Slashdot Mirror


DHS X-ray Car Scanners Now At Border Crossings

OverTheGeicoE writes "CNET has a story on DHS' whole car X-ray scanners and their potential cancer risks. The story focuses on the Z Portal scanner, which appears to be a stationary version of the older Z Backscatter Vans. The story provides interesting pictures of the device and the images it produces, but it also raises important questions about the devices' cancer risks. The average energy of the X-ray beam used is three times that used in a CT scan, which could be big trouble for vehicle passengers and drivers should a vehicle stop in mid-scan. Some studies show the risk for cancer from CT scans can be quite high. Worse still, the DHS estimates of the Z Portal's radiation dosage are likely to be several orders of magnitude too low. 'Society will pay a huge price in cancer because of this,' according to one scientist."

202 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. Here's a fix. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We should have a one-day travel strike, where nobody travels except on essential tasks. Repeat regularly until results are obtained.

    When the TSA starts costing businesses money, our bought-and-paid-for Congress will rein them in.

    (Heh, you probably thought a B&PFC wasn't good for anything.)

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Here's a fix. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The TSA should be abolished. This is getting ridiculous. I think their new plan is that if the "terrorists" have cancer they will be too weak to be a threat and the public will be too sick to be a nuisance as well. I'm slowly caring less and less about the TSA grunts, but why are they not required to wear radiation monitors for their own protection? The idiots in charge are not getting exposed to any of this, nor are they using know best practices for dealing with radiation.

    2. Re:Here's a fix. by NevarMore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1. What is an 'essential task'? Travel for work? That vacation I planned and booked a year ago?
      2. Where have you been? People stopped travelling in droves after 9/11. You recall what happened? We bailed out the airlines.

      I share the sentiment, but its an oligolpoly at best. There are no alternatives to air travel.

    3. Re:Here's a fix. by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Funny

      a) wouldn't terrorists with cancer be more likely to go on a suicide bombing mission?

      b) radiation monitors probably cost more than the value TSA puts on its front line staff

    4. Re:Here's a fix. by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is getting ridiculous.

      Getting? It was ridiculous eight years ago. At this point, they've crossed the line into gross criminal negligence, reckless endangerment, and willful malfeasance. They should not merely be abolished. They, along with everyone who voted to create them, should be sent to prison with very, very long terms to set an example for anyone who might contemplate usurping the Constitution of this great nation in the future.

      Throwing them out on the street with no jobs is way, way too good for these unAmerican traitors.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:Here's a fix. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      It's too bad the airlines can't afford to buy congress. They're really the ones who are suffering by all this...

    6. Re:Here's a fix. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The workers will get a pretty medal (designed in USA made in ... ) and expect to see a term like "national sacrifice zones" dusted off as a sound bite.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:Here's a fix. by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They already got their bailout, just like General Motors & the banks.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    8. Re:Here's a fix. by magarity · · Score: 2

      The workers will get a pretty medal (designed in USA made in ... ) and expect to see a term like "national sacrifice zones" dusted off as a sound bite.

      The workers who have to be around these souped up xray machines for a full shift five days a week will probably get bad simultaneous cases of several varieties of cancer much sooner than even the most frequent traveler going through it. Then the government will be on the hook for huge lawsuits and removing the machines. The trick is to avoid being said frequent traveler until then.

    9. Re:Here's a fix. by Jiro · · Score: 1

      Strikes don't work well against government requirements--since their budget comes from taxes, going on strike isn't going to cause them any hardship whatsoever, like it would if you tried to boycott a store.

    10. Re:Here's a fix. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Here's a better fix. Prosecute the individuals operating the machines for assault with a deadly weapon. Keep doing it until no one is willing to work for the TSA anymore.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:Here's a fix. by Mabhatter · · Score: 1

      It already DID cost airlines money.... Congress would rather bail out than back down now. The "security" industry is probably a significant size compared to the airline industry atvthis point... And then they'd have to move all their stuff!!

    12. Re:Here's a fix. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      So you think they're dumb enough to hand the EFF grounds for a permanent injunction against their entire operation on a silver platter? The last thing they want to do is actually deny a vocal opponent of the TSA access to a flight, as that would give that person clear standing to sue them for all they're worth.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    13. Re:Here's a fix. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      The trick is to avoid being said frequent traveler until then.

      Have been working on exactly that for about eleven years now. (With two lapses. Hey, you can figure out who I am!)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    14. Re:Here's a fix. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, you're assuming they give a shit about the law anymore.

    15. Re:Here's a fix. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      If they don't start again soon, they're liable to have a rude awakening. The fundamental social contract between the public and governments is built on mutual respect for the law. If the government ceases to respect the law, it's only a matter of time before the general public starts to imitate them. Down this path lies chaos.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    16. Re:Here's a fix. by OhPlz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The states can get in on this too. New Hampshire has a proposal for a new state law to record abuses by the TSA. Here's a snippet of HB0628:

      "VII.(a) In order to assist in the accuracy of records created by law enforcement officers in paragraph III, all citizens being searched shall be afforded their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America and under Part 1, Article 22 of the New Hampshire Constitution to record, or designated a person to record, using any type of audio and video recording device, or a device that records just audio or just video, all interactions with an agent described in paragraph I, even in the presence of a law enforcement officer, without exception."

      Paragraph I specifies the TSA by name.

      Followed by:

      "(c) If a law enforcement officer does not enforce the provisions of this chapter or makes it difficult for a citizen to exercise his or her rights as specified in this section, the law enforcement officer may be guilty of official oppression pursuant to RSA 643:1."

      http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB0628.html

      It passed in the house. Now it goes to the senate.

    17. Re:Here's a fix. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unless of course, you get enough people involved, like in Denmark in 1985 where a fifth of the entire country went on strike. People who weren't involved with the issues went on strike in sympathy. The entire country just stopped. Shops closed, airports closed, even much of the media shut down. The government was very nearly overthrown, and all because they refused to support the people in the first place.

      If only more countries had people that were as enlightened, governments wouldn't be able to get away with half the stuff they do.

    18. Re:Here's a fix. by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I'd extend it further to say:

      "Any law enforcement officer who seeks to deprive a person of his or her rights under this section is deprived of his or her legal privileges as a peace officer in interacting with that citizen. Specifically, they have no right to arrest or use force against that person beyond that possessed by any citizen, and that citizen may legally use force or deadly force against that officer in self-defense if such use of force would be justified against a private citizen."=

    19. Re:Here's a fix. by tftp · · Score: 1

      Hey, you can figure out who I am!

      Of course. You are an infrequent traveler.

    20. Re:Here's a fix. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I really hope someone is making accurate measurements of exposure for staff and travellers to support this future lawsuit. It is very difficult to prove a link between particular exposure and a given cancer so evidence is vital.

      Personally I'd buy a radiation monitor with a big red flashing light and 100dB siren to warn me of harmful exposure, then carry that through the x-ray scanners. I'd make sure someone was filming it and uploading the video to YouTube in realtime just to be sure. Would be very easy to do if they are irradiating your entire car.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:Here's a fix. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Only to a point. It's hard to imagine any sort of societal structure in which no maximum ratio of criminals to law enforcement exists beyond which that society would cease to function. Indeed, we're already seeing a complete enforcement failure in the area of copyright infringement. At this point, it seems pretty unlikely that the U.S. government will ever be able to get piracy under control.

      We're also seeing near-complete enforcement breakdown in other areas:

      • Immigration enforcement
      • Drug enforcement
      • Preventing bribery of and kickbacks to public officials
      • Patent law
      • Regulation of financial instruments
      • Maximum work hour laws

      And so on. It looks, at least from my perspective, like the government is rapidly losing control over an awful lot of crime, and historically speaking, that is often a precursor to much more serious problems. I hope I'm wrong. I really hope I can earn enough money to be safely on my own private island before the U.S. comes apart at the seams.... :-D

      But seriously, the real problem is that our political leaders don't actually understand crime. Trying to stop crime through enforcement alone is like trying to stop mice by picking them up and carrying them outside. Ten minutes later, the mice are back, and they've brought their friends. It just doesn't work.

      There's really only one way to really get crime under control, and that is to eliminate its causes. Eliminate the wide disparity in income between the richest and poorest people. Eliminate the barriers to the poorest people improving their positions in society. Eliminate black markets by creating legal, regulated markets in their place, where possible, and by creating better alternatives where regulated markets would be unacceptable (e.g. human trafficking). Eliminate the culture of acceptance towards violating the law at every turn—a culture that has its roots in the corruption at the highest levels—a culture in which those who should be role models lead us down the path towards destruction by setting poor examples.

      Yeah, I'm not holding my breath. The status quo is probably the best that we can hope for, realistically... and that's just sad.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    22. Re:Here's a fix. by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      I am sure your post on slashdot will be all it takes to make this happen, too.

      You're right. We shouldn't even discuss these problems.

    23. Re:Here's a fix. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Getting? It was ridiculous eight years ago. At this point, they've crossed the line into gross criminal negligence, reckless endangerment, and willful malfeasance.

      This. They're driving around exposing unknowing, innocent bystanders to x-rays powerful enough to penetrate steel. This is not an exaggeration.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    24. Re:Here's a fix. by blueg3 · · Score: 2

      Workplace-exposure radiation badges are actually reasonably inexpensive.

    25. Re:Here's a fix. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Getting? It was ridiculous eight years ago.

      Yep. Civil libertarians called it 8 years ago. Peace protesters accurately predicted the results of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars 10 years ago. Labor activists predicted the results of Reaganomics 30 years ago.

      So when are the people going to start listening?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    26. Re:Here's a fix. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      I never said they were, just that they're more than the value TSA puts on its front line staff

    27. Re:Here's a fix. by fahlesr1 · · Score: 1

      I wish I had the option of not flying, but my family is in Ohio and I moved to Texas after graduating college to take a job. I get 2 weeks of vacation a year and don't want to waste half of it driving back and forth between Ohio and Texas, so I fly. I opt out of the scanners and when they ask me why I'm very vocal about how I consider it a violation of my fourth amendment rights.

      This is also one reason I'm a fan of Ron Paul. He's the only presidential candidate who's explicitly stated his desire to do away with TSA completely, at least as far as I'm aware. That, in and of itself, is worth a Paul presidency, in my opinion anyway.

    28. Re:Here's a fix. by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      The TSA is generating business that is making many congresspersons rich. Think no-bid contracts on backscatter X-ray machines and private prisons. Follow the money.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    29. Re:Here's a fix. by ks*nut · · Score: 1

      No, the entire Department of Homeland Security should be abolished.

    30. Re:Here's a fix. by chicago_scott · · Score: 1

      When the TSA starts costing businesses money, our bought-and-paid-for Congress will rein them in.

      That's why the DHS, TSA and Congress offers businesses the "Trusted Traveler Program". They knows who feeds them.

  2. This will definitely increase cancer risks by game+kid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This will definitely increase cancer risks. In particular, it allows the Department of Homeland Security to spread and thrive.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    1. Re:This will definitely increase cancer risks by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a reason why the X-ray technicians usually leave the room when X-rays are being taken. Just being in the same room ensures that you'll get at least some exposure. The new digital equipment is better than the older ones were, but you're still talking about additional radiation.

    2. Re:This will definitely increase cancer risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you even read the summary, let alone the article, or at least look at the pictures? You are supposed to drive through the thing.

    3. Re:This will definitely increase cancer risks by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, this is the only way you could get standing in the 9th District. All of us citizens are just here to finance the utopia, bend over, and STFU.

    4. Re:This will definitely increase cancer risks by Threni · · Score: 5, Funny

      But look at the health benefits if it stops people smoking weed. A car containing 10 kilos of weed contains nearly 8 kilos of weed, meaning that not only will someone go to jail for possessing 5 kilos of weed, but also the people the dealer would have supplied will be unable to obtain this dangerous drug and will perhaps instead turn to safe, legal drugs such as alcohol or tobacco.

    5. Re:This will definitely increase cancer risks by Dantoo · · Score: 1

      "A car containing 10 kilos of weed contains nearly 8 kilos of weed, meaning that not only will someone go to jail for possessing 5 kilos of weed

      What in hell have you been smoking?

    6. Re:This will definitely increase cancer risks by game+kid · · Score: 1

      A car containing 10 kilos of weed contains nearly 8 kilos of weed, meaning that not only will someone go to jail for possessing 5 kilos of weed,

      Wait, what? --ah, yes, the Policeman's Law of Illegal Drug Mass Equivalence. Perfectly sound science!

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    7. Re:This will definitely increase cancer risks by DavidRawling · · Score: 1

      I'd say Whoosh, but you'd probably miss that too. Heck the original joke should have cut you off at the knees.

    8. Re:This will definitely increase cancer risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "A car containing 10 kilos of weed contains nearly 8 kilos of weed, meaning that not only will someone go to jail for possessing 5 kilos of weed

      What in hell have you been smoking?

      The fail hurts.

      It's a joke that the dealer had 10kg of weed, then the cops who pulled him over skimmed off 2kg (leaving 8kg). When that was delivered to the evidence lockup, the cops running that skimmed another 3kg off (leaving 5kg) which is used as evidence. The skimmed weed is then used by the cops or dealt out on the street (cops who deal primarily with drugs and cash tend to annoyingly crooked).

    9. Re:This will definitely increase cancer risks by guruevi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not only that but regular medical X-rays already have a history of accidental radiation poisoning, poisoning several hundreds of patients over several weeks (until the cause was found because the radiation poisoning was a) localized and b) easily traced because everyone had access to decent health care and knew they were scanned at some point) because a single variable was off in a program or badly set by a technician.

      A single x-ray machine can do maybe 40 people a day given a 24 hour cycle. This thing will probably do 40 people every 15 minutes and has a much higher dosage by default. One or more of these things will not only kill people but it will also kill the workers and the cause won't be as easily found because cases will appear seemingly independently all over the world and in 3rd world countries (such as Mexico or people traveling internationally) so cases won't be as easily linked, people won't know they've been scanned by these things and many will die before the one is found out and then they'll only claim 1 faulty machine, implement some 'safeguards' and make empty promises but continue doing it until the next machine fails.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    10. Re:This will definitely increase cancer risks by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Definitely. It's over 300 Chest X-rays of radiation!

    11. Re:This will definitely increase cancer risks by Jimbookis · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the summary, let alone the article, or at least look at the pictures? You are supposed to drive through the thing.

      Of course not! This is /. after all.

    12. Re:This will definitely increase cancer risks by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      You do realize they have covert, unmarked x-ray vans with which they scan parked cars, parked by the sidewalk that has people on it, en masse?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    13. Re:This will definitely increase cancer risks by Hatta · · Score: 1

      So where does a private individual get a dosimeter badge?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:This will definitely increase cancer risks by j-beda · · Score: 1

      https://www.mirion.com/?p=dsd_main&gclid=CN3B-7H01K0CFc3DKgodgjAMoA

      This one looks good:

      The instadose dosimeter brings radiation monitoring into the digital age. Smaller than a flash drive, this rugged instant read radiation dosimeter provides immediate dose readings when connected to any computer with internet access.

      When a user wishes to obtain a reading he or she simply logs-in to any computer with internet access. The accumulated dose stored on the device is processed through a proprietary algorithm. Once complete, a graphical representation of the current dose displays on the screen. The user can also view cumulative dosage information.

      With our secure online AMP program (Account Management Program), account administrators can manage all the elements of a radiation monitoring program online. From account administration to managing individual wearers and devices, AMP provides real time access to account details, device assignments, reports, and all pertinent account information.

    15. Re:This will definitely increase cancer risks by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      ...with a street value of $500,000!!! (if sold in dime bags to drunk first-time thrill seeking young urban professionals with 6 figure income)

  3. The CT Scan Claim from TFA by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "One of the studies, which examined more than 1,000 adult patients at four hospitals, projected that the dose of radiation received in a single heart scan at age 40 would later result in cancer in 1 in 270 women and 1 in 600 men.

    Risks were lower for those who received a head CT scan: 1 in 8,100 women and 1 in 11,080 men would likely develop cancer from the radiation, the study said."

    These numbers don't have a direct translation for "Z Portal" cancer risk, but they're surprisingly high. Hopefully we get some very robust studies to examine the effects of the DHS scans in the near future. I guess it's too much to hope that the Department of Homeland Sarcoma would stop using the scanners until public and peer reviewed science exists to prove their safety.

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    1. Re:The CT Scan Claim from TFA by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Informative

      "One of the studies, which examined more than 1,000 adult patients at four hospitals, projected that the dose of radiation received in a single heart scan at age 40 would later result in cancer in 1 in 270 women and 1 in 600 men.

      To be fair, heart scans are the high mark for radiation dosage. Since you need to look at how the heart actually moves/cycles it take much longer to image compared to other parts of the body. There are also many different CT scanners. Some of the high slice scanners reduce the dosage considerably. The Toshiba and Philips 320/256 slice scanners can image the heart in a single rotation rather than continual helical rotations. There are also several new algorithms that use lower dosages with a worse s/n ratio then clean it up in post processing. Regardless, I don't expect DHS/TSA to concern themselves with proper radiation procedures, nor the same scrutiny towards calibration as medical devices.

    2. Re:The CT Scan Claim from TFA by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At the same time, medical ethics permits that risk because the potential benefit is higher and accrues to the patient undergoing the risk. No such benefit exists for a DHS scan. We get all the risk but no benefit.

    3. Re:The CT Scan Claim from TFA by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      At the same time, medical ethics permits that risk because the potential benefit is higher and accrues to the patient undergoing the risk. No such benefit exists for a DHS scan. We get all the risk but no benefit.

      I couldn't agree more.

    4. Re:The CT Scan Claim from TFA by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      And to further put it in context, CT scans are discouraged for children. The risk of cancer is something like 1 in 500 per scan.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    5. Re:The CT Scan Claim from TFA by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, none of it occurs in isolation. People don't go through life just having a a single xray. They have ct scans, numerous dental xrays, xrays for other fractures, exposed to radar from airports, own microwaves, exposed to emr from high voltage lines, fluorescent lights, background radiation and, radiation from the sun.

      So you asshats that like to point to your new additional radiation device as safe, as is in some fantasy world in operates on it's own and a person is not subject to other risks, well, bugger you.

      Lets see all new 'addtional' loads treated as additional loads not as isolated radiations risks.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:The CT Scan Claim from TFA by Toam · · Score: 2

      No benfit? What about all the terrorists that this thing is definitely going to stop?!?

    7. Re:The CT Scan Claim from TFA by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      No benfit? What about all the terrorists that this thing is definitely going to stop?!?

      What about all of the non-terrorists this thing is going to give cancer to?

    8. Re:The CT Scan Claim from TFA by guruevi · · Score: 2

      I think this may turn into a racket actually. Look at the 'trusted traveller program' (or whatever it's called now). For $120/year (or whatever it is) you get a special pass and you don't have to submit yourself to either the body scans, the lines or the cavity search.

      Basically what will happen is first the TSA will screw up several times severely. The people will call for relief to the government who will make it become a privately owned entity and claim now "they'll have someone to hang". Then you'll be able to go without the airport scans for $120, land border TSA exempting your vehicle will be another $150, making sure your freedom can't get revoked by the TSA will be $200 or if you do get arrested without such protection, you can get your out-of-jail card for $1000. Eventually the TSA will have it's privatized corporate army which is already granted to operate independent from the law and whichever corporation you offended (whether it be for piracy or you exposed them) will be able to pay the TSA to get you arrested, that's what SOPA and PIPA is actually for. If you can pay $5000/month in protection money, you'll be able to do whatever, a $10,000 service charge for murder.

      Am I exaggerating? At the current rate our government has gone in privatizing the law the only thing that has to happen for the above to be true is the TSA to be privatized, the laws have been put in place by the legislature and the judicial arm has set the tone they'll support any such laws and even though the current executive branch may not necessarily use these powers, they haven't said the next one couldn't.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    9. Re:The CT Scan Claim from TFA by anagama · · Score: 3, Informative

      Funny, but this really more a drug war thing. Glenn Greenwald recently debated Bush's drug czar on the drug war, and buried him. Just ground him into the dirt.

      http://vimeo.com/32110912

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    10. Re:The CT Scan Claim from TFA by nbauman · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, the DHS hasn't disclosed the radiation.

      Radiation capable of penetrating a centimeter of steel plate, as these machines are, is also in the high mark for radiation dosage.

      I thought they expect the driver and passengers to get out of the car while they x-ray it. There's no fucking way I'm going to be in a car with that much radiation.

      If the driver is supposed to drive through the radiation, as in the illustration, we're talking about giving cancer to 1 driver in every 1,000 who crosses the border. How many is that?

    11. Re:The CT Scan Claim from TFA by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 2

      Perhaps that should be the TSA's new Slogan, "Killing Americans so the terrorists don't have to".

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    12. Re:The CT Scan Claim from TFA by mrpete.au · · Score: 1

      Predicting 1 in 600 men would get cancer from a study involving 1000 people (includes men and women)? Did they examine 600 men and one of them got cancer? Hope there's more to this "study" than just statistics.

    13. Re:The CT Scan Claim from TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's one of the things I always point out. I don't *care* if it is "comparable to medical scan X" or "procedure Y that people do all the time". In those cases I have a medical risk that I weigh against a potential medical benefit of the test results. When it comes to subjecting myself to TSA-mandated X-ray or other tests, I'm supposed to accept all the health risk while there is ZERO benefit to me because I already know I'm not a terrorist.

      The equation for me is simple: if there is NO medical benefit, then it's not worth ANY risk.

      Comparing to medical tests and their risks is therefore stupid except to demonstrate how much unnecessary risk you are taking.

  4. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article specified X-rays or gamma rays. I hate the DHS more than anybody else here, because I have to drive through their checkpoints on a fairly regular basis, but I would hope that they would at least make everybody get out of the car and at a safe distance away from the machine while the scan is performed. They're looking for large amounts of money, dope, guns, or explosives; things that would not be carried on a person.

    Also, as the guy below stated, freedom-loving Americans (and foreigners with business in the 'States) need to be more proactive at expressing their displeasure of the DHS.

  5. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    1) It uses X-rays
    2) The device is controlled by a PC running a Java app
    3) It was put together by freelancers

    Posting AC because NDA

  6. Re:Self defense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes. But since you'll be dead, it won't make much difference.

  7. Where is the truck sized one? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Where is the truck sized one?

  8. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Everyone knows X-Rays can't penetrate metal.

    So that my job in xraying metal is fake?

    http://www.vidisco.com/NDTInspection.asp

    These xrays are much more powerful (intensity and energy) than medical xrays.

    I know someone that walked in front of one of these running machines a few decades ago (by accident, of course). He sufferred accute radiation poisoning that required almost 2 weeks to recover. Day after exposure, he almost could not walk.

    Still, there is SOME kind of scanner technology that they DO use to inspect the cargo of 18-wheelers without emptying out the load. But it's NOT X-Rays.

    Keep repeating after me. Ignorance is bliss. Ignorance is bliss. Ignorance is BLISS!

  9. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    X-Rays can penetrate metal if they are powerful enough.

  10. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by sjames · · Score: 1

    I hope you're joking!

  11. Only when properly calibrated! by JavaTHut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The average energy of the X-ray beam used is three times that used in a CT scan

    This assumes professional calibration! This should read "The average energy of the X-ray beam when calibrated by an apathetic TSA employee is a hell of a lot more than three times that used in a CT scan calibrated by a hospital technician"

    1. Re:Only when properly calibrated! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed.

      Who thinks these things will have some kind of "high power mode" for scanning lorries with thicker plates, or just because regular mode doesn't penetrate very well?

      Who thinks that "high power mode" will end up being turned on 90% of the time?

    2. Re:Only when properly calibrated! by rHBa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For its part, Homeland Security says the dose is safe and based on commonly accepted government standards (PDF) established by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, which would permit 2,500 scans a year for each person. CBP's specifications also require the manufacturer to "perform an evaluation of the potential effect of radiation exposure on public safety on the proposed system." In addition, a CBP representative told CNET that the machines are currently only used in secondary inspections (most people go through just the primary inspection).

      I think, as a good will gesture, the Director/CEO of the TSA and his family should undergo 2,500 scans a year.

      Then I'd think about believing it's safe.

    3. Re:Only when properly calibrated! by sjames · · Score: 1

      I read an article about police radar once where the author interviewed a patrolman who boasted that he likes to keep the trigger pulled with the radar gun hidden (demonstrates with gun pointed at his crotch) so it will read instantly when he points it at a car. The people the TSA hires weren't smart enough to get his job...

  12. Re:social security by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Could someone mod baby hitler out of existence?

  13. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually, people who know things about (hard) X-Rays know that they can and do penetrate metal,
    it only attenuates the photons, so if you turn the power up you can image through anything
    (though it gets hard with 2.5 inch think solid steel, which cars generally don't contain.)

  14. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You do realize that your average trailer, the kind that semis pull around, has barely any metal in it, right? I've seen in the back of hundreds of them over the years and they're actually mostly wood with a thing metal covering to protect against the rain. It's probably not any thinker than the metal in a soda can.

  15. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It is far too simplistic to say that "X-Rays can't penetrate metal."

    X-rays are absorbed by a material by interacting with the electrons around the nucleus (or with the nucleus itself). This is a statistical question - X-rays will penetrate a short distance into a material. the more dense the material or higher energy (frequency) of the X=rays, the less they will penetrate. See for example
    here.

    There is a table at the bottom of penetration depths through lead as a function of energy of the X-rays.

  16. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by toQDuj · · Score: 4, Informative

    Funny, then, that my research focuses on the behavior of X-rays through metals. X-rays can penetrate metals, depending on the energy of the radiation used. high-energy radiation passes through almost everything, and interacts only a little with intermediate objects. Hence, it is very well possible they are using X-rays for this, but they can pretty much only use it to visualize the internal metallic structure of objects as it will pass right through people.

    --
    Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
  17. again by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, in addition to the pile of civil liberties and massive mounds of cash, we also get to have cancer and miscarriages inflicted on innocents in the name of the failing war on drugs.

  18. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Informative

    The DHS looked at surveillance from vans with long-distance X-ray capability
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/03/02/docs-reveal-tsa-plan-to-body-scan-pedestrians-train-passengers/
    e.g. "drive-by" mode and covert screening from vans http://www.as-e.com/zbv/
    http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/Body_Scan_FOIA_Docs_Feb_2011.pdf
    They build up a 3d like view of metal vehicles. You would think every person in the area would get into shielded rooms (control and guarded waiting room) as the vehicle in question was scanned.
    I guess radiation is now 100% safe in the USA.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  19. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Same AC. Just wanted to clarify due to the present "Score:4, Funny", that I'm completely serious. They contacted me in 2006 for this project, since I have both a programming and physics background. Once I learned more, I told them to stuff it.

  20. Re:What happens when someone builds a trigger... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Think of the settings e.g. bike, car, van, truck, big truck, heavy engineering equipment...
    Your paper work shows your flagged as having sold your home, moved cash around the world and seem to be emigrating .. A final zap good-bye

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  21. Seems like the terrorists won by c0lo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No need for other terrorist attacks: the US govt (TSA) terrorizes and, possible, kills their own citizens. What's more surreal: the citizens pay for it!!

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  22. Motorcyclists? by dltaylor · · Score: 1

    Since these are fixed emplacements, how can I be sure that the device isn't blasting me with X-Rays when I cross back from Canada?

    1. Re:Motorcyclists? by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      Lead lined chaps.

  23. "High energy" misleading by mpoulton · · Score: 4, Informative

    The average energy of the X-ray beam used is three times that used in a CT scan

    This may or may not be a misleading statement. There's inadequate context and specificity in the article. "Energy" here could refer to the total amount of ionizing radiation energy delivered to a person in the scanner, in which case these portal scanners could be considered extremely dangerous, since a typical CT is already a substantial and potentially dangerous radiation dose. Alternatively, the word "energy" may refer to the energy of the individual x-ray photons. In other words, if a typical CT uses 100keV x-rays and these scanners use 300keV. That is probably what was meant. It's clinically meaningless. Within reasonable ranges of several tens of keV to several MeV, only the total absorbed dose really matters health-wise, not the energies of the individual particles.

    With that said, I still don't condone this type of intrusive inspection - even at the border.

    --
    I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    1. Re:"High energy" misleading by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's almost certainly the latter. You need higher energy X-rays to penetrate metal and "energy" is almost never used to refer to intensity, much less dose.

    2. Re:"High energy" misleading by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Also on medical X-rays, metal is completely opaque and shows up as bright white. This machine can see through most of the car's engine block from above 8-(

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:"High energy" misleading by jpmorgan · · Score: 1

      Higher energy x-ray photons actually makes the devices safer, since they have a flatter absorption profile, i.e. the photons are absorbed more uniformly throughout whatever you're scanning, rather than at the surface. This means you can do your imaging with lower overall radiation flux, and thus lower overall absorbed dose. So the backscatter machine is actually much safer than the CT scanner it's being compared to.

      So this point isn't just moot, it's actually completely backwards. Whoever originally made it doesn't know anything about radiation safety and should be ignored.

    4. Re:"High energy" misleading by kaspar_silas · · Score: 1

      It is indeed the latter for the reason given above. The dose or ionizing damage is actually much smaller. The cross section or likelihood of interaction/damage decreases quickly with energy according to http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/XrayMassCoef/ComTab/tissue.html

  24. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by todfm · · Score: 1

    What about the x-rays penetrating window glass?

  25. They have been doing this for months by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    First, I haven't read TFA but, I live 5 min form a us Canada border crossing. They have been doing this for months now. When they scan the vehicles they have the occupants exit the vehicle and stand in a "safe area" over 100 ft away from the truck doing the scanning.

  26. What if you don't consent? by failedlogic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm wondering what if you don't consent to the x-ray. Will they throw your ass in jail for not willing to cooperate? If you are a tourist from Canada, are you allowed to turn-around and not go to the states? (this will obviously complicate any future returns)

    It seems people have already had problems when they turn around at the airport or refuse the other xray equipment.

    I'd like to see a waiver form. Do you consent to an xray? Are you aware that these pose a cancer risk? Are you aware that these machines may not be sufficiently or professionally calibrated which may increase your risk of cancer?

    I'm a Canadian. So long as these scanners are in place, I'm going to reconsider any traveling to the US.

    This policy is in place to catch money/drug/weapon smugglers and presumably terrorists. None of this will halt.

    1. Re:What if you don't consent? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Informative

      Based on my experience with DHS checkpoints (at this time, things will undoubtedly get worse as time progresses), as long as you do not raise your voice or object, they will search your vehicle and all of your persons, including warrant checks for all. If they find anything like a gun or a small bag of drugs, they will run all of the checks and contact the local highway patrol to do the actual booking. This "keeps America safe" while generating plenty of revenue for the states.

      If you do raise your voice or object, they will charge you with a blanket offense like "insulting a federal officer" or "terrorist threats." Don't laugh - an unarmed transgender with both arms in the air was tazed in the crotch by the BLM pigs. S/he was later charged with "terrorist threats."

      Anyway, if you're clean, you will be released eventually, put on a watch-list, and harassed everywhere you go. God bless America.

    2. Re:What if you don't consent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Best thing is just not travel to the US. We don't anymore. Holidays in Cuba are cool!

    3. Re:What if you don't consent? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Do these plastic anti-scanning bags which are used to protect electronic components and hard drives from powerful x-raying machines not work against these x-raying machines in the U.S.?

      I would imagine that it depends on the power of the x-ray. From what I understand the machines designed to inspect baggage are quite powerful - it will fog film even in a protective bag (though these bags are effective against scanners designed to be used around people).

      Also, I imagine that a bunch of opaque objects in a scan that appear suspicious would trigger a manual search.

      This story is crazy. I don't have any objection to using x-rays on unoccupied vehicles, but doing a CT-scan with people inside is just nuts. They already use CT-like technology to screen baggage and it is no big deal since the equipment is operated without people in the vicinity.

    4. Re:What if you don't consent? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Do these plastic anti-scanning bags which are used to protect electronic components and hard drives from powerful x-raying machines not work against these x-raying machines in the U.S.?

      This machine can look through a car's engine block so I'm gonna guess "no."

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:What if you don't consent? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      That, and the bags themselves are usually semi-translucent to visible light. They probably only get away with it so long as the agents don't realize that the disassembled gun bits are different from other small random pieces of metal that would typically be found in a car.

  27. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by aOKInGBfIO49knGzRw1G · · Score: 1

    'X-rays' apparently covers a pretty broad range of energies. They're probably referring to 'hard' or 'high energy' x-rays. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_x-ray (3rd paragraph)
    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_energy_X-rays

  28. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    These xrays are much more powerful (intensity and energy) than medical xrays.

    Which is the problem ( well, the health problem.. the fact we are doing it at all is another issue ) I guess this ensures that i will never be traveling abroad. While I'm already middle aged, i don't want to push my luck and shorten my lifespan, or destroy my quality of life as i get older..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  29. Safety? by mrquagmire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem here is that these machines (and the ones like them at the airports) were never about public nor personal safety. They were always about creating the appearance that we are safer and making a few people with ties to the TSA quite wealthy. Until we actually fix the military-industrial-complex-like problems that plague our government at almost every level, we will increasingly have to deal with these stupid issues.

    --
    giggity
    1. Re:Safety? by hackus · · Score: 1

      You begin by fixing problems like that with a rather cheap device called a guillotine.

      -Hack

      --
      Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  30. Re:social security by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Prob is, he has a point.

    The US has the best healthcare in the world, as long as your insurance is good and properly paid. Get your health insurance cancelled, you'll go bankrupt just trying to stay alive.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  31. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by sqlrob · · Score: 1

    Java? So they're breaking the EULA too?

    Or does control of radiographic equipment not count as a nuclear facility?

  32. Killing US citizens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... one cancer at a time. The terrorists will thank you the favour. :P

  33. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Interesting
  34. One way trip by grimsnaggle · · Score: 2

    Given how things are going in America, the next time I leave I may just not bother with the return.

  35. Re:Thanks for the "help" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because without that operation, the crime lords would have been forced to fight with sticks and stones.

    Right.

    No matter how much the Right Wing Spin Machine wants to get people upset over it, it's not a real crime or offense. It was a rather standard undercover operation which recognized that the contribution was minimal, if non-existent, versus the gain from potentially being able to shut the whole thing down.

    They didn't just do it with no purpose or forethought, but with a salubrious intent.

    The same cannot be said of Nixon's Watergate burglars.

  36. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by gweihir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is likely Gamma, and it is actually an older technology. The DDR (Stasi-run former easter Germany) used Cobalt-60 sources to screen trucks for people hiding in them. Anybody in there would have gotten a serious dosage. Sometimes the drivers got this dosage as well, as the shielding on the Cobalt was retracted to early (this was done for moving trucks). All this was done in secret.

    I think, once again, it is quite clear where the DHS got its inspiration.

    And yes, even X-Rays penetrate metal just fine, just crank up the intensity. Typically Gamma is used though, because it penetrates a lot better at lower intensities. On the minus-side, for Gamma you need radioactive sources, while X-Rays can just be generated with electricity.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  37. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm sure they either have a special license, or simply don't care.

  38. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then you're probably better off emigrating ASAP.

  39. Make them eat their own dogfood by HockeyPuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't understand why the government officials that are funding/sponsoring this crap aren't forced to go through all the scanners and such.

    Why do they get to fly on private jets and such without having to go through the same invasive searches as the rest of us.

    Someone should make all of congress and the executive branch go through this crap before they board their own "all first class", caviar and champagne filled jets.

    How much fuel and money could we save if instead of putting congress/executive branch in first class chairs, we stuffed them into cattle car like the rest of us that fly?

    To quote Animal Farm, "All animals are created equal, yet some animals are more equal than others."

    1. Re:Make them eat their own dogfood by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why the government officials that are funding/sponsoring this crap aren't forced to go through all the scanners and such.

      They're corrupt and their claim to represent you is a sham to keep you shoveling money and power their way as they farm you for a percentage of your productive output.

      Oh, sorry, were you expecting a civics-class answer?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  40. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Mabhatter · · Score: 1

    Anybody designing these machines has to know the rules. The industrial one are necessary to be amped up and VERY clear they are not for people.

    The people selling these know it's a gravy train they riding. Just like the telcos, there is certainly assured immunity from lawsuits when improper maintenance makes these even WORSE for radiation.

  41. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

    X-Rays can penetrate metal. For example, a standard thing in car fabrication is to X-ray the welds to look for defects.

    It's a matter of intensity as with all things - for example your hands look pretty opaque under normal sunlight, but if you put a torch up against them you can see the glow coming through quite clearly.

    The issue here is that the intensity of X-Ray radiation you'd use to scan through a steel and aluminium car body is considerably higher then that used in a conventional medical X-Ray.

  42. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Freedom loving Americans, that takes me back to my childhood to just before the fall of the U.S.S.R. Freedom loving Americans vs the Freedom Hating Commies.

    Strange, some of the stuff we are doing now to preserve our freedom would sound like B-rate uber-U.S.S.R. activities back then.

  43. Re:Thanks for the "help" by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    Hey not only did they do it once, they did it twice. There's a second gun-runner program that was dumping guns. "white" something or other.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  44. gamma rays are being used in some situations by decora · · Score: 1

    you can look up MVACIS, there is a pic of one in the wikipedia article on backscatter x-rays (hmm wonder how that got there)

  45. Re:social security by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

    So maybe Congress can create a health-care "reform" bill so complicated no one can understand it, but filled with enough time bombs and hidden boobytraps to eventually crash the private insurance industry. Wow, that's an incredibly cynical idea. I can't believe I could think of something so sinister.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  46. Magnatron Van by Joe+U · · Score: 1

    Can someone here please whip up a design for a magnatron projection van? You know, for entertainment purposes.

  47. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by trout007 · · Score: 1

    I sure hope so otherwise I've been putting RT inspection on my welds notes for no reason.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  48. Re:Canadian border has had these... by PPH · · Score: 1

    He and his wife were allowed to exit their vehicle before it was scanned.

    That's nice. But the pics in TFA appear to have a person sitting in the driver's seat.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  49. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Also, as the guy below stated, freedom-loving Americans (and foreigners with business in the 'States) need to be more proactive at expressing their displeasure of the DHS.

    I couldn't agree more. I make my displeasure plain to every DHS employee I meet...but that's not really enough, is it? What kind of tactics would you suggest? I'd be up for anything nonviolent that would heighten the public's awareness of this threat to our freedoms. We need something like the "Occupy" movement, but with a more specific target, realistic objectives, and the self-discipline not to be provoked to counterproductive actions.

  50. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

        No risk, such as radiation, is too great in the face of security. Consider this kind of system. It politely asks people to move away. Side effects may include burns, cancer, and death.

        I love our country. I'd love it more if they'd stop trying to kill me in the name of security. In the future, this whole period will be looked at with great disdain The question will be, how many will survive to tell the tales? The cancer clusters from those who operated the equipment and frequently passed through it will keep those numbers down.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  51. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by mug+funky · · Score: 1

    one problem is they're also looking for hidden passengers, no doubt.

    maybe they should get the "real" passengers to hop out, then nuke the everloving fuck out of the car to take care of any illegals that may be being smuggled.

    sounds pretty horrible to me though.

  52. Re:Disregard by mug+funky · · Score: 1

    i love that /. exists - ever since 4chan jumped the shark, i've had nowhere to go.

  53. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by mug+funky · · Score: 1

    this is fucking scary. considering software control of these machines, even in mission critical stuff can go so horribly wrong (stuxnet + therac-25 = this).

    why do i have to go to the USA this year? fuck it all.

  54. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by msobkow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Harassing TSA agents, DHS inspectors, or even the police is counter-productive. While there are "bad apples" who abuse their authority, most are just regular people trying to do a job which means constantly dealing with pissed off people. After a stint in a support and warranty call center, I can really sympathize with them -- there's nothing THEY can do about it, same as I couldn't wave a magic wand and make a warranty valid a few weeks after it expired, no matter HOW much a customer yelled at me.

    Stick to hounding the government and the three letter agencies that make the DECISIONS to deploy these people, but let them do their job until their jobs are eliminated.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  55. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by msobkow · · Score: 1

    I stand corrected -- repeatedly, from many posts.

    All I really know about radiation is what we were taught in high school -- I'm no expert.

    Thank you one and all for educating me. :)

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  56. Gamma is mostly used for portability by dbIII · · Score: 2

    On the plus side, gamma sources are a lot more portable and don't need electricity. It's still a pain carrying the things up ladders though becuase of all that lead required to sheild even very small sources.
    With a gamma source just about all you can do is open the door (I've read about filters to reduce intensity but never seen one). With an X-ray source there is a lot of control, and apparently it's a lot easier to collimate. I can't remember how thick the thickest welds and casting I saw X-rayed but it was certainly well over six inches thick and that wasn't at maximum intensity. Gamma was used on some welds on a blast furnace body that were around two feet thick.
    Neutron sources get used in soil testing or for general purpose radiography by short-lived loonies in the third world that don't know any better than using reactor fuel to do the job.

    1. Re:Gamma is mostly used for portability by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Good info. You obviously know more about this than I do.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Gamma is mostly used for portability by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I haven't touched it in nearly 15 years and was an engineer and not a real radiographer. While I could interpret the images I didn't ever do any unsupervised exposure calculations, so I mostly just helped out moving the gear so more could be shot in the same time window. Typically everybody on a very large area of a site (or an entire site) goes to lunch offsite while the radiography is done - or the same sort of thing for a period late at night. The idea is that everyone that isn't under direct visual supervision of someone with a clue about radiation safety is hundreds of meters away so isn't going to wander within twenty meters of the source when the door is open.
      Others will have more current information and more experience.

      Anyway, the thing that scares the hell out of me about the TSA stuff is that no trustworthy third party has to look at it so you just have to take their word that radiation safety is even being considered at all. Their operators don't need to be trained to any sort of standard recognised by any authority anywhere so can not be trusted to safely operate the equipment. I'm not going to the USA any time soon but if I do I'm going to make sure I don't get exposed to any sort of amataur x-ray even if that means I have to get deported for refusing it.

  57. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Harassing TSA agents, DHS inspectors, or even the police is counter-productive. While there are "bad apples" who abuse their authority, most are just regular people trying to do a job which means constantly dealing with pissed off people. After a stint in a support and warranty call center, I can really sympathize with them -- there's nothing THEY can do about it, same as I couldn't wave a magic wand and make a warranty valid a few weeks after it expired, no matter HOW much a customer yelled at me.

    Stick to hounding the government and the three letter agencies that make the DECISIONS to deploy these people, but let them do their job until their jobs are eliminated.

    Since they're only following orders.

  58. X-Rays same as Gamma rays by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Informative

    Gamma radiation I could see, but X-Rays have a GREAT deal of difficulty penetrating metal.

    There is no real distinction between X-rays and Gamma rays in terms of their properties. They are named based on how they were produced and their application. Create them by accelerating electrons into a metal target in a hospital and you call them X-rays. Create them in nuclear or particle decays and they are called gamma rays. In fact if you create them by smashing high energy electrons into a metal target in a particle physics lab we'll call them gamma rays as well.

    As for penetrating metal we make calorimeters designed to measure photon energies which consist of plates of dense metal - like lead, depleted uranium etc. As the photon penetrates these metal sheets it makes a shower of particles and we count the particles in the gaps between the metal plates. Such detectors are usually metres thick for GeV photon energies (probably at least 1,000 times higher than what these machines use - I hope!). But the point should be clear - give a photon enough energy and it penetrates lead and depleted uranium - so the thin sheet metal in a car is not an issue. However I'd not want to be driving a car which is being subjected to that.

    1. Re:X-Rays same as Gamma rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hi,

      X-rays are created by chemical or mechanical processes and gamma rays are created by nuclear processes or processes involving elementary particles. For example, a Tc-99m relaxes into the usual form of Tc-99 and emits a gamma ray. A Be-7 captures one of its 1s electrons to become Li-7, an electron drops down to take its place and out comes an X-ray.

    2. Re:X-Rays same as Gamma rays by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      X-rays are created by chemical or mechanical processes and gamma rays are created by nuclear processes or processes involving elementary particles.

      Sorry but that is not correct. A electron is an elementary particle. If I have a 100 keV electron and I fire it into a metal target the photons it produces would traditionally be called X-rays. However if I take an electron with 100 GeV of energy in the middle of the ATLAS detector and it hits a sheet of metal in the detector we call the photons it produces gammas. Both of these are mechanical processes involving elementary particles and I've never heard of any chemical process even coming close to the energy needed for X-rays. So really the distinction between X-rays and gamma rays is very blurred: it is partly production mechanism, part context and part energy.

  59. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Unoriginal_Nickname · · Score: 2

    Irradiated yes, radioactive no. The only way that truck will be of danger to anyone is if it runs over them.

    Gamma radiation doesn't cause things to become radioactive. A common, really good and totally safe use of gamma radiation is to sterilize vacuum-packed food.

  60. Re:social security by bmo · · Score: 1

    You're joking, but what do you think the "Donut Hole" with Medicare Part B is all about?

    If you can't afford the drugs out of pocket, you die before filling the donut hole.

    --
    BMO

  61. Re:social security by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

    You're kidding me, right? The so-called 'Obamacare' bill that got passed was just a bailout for the healthcare insurance 'industry'. Healthcare insurance never needed a bailout. It was written by the lobbyists for the healtcare insurance industry. Do you really think they woulda written in little booby-traps to kill off the corporations that sign their paychecks? Be real.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  62. Papers Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Welcome to East Germany / Soviet Union, 21st century American style.

  63. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    90% make the rest look bad

  64. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by smellotron · · Score: 1

    your hands look pretty opaque under normal sunlight, but if you put a torch up against them you can see the glow coming through quite clearly

    Is that British English (i.e. "flashlight"), or are you Just That Crazy?

  65. Title by cloakedpegasus · · Score: 1

    Everyone loves to hate the TSA. The TSA is just the dog, go after it's masters. By keeping the masters in office, the people are really saying they approve of the TSA. Sometimes I think the people in this country deserve the treatment they receive by the elite.

    1. Re:Title by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      Who should I vote for if I want the TSA abolished? Seems to me that neither the Democrats or Republicans are interested in dismantling it.

  66. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    Yep, I interviewed at a company back in the 90s that made equipment to do X-ray inspection of steel welds. We're talking about things like 6-inch thick steel plates (and thicker), welded together; they would X-ray the joints to make sure the weld quality was sufficient. X-rays penetrate steel just fine, but you need very, very powerful equipment. Using it on a human is probably a death sentence, or at the very least will cut many years off your lifespan.

  67. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by doccus · · Score: 1

    After the informed AC and Huxley.. above, NOW i understand the cancer threat .. and if it's this intense, it's not only likely, but probable. How can this be legal? Or is it that any method is justified according to the stated ends.. and to hell with the rights of the populace?

  68. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows X-Rays can't penetrate metal.

    Sure they can. You just don't want to be inside the car being it with the high energy x-rays involved...

  69. Re:social security by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

    It was written by the lobbyists for the healtcare insurance industry. Do you really think they woulda written in little booby-traps to kill off the corporations that sign their paychecks? Be real.

    Your belief in the honesty of lobbyists is really touching. Kind of like a politician who stays bought I guess?

    --
    =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  70. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Re How can this be legal?
    The workers will get free gov health care till the very end. A family alone suffers an early death and builds a photo/flag/medal area in their home to a loved one.
    The real trick will be the cause of death and the tissue samples. The tissue samples will not be kept for educational use and will be dumped after an "outcry" over what a gov hospital can legally keep/cost cutting/space needed/faith.
    The database of deaths can be smoothed over with a normal, expected ratio of middle class nursing home causes - a strange cancer in a "young" person (40-60yo) becomes ~pneumonia.
    This will ensure any book chapter writing dr/prof/phd in 20-40 years with good math skills and a US wide medical database can never do any meaningful epidemic work.
    No people to interview, collect saved/outside dr notes/tissue samples/slides or hear the words he/she worked for the gov in this area all their life..... I will give you other numbers ...
    Their will be 0 legal problems in the US.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  71. Pregnant? by vikisonline · · Score: 2

    The question noone seems to have addressed. What happens if you are pregnant? Ooops sorry?

    1. Re:Pregnant? by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      I'm pregnant and my dentist refused to do dental x-rays... Here's a hint, dental X-Rays are a low, targeted (not at the abdomen) dose and they put they nice lead blanket on you. Yet, despite the fact that the amount of radiation directed at the fetus would be less than flying cross country they refused to do it. I bet they just won't tell you. Kind of like at the airport.

  72. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I was in the 4th grade, our social studies teacher explained that America was better than "Russia" because of a number of things they did that we didn't do. Every day, we are doing more and more of those things right here in America.

  73. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You weren't actively harming people. You were not acting against their Constitutional rights. You weren't acting against their human rights. The TSA agents may very well be actively harming people. Just following orders has been determined NOT to be a valid defense even for a draftee in the military. It certainly isn't for a civilian job with the TSA.

  74. Re:social security by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

    It was written by the lobbyists for the healthcare insurance industry. Do you really think they woulda written in little booby-traps to kill off the corporations that sign their paychecks? Be real.

    Your belief in the honesty of lobbyists is really touching. Kind of like a politician who stays bought I guess?

    I've been around the block a few times. I'm pushing 60. And there ain't no way a lobbyist will spend his client's money in such a way to put that client out of business. If he did that, he'd never work as a lobbyist again, nobody would hire him. Why would they, when he'd put them out of business? You really think some CEO used to a life of hookers and blow wants to go get themself a real job and rub elbows with us plebians in the (shudder) middle class? They fought their way through Harvard Business School and the Wharton School just to keep that from happening.

    From the point of view of the lobbyist, any legislation that increases his boss's clout or profits is a Good Thing, and doing whatever it takes to do just that with a politician is enlightened self-interest from the viewpoint of the lobbyist. They're not the movers and shakers, they're the errand boys in $1500 suits delivering the mail with a slicker, hipper rap than their bosses. If they didn't have that hipper, slicker rap than their bosses, they wouldn't be necessary.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  75. It's time.... by crhylove · · Score: 1

    to replace all the members of government and the corporations that run them. This is sickening and an egregious affront to the constitution and even more so to the spirit of liberty that bore the constitution.

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  76. This is news? by metaforest · · Score: 1

    I have been seeing these backscatter rigs both stationary and portable on the NW frontier for 2 years.

  77. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

    I don't think it matters. Java is not certified for medical applications either. Of course most C compilers aren't either. But at least some are. I don't there is a single certified java implementation.

    Case in point i am aware of a company that is trying to use smart phones to help diabetics. However the smart phone is nothing more than a glorified display since they are not permitted to be used directly on a critical piece of medical equipment. There is a certified piece of hardware that does the critical lifting.

    --
    The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  78. Why? by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    Why use horribly expensive technology when cheap alternatives are available - alternatives that most likely are both safer and more effective?

    These scanners cannot find anything a few trained dogs couldn't find just as well, and the dogs will be faster, cheaper and a lot less dangerous, even if they bite random people all the time...

    We've had money dogs, drug dogs and explosives dogs for decades now, and any dog would most likely spot a hidden person or hidden exotic animals.

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    1. Re:Why? by roothog · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why use horribly expensive technology when cheap alternatives are available

      Because horribly expensive technology funds companies who fund lobbyists who fund congressmen.

  79. Win-win by dsmithhfx · · Score: 1

    It will only kill furriners and turncoats.

  80. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by dkf · · Score: 1

    your hands look pretty opaque under normal sunlight, but if you put a torch up against them you can see the glow coming through quite clearly

    Is that British English (i.e. "flashlight"), or are you Just That Crazy?

    GP might be mad as a loon for all I know, but it is British English (with that interpretation) all the same. Guess the light would also shine through for a bit with the other kind of torch too, but only for the moment or so before the screaming from the burns started.

    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  81. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    there's nothing THEY can do about it,

    Yeah. It's a real shit the way that they get shot in the back of the head if they try to leave the DHS. Kind of like the old Sonderkommando in the concentration camps : first task is to execute the guy whose job you're taking, so that you have no doubt about what happens to traitors who try to leave the organisation.

    Have they started to house the DHS/ TSA employees (and of course, their families) in government-controlled barracks? To stop the children learning things that might prevent them becoming good little Bush-Youth when they get older.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  82. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by RockDoctor · · Score: 2

    but X-Rays have a GREAT deal of difficulty penetrating metal.

    So ... all those X-rays I've seen being taken of welds on pressure vessels and structural nodes ... are just fakes. Well, that makes me feels so much safer as I watch rust-cicles getting longer on the support frames for the drilling platform.

    Trust people like Fred to be lying about the NDT work he gets paid for. He must just bash up the pictures in Photoshop. All the barrier chains, warning tannoys and other palaver is just smoke and mirrors.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  83. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by 1s44c · · Score: 4, Informative

    Since they're only following orders.

    The worst crimes in the history of humanity were carried out by people who were just following orders.

    People following orders are still morally culpable for their acts.

  84. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by 1s44c · · Score: 2

    1) It uses X-rays
    2) The device is controlled by a PC running a Java app
    3) It was put together by freelancers

    Posting AC because NDA

    Does no-one else really get the -OH-MY-GOD!- factor in this?

    This system is going to cause innocent people to suffer a slow, prolonged, and painful death for no improvement in security.

    America has already become a fascist country. Do something about it.

  85. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Then fly, and opt for the groping.

    No particle radiation involved there.

    (Yes, I know there's a third option, but that requires 218 Congress critters + 60 Senators + 1 President to wake up. Or, 288 Congress Critters + 67 Senators. Clearly 1 President == 70 Congressmen + 7 Senators.)

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  86. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by N0Man74 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since they're only following orders.

    The worst crimes in the history of humanity were carried out by people who were just following orders.

    People following orders are still morally culpable for their acts.

    Actually, I think most of us picked up that is what the GP was already implying by his humorous 5 word interjection, but please, don't let me interrupt your needless exposition. ;-)

  87. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    These X-ray machines are a massive health risk, this is one of those things that people will look back at in the future and think "Wow, WTF were these primitive morons thinking?"

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  88. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    Harassing TSA agents, DHS inspectors, or even the police is counter-productive. While there are "bad apples" who abuse their authority, most are just regular people trying to do a job which means constantly dealing with pissed off people. After a stint in a support and warranty call center, I can really sympathize with them -- there's nothing THEY can do about it, same as I couldn't wave a magic wand and make a warranty valid a few weeks after it expired, no matter HOW much a customer yelled at me.

    Stick to hounding the government and the three letter agencies that make the DECISIONS to deploy these people, but let them do their job until their jobs are eliminated.

    Doesn't sound like you think it's actually counter-productive, but rather just un-productive. At any rate, I'm with the GP and will be doing it, productive or not. I'm not looking to get better service, I'm just looking to vent my spleen on the proximate cause of my problems. If it's a drone just following orders, too bad.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  89. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    I agree with you its not worth doing because its not productive not because its wrong. Nobody forced them to take that job.

    In your case it would have been wrong to treat you poorly, there was nothing unethical about your processing of warranty claims, well unless you knew your employer was avoiding honoring legitimate claims consistent with the original contract and you were helping them to do that.

    These TSA and other Homeland security folks know perfectly well what they are doing is extra-Constitutional. The know the DOJ works tirelessly to make sure the real issues never get heard by the Supreme Court and individual complaints are always decided on narrow tangentially at best related issues; or if they can't be the complainant is shuffled of to disappear someplace like Camp X-ray. They know this and they take these jobs anyway. The are collaborators, morally indistinguishable from the enemy they just lack the class.

       

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  90. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I don't know what kind of trailer you're talking about, but the metal in a standard shipping container is MUCH thicker than the metal in a soda can. The thinnest metal is in the side walls and roof and it's at least 2mm of heavy, solid steel. A soda can's thickness is much less, about the same as a human hair.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  91. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by ifrag · · Score: 1

    These X-ray machines are a massive health risk, this is one of those things that people will look back at in the future and think "Wow, WTF were these primitive morons thinking?"

    Don't panic, if enough of these devices are installed we can avoid that problem entirely.

    --
    Fear is the mind killer.
  92. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Considering that the walls, roof and floor of an 18 wheeler trailer is not metal, xrays penetrate just fine.

    LOLWUT?

    There might be some cargo trailers with fiberglass sides but standard shipping containers are made entirely of plain old steel, always.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  93. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Unless we all end up sterilized due to them, and the human race simply vanishes.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  94. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by budgenator · · Score: 1

    X-rays are just a color of light, it's just beyond ultraviolet, and just like certain materials are clear in visible light and others are colored because it blocks certain colors of light, certain metals block certain colors of X-rays. Typically scientists and medical people don't think of X-rays in their color temperature, but by their energies. Medical X-rays are generally in the range of 145Kv, Dental are 70-90Kv and both are filtered through a 1.5 - 2mm aluminum filter.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  95. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    Shipping containers have to survive being stacked high on ships in high seas, craned arround ports and so-on. Therefore they are built far more sturdily than regular lorry trailers which really only need to keep the weather out.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  96. Re:social security by dj245 · · Score: 1

    The US has the best healthcare in the world, as long as your insurance is good and properly paid. Get your health insurance cancelled, you'll go bankrupt just trying to stay alive.

    You don't even need your insurance canceled for that to happen.I have what some people would consider "good" insurance, and it is still damned expensive. For example, the birth of a baby would cost me about $15-20,000 without insurance (for a normal non-C section). With insurance, it is "only" going to cost me about $4000. I have a good job, so I can afford $4000 with a bit of sacrifice and wiping out some of my savings. A lot of people would either be put on a long payment plan or may even be bankrupted.

    If the baby is born in Japan, the cost (I am told) is approximately $8,000 and various government programs and private insurance reduce that to around $3-4000 depending on where you live. Your company may give you a loan, and in certain places the government *pays you* (not a tax break, an actual check) every month until the baby is a certain age.

    In Canada, universal government healthcare means you pay nothing.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  97. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Have they started to house the DHS/ TSA employees (and of course, their families) in government-controlled barracks? To stop the children learning things that might prevent them becoming good little Bush-Youth when they get older.

    Yeah, that Bush sure sucks. I can hardly wait until Obama takes office so he can put a stop to all this.

  98. I'm a Canadian immigrant to the US by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

    And this pisses me off to no end. You mean to tell me that I now have to take an increased risk of cancer every time I just want to go home to see my family?

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  99. Re:social security by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

    You're starting to get it.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  100. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by sessamoid · · Score: 1

    And this should serve as an object lesson about speaking authoritatively on subjects on which you have little to no knowledge and training, especially on a tech heavy forum where there are CERTAIN to be experts on almost every technical and scientific field known to man.

    --
    "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
  101. Unnecessary Risk by Muondecay · · Score: 2

    X-Ray Scientist here. I work with both XRF and XRD instruments for commercial and academic use. The simple fact is this:

    "Research indicates that enough data of exposed population exists to show that there is no safe dose, no safe-dose rate, nor a safe dose threshold..." - Wolfgang Koehnlein, Direktor of the Institue for Radiation Biology, University of Munster, Germany

    In other words, every single high-energy photon that hits you has a chance to cause damage to cell structure or DNA, leading to cancer. These devices WILL increase cancer risk., without question. Safety limits exist to account for REASONABLE exposure, due to necessity or unavoidable exposure due to voluntary actions (job hazzard, etc.). The DHS may argue that the risk is low, but it is still a risk, and an unnecessary one at that.

  102. Double duty by Neutral_Observer · · Score: 1

    Occupants should step out, car goes through a car wash type scanner, which also neutralizes any living organisms in the vehicle before it comes out the other end.

  103. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by sjames · · Score: 1

    You missed. Can you not think REALLY hard and understand what II'm saying?

  104. the U.S, by consumer_whore · · Score: 1

    Is it a police state yet?

  105. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by jc42 · · Score: 1

    Gamma radiation I could see, but X-Rays have a GREAT deal of difficulty penetrating metal.

    Hmmm ... Both of our cars seem to have a good portion of their surface made of glass, not metal. The area is enough to expose roughly half of our bodies to radiation (like the visual spectrum) that can penetrate glass. Do car windows also block X-rays? How about gamma-rays?

    And where do you get a car that's made entirely of metal? They don't seem to be for sale hereabouts.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  106. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    OK, since you know what you're on about...

    In the story's image, you can see clearly through the engine block, but the driver is quite strongly imaged.... ... is that even possible? Anything that can go through that much aluminum and barely ghost it... would barely (if at all) even image something like flesh?

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  107. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Not very practiced with links, are you?

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  108. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Since they're only people.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  109. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Good point. But if you've got the intellect of a gnat and the education of a cat, your employment options are severely limited in this economy, so maybe they don't have a choice... :p

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  110. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by legojenn · · Score: 1

    I have experienced a mobile x-ray unit on the Canada-US border crossing once. They wouldn't explain what they were doing, but since the border drones get everyone to get out of their cars and take their pets with them, it was a pretty good assumption that they were pumping our vehicles full of radiation to snoop around.

    --
    I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
  111. Isn't it clear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The TSA are the terrorists!

    They sexually assault people and try to give them cancer.

    WTF!?!

  112. Fightclub by EkriirkE · · Score: 1

    Someone do drive-bys with EMPs please. Destroy their equipment with as little electronic collateral damage as possible.

    --
    from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
  113. Ask an attendant to drive through by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    This is a pretty stupid idea, but I would have less of a problem with it if you can ask an attendant to drive through with your car while you sit safely out of range.

  114. Everyone knows X-Rays can't penetrate metal. by tchall · · Score: 1

    Except those of us who used to watch as NDI labs routinely X-rayed welds, castings, and even whole aircraft to discover hidden flaws in the metal...

    There are some nice water cooled X-Ray tubes that woudn't fit in your dentist's office

    If that isn't sufficent even more powerful gamma ray sources are avialable too...

  115. Re:Disregard by mug+funky · · Score: 1

    4chan was never good

  116. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by ks*nut · · Score: 1

    Yes, they are just "following orders." Now where have I heard that line of reasoning before?

  117. Re:social security by ks*nut · · Score: 1

    No, the American healthcare system is an incredibly expensive response to the fact that, through our fast-food tailored diets, we are killing ourselves.

  118. Who Won? by ks*nut · · Score: 1

    Americans have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Explain to me how al-Quida has not won.

  119. Re:social security by Hythlodaeus · · Score: 1

    You don't have good insurance. When my daughter was born, I paid $150 out of pocket.

    --
    For great justice.
  120. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    I don't think the explanation needs to be that complicated.

    This isn't a long-term strategy -- it's an expensive system that benefits the contractors that build it which will be abandoned in a decade over health concerns once something better is invented. Then more money will be thrown at contractors to impliment that.

    "Health concerns" in the short term can very easily be brushed aside. You don't need to suppress research, it's fine for all of this to be right out in the open. The threat of "terrorism" and weapons smuggling will be seen as the greater evil that needs to be protected against, and we've seen numerous times over the past decade that we're willing to allow the government to sacrifice time, money, and freedom in order to "secure" us.

  121. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Unless we all end up sterilized due to them, and the human race simply vanishes.

    Yeah, there's pretty much zero chance of that. :-)

  122. Re:I don't think it's X-Rays by justthinkit · · Score: 1
    This was quite informative, except for this:

    the more dense the material or higher energy (frequency) of the X=rays, the less they will penetrate.

    That should be:
    "the more dense the material or LOWER energy (frequency) of the X=rays"

    In other words, to penetrate further they just bump up the /frequency (i.e.energy). Or to stop more x-rays of a given energy, they need to thicken the material the x-rays are trying to pass through.

    --
    I come here for the love