Slashdot Mirror
Maine Senator Wants Independent Study of TSA's Body Scanners
OverTheGeicoE writes "U.S. Senator Susan Collins, the top Republican on the homeland security committee, plans to introduce a bill that would require a new health study of the X-ray body scanners used to screen airline passengers nationwide. If the bill becomes law, TSA would be required to choose an 'independent laboratory' to measure the radiation emitted by a scanner currently in use at an airport checkpoint and use the data to produce a peer-reviewed study, to be submitted to Congress, based on its findings. The study would also evaluate the safety mechanisms on the machine and determine 'whether there are any biological signs of cellular damage caused by the scans.' Many Slashdotters are or have been involved in science. Is this a credible experimental protocol? Is it reasonable to expect an organization accused of jeopardizing the health and safety of hundreds of millions of air travelers to pick a truly unbiased lab? Would any lab chosen deliver a critical report and risk future funding? Should the public trust a study of radiology and human health designed by a US Senator whose highest degree is a bachelor's degree in government?"
TSA must have gotten their marching orders recently. They have been pretty strict about pushing as many people through those radiation machines as possible for that last couple of months. Prior, you could pony up to the metal detectors without much hassle. Now, you are told to stand in the long imaging line. And this is the case at several airports I travel through.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
The real investigation should be who got rich from all this.
Each state should be entitled to pick their own lab to conduct the study on the scanners. Yes, that means 50 independent studies by local labs. More if we go counting DC and other territories.
Also, should they find any negative effects; any citizen of the state that has been exposed to the scanners should be entitled to an exponential sum for each exposure (since any additional exposure would not just additively increase cancer risks.)
THAT would be a responsible law to go for. But who am I kidding, the TSA now controls too much money, enough to lobby its way into doing anything they want.
I'd imagine there is a staff member who consulted scientists in determining the proposed experimental protocol. Or at least I hope there is.
Not all legislation is driven by Hollywood lobbyists, is it?
The single most significant missing component in all our security efforts is a cost analysis. Are we spending too much, too little, or about the right amount? Some say that measuring that is hard, and it is. But measurement is inherently approximation (there is no such thing as a ruler that is exactly twelve inches long). Once you accept that, it becomes much easier to measure lots of things (see also: How to Measure Anything).
Can we begin with a very rough boundary estimate? I think we can. Here's one I did in my head while driving through the desert recently:
I am willing to accept having two of my one thousand closest lifetime United States citizen acquaintances die in terrorist attacks. That is an acceptable risk level. If we can get there, I feel we have done all we need to do. By the same token, if we are spending any significant amount of money to go beyond that level, I am less supportive. I don't think it is worthwhile to catch every terrorist any more than it is worthwhile to catch every speeder or jaywalker. Two in one thousand, lifetime, sounds like about the right number.
OK, so, how does that work out as an annualized US death toll? (please note: I did this in my head, and am mostly just regurgitating it here -- please correct me if the math is off)
Desired Death Rate: 0.002 per lifetime
Lifetime Length: 80 years
Annualized Rate: 0.00002 risk per-annum per-person (equals 0.998 chance each person will reach 80 before dying from terrorism)
United States Population: 300,000,000
My Maximum Acceptable Annual U.S. Terrorism Deaths: 6,000
I think we should be trying to stay under 6,000 United States citizens dying from terrorism every year. It is the acceptable rate, to me, in terms of the risk of my acquaintances dying. Any significant spending we do to get under that number is -- to me -- emotionalism, not rationalism. Given we haven't reached 6,000 in the past 20 years, I suspect we are spending too much.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I think it's unfair to dismiss a suggestion by a member of Congress just because their educational and experience background doesn't match up with every possible legislative issue that could possibly cross their desk. This is why Congressmen have staffs with more diverse educational backgrounds, and I'm 99% certain that whatever he proposes is going to have been written by one of his staffers. Of course, if you're a cynic, then it was written by a lobbyist, vetted by a staffer then proposed by the Representative from Maine, but hey, I don't think what he's proposing is all that unreasonable.
Why do you single out Republicans?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20023108-281.html "Senate Democrats back TSA 'virtual strip searches"
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
How much actual science has been done on the effects of THz radiation? Man-made emitters of THz radiation are relatively new and certainly intentional exposure has not been subjected to the same amount of research as IR or microwaves. The current ANSI laser and IEEE RF limits [in the THZ region] are based on extrapolation, not actual measurement. Some LANL research has shown that T-waves can unzip DNA - I'm not comfortable with extrapolated data when the number of people intentionally exposed is so high.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
When I see "should of" or such similar alliteracy*, it says to me that whoever wrote it reads very little and is therefore probably not very well educated. What annoys me is when their lack of literacy makes it hard to parse; loose != lose, for example. Did you lose the dogs of war, or did you loose them? OTOH if I see "now" instead if "know" I assume that's just a typo, anybody can make typos no matter how intelligent or educated they are.
*No, I didn't mean illiteracy. To misquote Twain, an alliterate is no better off than an illiterate.
Free Martian Whores!
I prefer once more into/unto the breach. But loosing the dogs of war will do fine, thank you.
I try very hard not to judge people by their misuse of words, but to me there are some mistakes that instantly set my brain into "this person is 13 years old" mode. /. it is harder to judge. Is the person young, English a second (or third or fourth) language, trolling for Grammar Nazi posts? /. is somewhere between blog postings and IM convos, in the former I expect excellent grammar, while in the latter (and on /.) you can not correct errors once you've posted...
Namely when someone uses there instead of their (or less commonly their instead of they're).
Now I should know better because I correct my wife's papers and she's got a fistful of degrees and still makes homonym errors galore, but the fact remains it makes you look less skilled.
Here on
Also,
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
I can not tell a wise man
By the way he speaks or spells.
But the care he takes in what he does
Shows his care in what he tells.
So I shall call a man a fool
If he doesn't care enough to make a poem without a massive non-sequitur.
Not a sentence!
...before there was a cancer cluster amongst TSA workers in Boston, and before the frequently flying public was exposed to that much danger. Yes, it's good that it's being looked at now, but it was absolutely irresponsible to deploy these in the first place.