like this?

    http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/06/27/2012226/Cancer-Cluster-Possibly-Found-Among-TSA-Workers

    --
    I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
  9. Re:And we're surprised by this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  10. I fly for business about every other week by Gordo_1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  11. The science experiment is on the passengers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  12. Re:Where can I buy a Dosimeter? by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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"