TSA (Finally) Studying Health Effects of Body Scanners

An anonymous reader writes "A 2011 ProPublica series found that the TSA had glossed over the small cancer risk posed by its X-ray body scanners at airports across the country. While countries in Europe have long prohibited the scanners, the TSA is just now getting around to studying the health effects." I'm not worried; the posters and recorded announcements at the airport say these scanners raise no health concerns.

Comments

This is a distraction from the real issue.

[InvisibleClergy]

The real issue with these was never the health effects. That was just an extra thing that privacy advocates tossed in there to lend additional weight to their arguments. The primary argument against these things is the fact that they are a violation of privacy. Arguing the health issue just weakens objections, when it gets defeated.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[somersault]

Personally I don't care about that kind of "privacy". I'd say the time I stopped caring was around the time I lost my virginity. I do care about getting cancer though.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't speak for everyone, but personally I value my lack of cancer more than I do my privacy.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[Joce640k]

Well, that's OK then. So long as YOU don't care, neither should anybody else.

The rape victims, the sexually assaulted, the people with any sort of problem should just get over it, right?

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[shentino]

Sounds like a strawman plant.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

The cancer risk is hypothetical, and if it exists it is almost certainly minute.

Meanwhile, everybody is getting their rights violated, all the time, for certain. That in itself should be more than enough to toss the things.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[Microlith]

It's more than that. It's a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment. They have no good reason to search so invasively each and every person in this country who flies. There's no basis for them to believe that every person is a possible terrorist. It's just a blatant, idiotic expansion of powers and a jobs program for the terminally unemployable so jackasses can stand behind the metal detectors and look like they're important.

The TSA has accomplished precisely shit in the entirety of its existence. It's successfully engaged in mission creep as it starts doing things for the DEA and whatnot, and managed to violate the dignity of a growing number of people. I have no respect for anyone that works for the TSA, on both a professional and personal level.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Darwin would not say that. Herbert Spencer, the person who originated the phrase "survival of the fittest", on the other hand might. "Social Darwinism", eugenics, etc. had little to do with Darwin's own work and writings and more to do with people using his work to push those ideas.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[blueg3]

There are problems with many of the arguments against the scanners.
The medical danger should be a concern to everyone, but evidence suggests that the danger is negligible (though possibly nonzero).
The privacy danger is patently obvious and verifiable (though sometimes overstated), but it's just not a concern to many.
The cost-benefit argument has the problem that the "benefit" can be very difficult to accurately measure and the government may choose not to disclose data about whether the devices are beneficial. (This is, regardless, the argument I prefer.)

That's not to say there are no problems with arguments for the scanners. At the very least (the very least), it makes sense to use the microwave scanners over the X-ray backscatter. The medical danger is known to be zero, which is even better than the backscatter's best-case of "is probably zero". Even if they're less effective, we don't seem to be relying on either system to be particularly effective.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[Joce640k]

Don't you think you should care about both of those things even if one of them doesn't particularly bother YOU, personally?

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

As others have said, I'll believe that the cancer risk is hypothetical or neglegible, but ONLY if every scanner must go through the same rigorous requirements needed for any other medical x-ray machine to be certified.

As it stands, they're built by the lowest bidder (or whoever happens to be related to someone high up in the TSA, which is possibly even worse, since they're likely corrupt as hell too). So while they're *supposed* to put out X amount of radiation, I'd like to know that it's literally an physical impossibility that it can ever put out 5X or 500X radiation due to cutting corners or poor design.

Until those are done, I'll consider the cancer risk of those to potentially be the same as the Shoe-fitting fluoroscope. Because seriously, who's telling me they're safe right now? The people that are extremely biased towards, and have the vast majority of their existence based on, the scanners being safe, after being built by the lowest common denominator.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[TheGratefulNet]

recreational strawman use has been recently voted legal in 2 states.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[sl4shd0rk]

I stopped caring was around the time I lost my virginity.

Ha.. nice try. You're clearly lying. This is Slashdot.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[Microlith]

That too. I always make sure to point out that I'd like for my stuff to not be stolen, and ask 'em to hurry up with calling over the ballgrabber.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[Solandri]

Privacy is the only real issue with the scanners. You get a much higher radiation dose from the flight (less atmosphere to block cosmic rays) than you do from the scanners. Complaining about radiation from the scanners is kinda like complaining the cooling mister the public swimming pool has set up is getting you wet just before you jump into the pool. If you're that worried about getting cancer you'd drive instead of fly, just like if you were that worried about getting wet you wouldn't be swimming.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[loneDreamer]

The medical danger should be a concern to everyone, but evidence suggests that the danger is negligible (though possibly nonzero).

But, ironically, bigger than the terrorism risk it's designed to prevent. Apart from the rest of your opinion, which I share, it also feels incredibly stupid to spend trucks of money to actually INCREASE my risk, especially given the economic circumstances and alternatives.

And I'm not even considering that how efficient the scanners are in preventing the terrorism risk in general, which I deem next to zero too. So all things considered, you spend a lot, hazzle and disrespect people considerably, step over privacy rights, don't prevent much and end up adding a new, bigger risk. Fucking brilliant!

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[Chaos Incarnate]

Now, now. They've accomplished a bit more than "precisely shit". They've managed to establish themselves as a legally-mandated terrorist organization.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[blueg3]

I'm not convinced that the medical risk is bigger than the risk of terrorism it's designed to prevent. I might be convinced that it's bigger than its capacity to actually reduce that risk of terrorism. But for one, the medical risk is really, really small and for another, at that level both things are frustratingly difficult to accurately quantify.

I don't particularly think the scanners are effective at much of anything, especially if you compare them to the impact of other possible expenditures of the same amount of money (which you should). I don't know that there are any good numbers on this, or even if good numbers would be reasonable to obtain, but it is my opinion.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[aaarrrgggh]

The homicide rate in the US is about 5/100,000, so making a whole lot of sweeping assumptions, you would expect to see 9 homicides per year in airports and on airplanes past the security checkpoints. There are about 330 primary airports, so maybe 1,000 checkpoints active on average. That gives each checkpoint a 1% chance of finding a "bad guy" per year.

If on the other hand, you did absolutely no security screening, what would the mortality rate be? Let's just say there were just police officers walking around the airport. Statistically, one plane will go down every ~15 years. Add in metal detectors, and the rate likely is cut in half. Check for boarding passes and you likely drop it in half again. I don't think full body cavity searches is going to provide much in the way of marginal security improvements.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[tftp]

Also there is a problem: once the criminal manages to go through the checkpoint, one way or another, he is in the clear and has the red carpet all the way to the airplane.

If enough people have the intent, they can carry a ton of explosives into the secure area, one gram at a time. Nobody would pay any attention to their actions, and small quantities of anything cannot be detected. So in the end it's just a matter of money.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[loneDreamer]

I did find this talk some time ago: http://www.ted.com/talks/marc_goodman_a_vision_of_crimes_in_the_future.html. It's interesting in noticing that security is almost impossible as damaging is much easier than preventing damage. The problem with terrorist is that little can actually be done to stop it. As it was recently proved, a single person with a gun can shock the world. Do that 10 times in random locations and see what happens... hell, I can think of many ways to create terror myself, without trying much.

I read somewhere that one of Bin Laden's objectives was to make the US spend 1 millon for each dolar that they spent. It is guerrilla warfare, it's all they've got, and they have been extremely successful at it. The values and way of life the US people were so proud about are gone. The millions were spent and continue to be. Sadly, the root of the issue it that, bared some reasonable efforts, the only way to fight terror is by enduring it and not being scared. Luckily, very few people are actually determined to do real damage and cause pain.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[Shagg]

The medical danger should be a concern to everyone, but evidence suggests that the danger is negligible (though possibly nonzero).

What evidence?

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[Shagg]

You get a much higher radiation dose from the flight (less atmosphere to block cosmic rays) than you do from the scanners.

According to who, the TSA?

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[somersault]

Nope, from the National Radiological Protection Board

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[somersault]

Hmm nope, still don't see it sorry. PATRIOT is an invasion of privacy that runs way, way deeper, but I don't see people doing anything about that. Yet everyone is up in arms about people seeing their naughty bits or taking their shoes off. The airline stuff is symptomatic of the way your country is heading as a whole and I don't like it sure, but it would be nice if the American public had a concentrated campaign to sort out the problems at their roots rather than getting all blustered about this.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[blueg3]

A reasonable and very rough estimate. I agree that scanners, and lots of other security measures, are well into poor cost-benefit territory. Of course, real measured effect is hard to come by.

That gives each checkpoint a 1% chance of finding a "bad guy" per year.

But of course the false positive rate is incredibly high, since the scanner cannot detect intent. The only way we'd get a solid estimate of how many bad guys were actually caught is if we successfully did a thorough investigation for each positive to weed out the false ones.

Making a rough estimate by the reports in the TSA's blog, the rate of people trying to bring items on airplanes that almost everyone agrees are a bad idea to have on an airplane is much higher than 1% per checkpoint-year. Yet I'd bet that their frequency of catching real bad guys is not so high.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[blueg3]

Those are some bold generalizations that are accurate enough in this context. But note that some things can be detected in smaller quantities than they can reasonably be divided into. (Plutonium can be detected in incredibly small amounts, and photons can be detected individually.) Of course in the end it's just a matter of money--with enough money they could just buy everything and blow it all up legally.

The thing is that increasing the cost of an attack is a successful defense strategy, because it reduces the frequency of an attack. Trying to plan defense so that it never fails is a fool's goal--the point is to buy enough reduction in probability or frequency of success.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[Shagg]

There is nothing in that report talking about TSA scanners.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[blueg3]

What evidence?

Read some more comments. You're certainly replying to enough of them.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[somersault]

Ah, I see what you meant now.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

The medical danger should be a concern to everyone, but evidence suggests that the danger is negligible (though possibly nonzero).

Sorry, but I have to call BS on this one. The danger is obviously quite high, otherwise why has the TSA been ignoring multiple court orders to perform public opinion, and some quite reasonable studies on the effects of exposure to them? [[http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/07/11/2113239/dhs-still-stonewalling-on-body-scanning-ruling-one-year-later]] Especially when the manufacturers themselves have publicly stated that the machines have not been certified for use on people (especially the high power ones that the VIPR assault teams use. Sorry but I can't locate the Slashdot articles on these, I keep getting a 500 or 503 error on my search.

I don't think your typical TSA agent is smart enough to even dress himself, much less properly adjust a source of dangerously ionizing radiation. "Heh heh, if we turn this little knob up all the way we can see through women's clothing better, heh heh, boobies ... drool."

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[radtea]

The problem with terrorist is that little can actually be done to stop it.

The much, much bigger problem is that there are a small number of people who are getting very rich selling the illusion that they can do something to stop it. If it wasn't for the opportunities to funnel money into the pockets of unproductive generators of dead-weight losses in the security/industrial complex terrorism would simply be a minor nuisance, akin to traffic accidents.

It is the quislings who make terrorism so problematic.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[AmiMoJo]

Problem is even if they are dangerous this report isn't going to say that. The manufacturer would be facing billions in lawsuits from anyone who went through one. You can be certain that the conclusion will be "completely safe, nothing to see here".

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[tftp]

The thing is that increasing the cost of an attack is a successful defense strategy

I don't want to refuse to disagree with those who think you are wrong here.

However the same works in the other direction - increasing the cost of defense is a successful attack strategy. Many believe that OBL intended it to be this way. A relatively small attack, as wars go, forced the USA to spend treasure on several wars that last more than a decade to this very day. The same attack destroyed the trust within the society and paved the way for creation of a massive, centrally operated police-like apparatus that many in the US government were already itching to implement. (Note that the Patriot Act, a large piece of legislation, sprung up out of nowhere within days.) This apparatus immediately started spreading onto trains and buses and streets. TSA workers are not armed, AFAIK and so far, but they don't have to be - the police is at their beck and call at any time.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[somersault]

Quit boasting. I probably should have tagged it with a tracking chip :/

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[somarilnos]

The real issue is the health effects. While I'll agree that correlation does not necessarily prove causation, it's worth noting that there was an anomalous amount of cancer going on with TSA workers at BOS, an airport that piloted these scanners. The TSA refused to even let their employees where dosimeters when this was found.

From the TSA Blog: There is a really good reason for this. The emissions from our X-ray technology are well below the requirements that would require their routine usage. To help reassure passengers and employees that the technology is safe, however, health physicists with the U.S. Army have been conducting area dosimeter surveys at multiple airports nationwide.

So, the short of it? The emissions are below the requirements that would require the routine usage of something that would detect the amount of the emissions? Wait, what? How... do ... you ... know?

I really don't give a shit if some random TSA jockey gets a look at a digital version of my junk. I'm opting out every time because I really don't want to get cancer because they refused to accept the possibility that what they're doing could be hurting people.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[dgatwood]

The homicide rate in the US is about 5/100,000, so making a whole lot of sweeping assumptions, you would expect to see 9 homicides per year in airports and on airplanes past the security checkpoints.

The problem is that your sweeping assumptions are so wrong that they completely invalidate the statistics. First and foremost, your numbers apparently assume that homicides in the U.S. are roughly random. This is, of course, not the case:

• More than half of homicides in the U.S. are drug-related, so you can start by eliminating all of those (unless we see drug deals going down on airplanes, that is).
• Approximately half of all homicides are related to domestic violence, so you can also eliminate those (because those sorts of situations tend to almost invariably happen in the home).
• The remaining single-digit percentage are mostly the result of failed robbery attempts. Nobody is going to be stupid enough do that in the presence of presumably armed security personnel, with hundreds of cameras pointing at them, in the presence of hundreds of people.

Therefore, you would expect to see approximately zero homicides every year beyond an airport checkpoint, within some small epsilon.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[slick7]

The real issue with these was never the health effects. That was just an extra thing that privacy advocates tossed in there to lend additional weight to their arguments. The primary argument against these things is the fact that they are a violation of privacy. Arguing the health issue just weakens objections, when it gets defeated.

These are not the truths we are looking for, move along.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[TheOldestGit]

I can't speak for everyone, but personally I value my lack of cancer more than I do my privacy.

Well I'm not really concerned as I'll *never* even stop in the USA however...

When the scanner operatives start a Class Action for elevated diseases (cancers/whatever - doesn't really matter) then the fan will start whirling at a good rate :-/

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[cheekyjohnson]

The health risk is far worse.

I'd say the complete loss of some of our rights is far worse, actually.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[chrismcb]

It isn't about "that kind of 'privacy'". It isn't about keeping your junk private. It is about keeping your papers and effects private.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[chrismcb]

The privacy danger is patently obvious and verifiable (though sometimes overstated), but it's just not a concern to many.

How is the privacy risk overstated? The government has no right to see search me. They search me, therefore I have no privacy. How is that overstated?

The cost-benefit argument has the problem that the "benefit" can be very difficult to accurately measure and the government may choose not to disclose data about whether the devices are beneficial. (This is, regardless, the argument I prefer.)

There is obviously a benefit, otherwise they wouldn't do it. But it isn't the benefit we expect, or what they tell us. That is, it doesn't make the plane safer.

That's not to say there are no problems with arguments for the scanners. At the very least (the very least), it makes sense to use the microwave scanners over the X-ray backscatter.

I don't see how it makes sense to use ANY machine at all.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[chrismcb]

I read somewhere that one of Bin Laden's objectives was to make the US spend 1 millon for each dolar that they spent.

Its interesting. Yet there are ways to cost the US millions of dollars, without spending a dime. Without harming anyone, without doing any destruction.And no form of intrusive security, at the entrance, can stop it.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[chrismcb]

But the thing is, they are asking you to give up your privacy SO you can risk getting cancer.
This isn't a case of "keep your privacy, but risk cancer" or "lose your privacy, with no extra risk of getting cancer."
NO, it is a case of "lose your privacy AND take on an extra risk of cancer." But the cool thing is, if this was done correctly we'd both have more privacy AND a lesser risk of getting cancer.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[blueg3]

How is the privacy risk overstated? The government has no right to see search me. They search me, therefore I have no privacy. How is that overstated?

You perhaps see the logic error here. I say it's sometimes overstated. You state it one way and ask how that is overstating the privacy risk. Maybe it's not -- I said sometimes! I'm not a legal scholar, so I can't comment on your particular interpretation of the situation. It's a little surprising, though, if it's a violation of the 4th Amendment, that this claim is not heard more often by notable legal scholars or, say, courts.

People often insinuate that the result of the X-ray backscatter inspection is equivalent to a nude photograph of you, which is not accurate. That's overstating the privacy invasion. (I also think it's overstating the added privacy invasion to claim that such a search is particularly different from the extensive searches you already were subject to in that situation.)

There is obviously a benefit, otherwise they wouldn't do it. But it isn't the benefit we expect, or what they tell us.

You have a lot of faith in people to do smart things, apparently, followed by a rather insane government conspiracy complex.

I don't see how it makes sense to use ANY machine at all.

I'm not saying there is. Only that one machine is strictly better than the other.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[fuzzybunny]

Nobody with half an ounce of common sense is claiming you shouldn't care about both.

The point is that the "health risks" investigation carries the risk that scanners will be authoritatively determined to carry zero risk by an esteemed medical investigation body (chaired by the college roommate's dog's babysitter who is John Pistole's cousin, but don't let that bother you), and thus the entire case against scanners will be shot down in the press when there is still a real-but-difficult-to-quantify objection against the things on privacy grounds.

That is the problem.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[somersault]

I've got no idea what the scanners have to do with keeping your papers private. As for your "effects".. wtf. Why do you expect a right to such privacy when travelling in someone else's vehicle? It's perfectly reasonable to scan people for weapons and/or check their luggage if they want to do so. Any effects that you want to keep more private can go in your checked luggage.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[Joce640k]

It's a cliche, but: If he's not part of the solution then he's part of the problem.

Even if only 0.1% of the population has issues, it should be enough to get rid of the machines - because the issues they have are serious ones. Being disrobed or groped intimately by strangers shouldn't be a requisite for travel.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[somersault]

The child here is the one that apparently doesn't know how to explain their point of view adequately. Probably because you just believe what you are told rather than thinking about it.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[lsatenstein]

There are problems with many of the arguments against the scanners.
The medical danger should be a concern to everyone, but evidence suggests that the danger is negligible (though possibly nonzero).
The privacy danger is patently obvious and verifiable (though sometimes overstated), but it's just not a concern to many.
The cost-benefit argument has the problem that the "benefit" can be very difficult to accurately measure and the government may choose not to disclose data about whether the devices are beneficial. (This is, regardless, the argument I prefer.)

That's not to say there are no problems with arguments for the scanners. At the very least (the very least), it makes sense to use the microwave scanners over the X-ray backscatter. The medical danger is known to be zero, which is even better than the backscatter's best-case of "is probably zero". Even if they're less effective, we don't seem to be relying on either system to be particularly effective.

If the radiation is so infinitesimal to not present a hazard, why won't my dentist not allow herself to go through the scanner, and why does my dentist put this heavy lead shield around me when scanning my jaw for bad teeth?

Too bad they cannot protect eyes and brain from those dental xray machines.

When she takes the xray, I am in a room of my own, with lead lined walls, ceiling and floor. The xray controls (button to initiate the scan) are out of range in another area.

Re:This is a distraction from the real issue.

[blueg3]

If the radiation is so infinitesimal to not present a hazard, why won't my dentist not allow herself to go through the scanner,

I can't answer the motivations of other individuals. In my limited experience, dentists and technicians at dentists' offices don't really know all that much about X-rays. (Yours might, I don't know.)

and why does my dentist put this heavy lead shield around me when scanning my jaw for bad teeth?

For one, I think she's legally required to. For another, those X-rays are an enormously higher dosage than the backscatter machines. (A dental X-ray is about 5 uSv. A backscatter scan is about 0.05 uSv.)

When she takes the xray, I am in a room of my own, with lead lined walls, ceiling and floor. The xray controls (button to initiate the scan) are out of range in another area.

They're actually required to be much better protected than you are, because they are subjected to occupational exposure -- they're using the X-ray machine very frequently, whereas you're only in its presence once every year or so. Unless your dental office is weird, though, the walls, ceiling, and floor are not lead-lined. However, the controls should be on the other side of either a wall or a sheet of metal, out of line of sight of the X-ray generator.

The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[BMOC]

...In context with Fukushima and a non-polluting energy source: RADIATION BAD!

...In context with police state enabling technology: RADIATION GOOD!

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[jwinterm]

Hate to rain on your parade, but gamma rays and x-rays are both just photons. What do you mean they're not the same thing? They're exactly the same thing, they just originate from different parts of the atom.

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[shentino]

Nuclear radiation IS electromagnetic radiation.

That's what photons ARE, packets of electromagnetic impulses.

Gamma rays just happen to have higher frequencies than microwaves or radio waves, but fundamentally they are both light.

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[blueg3]

...In context with Fukushima and a non-polluting energy source: RADIATION BAD!

In the context of nuclear power, "radiation" really is referring to radioactive isotopes and potentially-large quantities of high-energy electromagnetic radition, alpha rays, and beta rays. In the context of a nuclear accident like Fukushima, it more is referring to the uncontrolled dispersal of radioactive isotopes (which are toxic independent of their radioactivity) and the uncontrolled release of very large quantities of mostly high-energy electromagnetic radiation.

...In context with police state enabling technology: RADIATION GOOD!

In the context of backscatter X-ray scanners, "radiation" is referring to controlled exposure to a known and very small quantity of relatively low-energy (but still ionizing) electromagnetic radiation.

As another example: In context with cell phones: RADIATION MAYBE BAD?

In the context of cell phones, "radiation" is generally referring to controlled exposure to a measurable and limited (but highly variable) quantity of low-energy, non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation.

It turns out "radiation" is used in a technical context to refer to a lot of things -- to the point that it should not be used along in a technical context. In a casual context, it's used to refer to an even broader set of things -- to the point that "radiation" does not help clarify the situation (though it may serve to incite a reaction) unless you know a priori what kind of radiation you're talking about.

Hunh. Who would've thought: context does matter!

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[BMOC]

Chance of measurable exposure to loose radioactive isotopes in the environment after 2 major nuclear accidents in the world: >0.000001%

Chance of ionizing some of your cellular chemistry from high-school-education-level TSA employees using an X-ray source to see your body before you get on a plane: 100%

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[TCQuad]

Radiation for all!
Boooo!
Very well, no radiation for anyone!
Boooo!
Hmm... Radiation for some, miniature American flags for others!
Yaaaay!

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[jmauro]

Yes and no. Only Gamma radiation is electromagnetic in nature. Alpha and Beta radiations are not photons at all, but atomic particles ejected with high energy. An Alpha particle is a helium atom without electrons and a Beta particle is free neutron.

Depending on the radiation source you may get any of the radioactive emission types and all three are dangerous, but to differing degrees depending on volume and location of exposure.

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[rwise2112]

Nuclear radiation IS electromagnetic radiation.

That's what photons ARE, packets of electromagnetic impulses.

Gamma rays just happen to have higher frequencies than microwaves or radio waves, but fundamentally they are both light.

To be pedantic, actually nuclear radiation comes in three types: gamma, alpha, and beta radiation. Only gamma radiation is EM, the others are particle decays.

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[ajlitt]

Chance of measurable increased exposure to ionizing cosmic rays once the plane is at altitude: 100%

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[tylikcat]

But the wavelength and penetrance is substantially different - we know an awful lot about the radiation exposure associated with flying. We know less about the effects of the radiation exposure from the backscatter scanners, and TSA fudged their numbers in icky misleading ways (calculating exposure as if it were spread throughout the body, etc). That TSA presented the radiation from flying and radiation from backscatter as equivalent also seemed quite misleading - though, of course, incompetence is also always a possibility.

We don't know what the actual risk is. Neither does TSA.

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[WaffleMonster]

Hate to rain on your parade, but nuclear radiation is a completely different thing from electromagnetic radiation. They happen to both have the word "radiation" in them, but they're really not the same thing.

Alpha rays are a helium nucleus

Beta is electrons like what excites phosphors in yer old CRT TV.

Both Alpha and Beta are trivially shielded by small amounts of air, matter, layers of skin..etc. Normally quite harmless unless injested or inhaled then quite deadly.

Gamma rays are high energy photons like the ones presumably collected by Chekov when he beamed aboard the aircraft carrier Enterprise.

This "electromagic radiation" is quite dangerous and the reason we require large quantities of bulky matter to shield humans from exposure to "electromagnetic radiation".

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[Muad'Dave]

a Beta particle is free neutron

Beta is a free electron, not a neutron. As the GP said, X-Rays and gamma rays are both electromagnetic in nature.

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[BMOC]

To be pedantic, actually nuclear radiation comes in three types: gamma, alpha, and beta radiation. Only gamma radiation is EM, the others are particle decays.

Particles are waves, and waves are particles.

I could represent your body and soul with a wave, but my noise floor is too high and my frequency resolution too coarse.

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[Rufty]

Are you positive?

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[cellocgw]

As long as we're gettting it right: a beta- is an electron; a beta+ is a positron.

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[blueg3]

Chance of exposure to radioactive isotopes from nuclear accidents (there's been more than two): 100%
Chance of exposure to radioactive isotopes from nuclear weapons: 100%
Chance of exposure to radioactive isotopes from burning coal: very close to 1 for most parts of the world 100%
Chance of ionizing some of your cellular chemistry by eating a banana: 100%
Chance of ionizing some of your cellular chemistry by going into a basement: 100%
Chance of ionizing some of your cellular chemistry by going outside: 100%
Chance of ionizing some of your cellular chemistry by going into an airplane: 100%
Chance of ionizing some of your cellular chemistry by changing the battery in a smoke detector: 100%

Chance of exposing yourself to environmental radiation: 100%, if you do any of the following: eat food or drink water (0.3 uSv/yr), breathe air (1.3 uSv/yr), are exposed to sunlight (0.4 uSv/yr), or are in the vicinity of objects made up of naturally-occurring elements (>0.5 uSv/yr)

Turns out quantifying amounts is pretty important when it comes to talking about radiation.

Incidentally, the world average exposure for radioisotopes dispersed around the globe by the Chernobyl accident (today) is about 2 microsieverts/year (uSv/yr). The radiation exposure from an X-ray backscatter scanner is 0.05 uSv/yr. So, one nuclear accident is actually exposing you to more than one X-ray backscatter scan per day.

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[blueg3]

But the wavelength and penetrance is substantially different - we know an awful lot about the radiation exposure associated with flying. We know less about the effects of the radiation exposure from the backscatter scanners

That's not really true. Mostly what we know a lot about is the damage caused by particular radioisotopes, some sources of X-rays, and nuclear accidents. The rest is modeled. X-ray backscatter scanners emit a measured amount of X-rays at a known frequency that's well within the realm of what we know about.

TSA fudged their numbers in icky misleading ways (calculating exposure as if it were spread throughout the body, etc)

Sort of. That's a common and very reasonable assumption when the dosage is many orders of magnitude below an acute dosage (which it is). Some people, after this became a big news item and political issue, disagreed. (Not that they necessarily had much opportunity to disagree beforehand.)

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Particles are waves, and waves are particles.

And fermions are not bosons.

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[Shagg]

X-ray backscatter scanners emit a measured amount of X-rays

Measured by who?

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[Shagg]

The radiation exposure from an X-ray backscatter scanner is 0.05 uSv/yr.

I assume you got that number from the TSA?

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[hawguy]

But the wavelength and penetrance is substantially different - we know an awful lot about the radiation exposure associated with flying. We know less about the effects of the radiation exposure from the backscatter scanners

That's not really true. Mostly what we know a lot about is the damage caused by particular radioisotopes, some sources of X-rays, and nuclear accidents. The rest is modeled. X-ray backscatter scanners emit a measured amount of X-rays at a known frequency that's well within the realm of what we know about.

I'm no radiation expert, but when a group of PhD's and MD's who *are* radiation experts have concerns about the machines, then I have concerns:

http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic
ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this
comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest Xrays
  have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately
understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport
scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent
tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two
orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high.

This letter was written almost 3 years ago, have any of their concerns been addressed?

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[blueg3]

I've seen this before. It's disagreed upon by experts, but I don't think these guys hold the prevailing opinion. Notably, their estimate of the difference is correct--a couple orders of magnitude. However, 2 orders of magnitude, or even 3, above what the X-ray backscatter scanners emit is still an incredibly small dose. I think this may have been written before radiation dosages for in-the-field scanners were publicly available. (Rough dosages for the prototype models have always been available, but understandably, people don't know if those figures are representative.)

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[blueg3]

From publicly-released results of third-party tests of the devices.

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[blueg3]

See reply to your other comment asking the same thing.

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[Shagg]

What third-party tests?

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[Shagg]

See my reply to your other reply (which didn't answer the question).

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[blueg3]

We should stop this, and yes it did. You said, "I assume you got that number from the TSA?", which isn't really a question but certainly implies one, and I indicated that those numbers are not from the TSA.

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[Shagg]

But never stated specifically who they were from.

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[blueg3]

A question that you asked later, not originally. I haven't written the answer to that because I don't recall offhand and am busy. :p It's Army something something Health something. The original dosage calculations are actually in the device's patent, because doing something useful while being under a particular dosage is a design criterion for the device. IIRC the devices in practice don't deviate too much from the numbers cited in the patent.

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[Jason Levine]

Wait... The TSA is using gamma rays now? Cool! *books a flight and buys a pair of very loose fitting purple pants*

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[ELCouz]

Should have been modded Insightful & Funny at the same time!
But I wish it was only a joke!

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[0111 1110]

There have not been any third party tests of the devices, smart guy. No unbiased testing has been done.

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[blueg3]

Not even by the U.S. Army Public Health Command?

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[blueg3]

Sure, just like there are no alpha or beta particles, per se. They're He2+ nuclei and electrons.

Referring to them as "radiation" and calling them "alpha rays" and "beta rays" is common, semi-archaic physics terminology. Regardless, it's entirely correct when talking about radiation to call alpha and beta particles emitted as a result of a radioactive process "alpha rays" and "beta rays".

They're rays in that the particles travel in a straight line with a particular momentum. Straight line radiating from a point--that's a ray!

Also, since they're particles, they're also actually rays, in that they are waves.

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[Shagg]

You mean the Army Public Health Command study that was paid for by the TSA and conducted in TSA labs? Is that your definition of a "third-party" test?

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[blueg3]

[citation needed]

Re:The hypocrisy just keeps getting worse.

[blueg3]

But regardless, yes. See, the people conducting the study -- the "party" -- is not the TSA. Hence, "third party".

Who else did you expect to pay for the testing?

(Tests have also been done by the FDA and Johns Hopkins.)

Let me guess

[Anonymous Coward]

They will find no statistical relation between scanners and (cancer/any other health concerns).

Can i get the money they would save on this study then?

Re:Let me guess

[Joce640k]

Says who? Do you have hard info on this type of radiation?

If the machines only give one person in 100 million cancer, they're still more dangerous then the terrorism they're supposed to be preventing.

(Which they aren't...terrorists can put the C4 up their asses...)

Re:Let me guess

[Rob the Bold]

Says who? Do you have hard info on this type of radiation?

GP is suggesting that the TSA study will back up whatever the TSA wants it to. Almost as if it's a foregone conclusion. Almost like they're gonna deliberately fudge the results. See?

Re:Let me guess

[vlm]

Says who? Do you have hard info on this type of radiation?

I do. If you really want result "X" and you are willing to pay a lot of money to someone to produce a report that looks like they did something science-y that co-incidentally matches the conclusions you were looking for, and you make it perfectly clear they'll never get another penny from their sole source of research funding (the fedgov) then yeah, I think I can predict the result.

Same thing as tobacco companies reporting their stuff is safe, or pretty much every pharmaceutical (coincidentally, most of them almost accidentally happen to be safe), etc etc. Even "x% of dentists prefer Y brand toothpaste".

The only real question is how psuedo-science-y it'll be. Will they play the natl security card and not release any data other than "I've got a PHD, trust me" or will they take the different track of contracting out to a subsidiary of the machine mfgr, or will they have the good taste to at least distance themselves into hiring the CEO's brother in law, or will they go the bribery track and the guy who plays along gets a plum job at the mfgr "safety scientist" or some BS next year ... what exact form of corruption will they use is the only question, not will it be corrupt or not.

The funniest part is the journalist filter is calling them x-ray scanners but I'm guessing the actual report is THz scanners. Xrays see thru things, THz sees thru things, therefore a dumbass would assume they must be the same.

Re:Let me guess

[blueg3]

If the machines only give one person in 100 million cancer, they're still more dangerous then the terrorism they're supposed to be preventing.

And if they give one person in 100 billion cancer, they might not be. Quantification matters, and you can be wrong by 3 orders of magnitude even with back-of-the-envelope calculations (to say nothing of the accuracy of pulling numbers out of thin air).

Says who? Do you have hard info on this type of radiation?

It depends on what you're actually asking. Amount of exposure caused by the devices? Body tissue absorption and cellular damage efficacy of radiation of that frequency? Dosage to cancer probability increase? All of these are publicly-documented. The most poorly-known factor, to my knowledge, is whether the linear-to-zero model of dosage to cancer probability is valid. It is, however, a fairly pessimistic model and the one that is used in estimating the danger of low-dose radiation.

Re:Let me guess

[Bobfrankly1]

(Which they aren't...terrorists can put the C4 up their asses...)

Which is what the vast majority of people have been telling terrorists to do for quite some time. Sadly, it seems they started listening...

Re:Let me guess

[WaffleMonster]

The funniest part is the journalist filter is calling them x-ray scanners but I'm guessing the actual report is THz scanners. Xrays see thru things, THz sees thru things, therefore a dumbass would assume they must be the same.

THz is sub-mm. Non x-ray scanners currently deployed are all mm as far as I know.

Re:Let me guess

[fahrbot-bot]

pay a lot of money to someone to produce a report that looks like they did something science-y

The TSA thought about getting the Mythbusters to do the study, but decided they needed people with less integrity, ethics and skill ...

Re:Let me guess

[0111 1110]

The story repeatedly uses the term 'backscatter'. That gives me some confidence that Michael knew the difference between 30 Ghz millimeter waves courtesy of L3 and X-rays courtesy of Michael Chertoff and his close friends at Rapescan.

As far as Thz radiation, what are you on about? Those handheld passive scanners that they don't use for screening and hardly ever use in general?

Re:Yawn

[ArcadeMan]

A hundred thousand lemmings can't be wrong!

Re:Yawn

[somersault]

You must be new here.

Study should be done outside its influence

[BrendaEM]

These scanners should have to go through the same FDA approval process as any medical device. People are putting their kids in there.
If the odds of getting cancer from the scanners in their lifetime is 1: 1,000,000 then 1.5 people will get cancer from them--every day!

We cannot suspend our judgement just because there are terrorists in the world and money to be made.

Re:Study should be done outside its influence

[Anonymous Coward]

These scanners should have to go through the same FDA approval process as any medical device. People are putting their kids in there.
If the odds of getting cancer from the scanners in their lifetime is 1: 1,000,000 then 1.5 people will get cancer from them--every day!

We cannot suspend our judgement just because there are terrorists in the world and money to be made.

I think the issue here is with people who travel a lot from and to america, which would largely include american businessmen.

Just flying will increase your radiation dose, I guess the biggest question is really if these increase it by any significant portion. If they do contribute a significant radiation dose, they should not be used.

Medical devices don't have the same issue, x-ray total dose can be controlled, by simply not doing an x-ray.

Re:Study should be done outside its influence

[shentino]

This is nothing more than the strong oppressing the weak.

The weak being passengers and the strong being the feds.

I point out that the feds have put the TSA with a gun held to air commerce since everyone who boards a plane has to go through them.

So the TSA naturally feels no obligation to not abuse their power.

Since passengers don't have a choice, they have no leverage to resist it.

Add to this non refundable airline tickets and you have passengers locked in for abuse even before they arrive at the airport.

Re:Study should be done outside its influence

[LordNimon]

People are putting their kids in there.

I've flown several times and have never been in one of these scanners. As soon as the TSA staff see my children, we're routed through the metal detectors instead.

Re:Study should be done outside its influence

[CanHasDIY]

We cannot suspend our judgement just because we are constantly told there are terrorists in the world and money to be made.

FTFY.

After all, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Re:Study should be done outside its influence

[eviljav]

Then, in the span of about 5 years, these scanners will have caused cancer in a greater number of people than the number of people killed by terrorists on 9/11/2001?

Re:Study should be done outside its influence

[Crypto Gnome]

We cannot suspend our judgement just because there are terrorists in the world and money to be made.

The simple fact that we already have (and consistently, mind you) is absolute proof of how completely wrong you are.

Re:Study should be done outside its influence

[6ULDV8]

I guess I need to rent some kids when I fly. Most times, I get guided toward the scanner and have to say 'opt out.' Then I get put in the penalty box for anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes until someone is available to do the frisk. Just got that treatment when I flew out of Austin. I still care, but it's at least a chance to express my preference.

After years of "data collection"

[craigminah]

Seems bass-ackwards...the TSA should have done this study before deploying these scanners. Of course now they have a vast pool of data (e.g. victims) to study so maybe this was their (nefarious) plan in the first place.

Re:After years of "data collection"

[RichardBattista]

Usually that's how studies work- you gather information before you implement something potentially harmful... but then again the TSA has never been one to care for public health too incredibly much.

Think of the dangers of plane rides

[Anonymous Coward]

"The TSA maintains that the backscatters are safe and that they emit a low dose of X-rays equivalent to the radiation a passenger would receive in two minutes of flying at typical cruising altitude"

So that 8 hr plane flight cause me to get 240 x-rays worth of radiation? Damn. Has anyone did a study on rates of cancer vs flight time? Do pilots get cancer more frequently than say farmers?

Re:Think of the dangers of plane rides

[vlm]

Average radiation exposure is much higher for pilots than the maximum allowed for nuclear plant workers.
Cancer rates are obviously not linear with dosage, and the level is none the less low enough that its unlikely to show an increase.
You can google, by yourself, for numerous studies.

That's a relief!

[aquabat]

It's about time that the full weight of the TSA's medical expertise was thrown behind this issue.

scanner = 13 uW cm^2; cell = 100 mW cm^2

[peter303]

So a cell phone is 10,000 time more powerful. A TSA scan takes five seconds a few times a year. Many cellphone users have against their heads hours a day.

Re:scanner = 13 uW cm^2; cell = 100 mW cm^2

[na1led]

You get more Radiation from flying high altitude than almost anything else.

Re:scanner = 13 uW cm^2; cell = 100 mW cm^2

[Anonymous Coward]

cell = 0.0 uW/cm^2 of ionizing radiation.

Re:scanner = 13 uW cm^2; cell = 100 mW cm^2

[SecurityGuy]

Frequency matters. I can sit in front of my IR heat dish and dump watts/cm^2 into my body and get no effect other than pleasant warmth. When you start talking about ionizing radiation, that is individual photons that are energetic enough to knock electrons off atoms, you get effects that you'll never see simply by dumping energy into a volume.

I'm not bothering to look up what radiation these scanners use, merely pointing out that comparing watts is not what you want to be doing.

Re:scanner = 13 uW cm^2; cell = 100 mW cm^2

[kaiser423]

Some people fly ~weekly for our jobs, and that pilots and workers are subject to it multiple times a day....so, yea. We probably should do the same type of research on these that we did with cell phones. Due diligence and all that.

Re:scanner = 13 uW cm^2; cell = 100 mW cm^2

[vlm]

I'm not bothering to look up what radiation these scanners use, merely pointing out that comparing watts is not what you want to be doing.

I'm no tinfoil hatter, and there's a lot more to safety than merely peak power, and there are serious differences in primary input power vs output power aka efficiency, but there's a pretty obvious argument where if you quote the giant machine thats wired to a wall socket 30 amp 440 3-phase ckt as being 4 orders of magnitude lower power than a cellphone that runs for days off a tiny little battery, something is wrong with the numbers beyond simple comparison of wattage.

Also uW/cm figures start approaching the radio-telescope and cosmic background radiation range, like someone accidentally gave you a noise level instead of a signal level figure. Unless you cheat and use lots of attenuators, its kinda hard to make an intentional radiator at that low of a level. A couple microwatts per cm equivalent is a pretty well tempest shielded faraday cage device, for example. I used to have access to a cage like that along with an array of spectrum analyzers, standardized antennas/horns, etc. I'm sure the cheapie dell I'm in front of here emits more interference than double digit uW per cm of surface, for example.

Re:scanner = 13 uW cm^2; cell = 100 mW cm^2

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you aware that X-rays are different from radio waves?

A lethal dose of X-rays (10 Gy) contains less energy than a 1-second exposure to the Sun (assuming typical human weight and surface area). The wavelength matters.

Re:scanner = 13 uW cm^2; cell = 100 mW cm^2

[19thNervousBreakdown]

I'm no tinfoil hatter, and there's a lot more to safety than merely peak power, and there are serious differences in primary input power vs output power aka efficiency, but there's a pretty obvious argument where if you quote the giant machine thats wired to a wall socket 30 amp 440 3-phase ckt as being 4 orders of magnitude lower power than a cellphone that runs for days off a tiny little battery, something is wrong with the numbers beyond simple comparison of wattage.

That is literally the exact form of specious reasoning that tinfoil hatters use. If you're trying to recruit them, good job. That kind of "reasoning" is very appealing to them, since it sounds logical and doesn't require a lot of thought or explanation (or even stand up to it!)

My house is wired to a 20 kW circuit. Therefore, I might as well be sitting inside 20 microwaves as be in my house. Through the power of deductive logic, since I am not burned to a crisp, I am immune to radiation.

Hey Fukushima, I hear you're having some problem cleaning up your reactors...

Re:scanner = 13 uW cm^2; cell = 100 mW cm^2

[Grayhand]

Yeah the argument that all radiation is created equal is ridiculous. They might as well say you don't get cancer from light bulbs so the scanners are safe. I think the risk is low for some one that flies once a year but children and frequent fliers are another matter. Yes you get more radiation from the flight itself but is the extra exposure causing damage? The ugly truth is ignoring the health risks and privacy loss they haven't caught a single would be terrorist with one so they are a waste of money, period!

This should not be an issue

[cellocgw]

Forget whether or not there are scanners. The real issue is whether or not there should be a TSA at all. There's no evidence that the $BIGNUM dollars spent has done anything whatsoever to stop or dissuade terrorist in-flight attacks.
I'd suggest to the libertarians, Repubs, and other "personal liberty small government invisible hand of capitalism" folks that airline security should be the responsibility of the airlines themselves. I'd choose a "walk-on no problem" vendor over a "scan, remove your clothes, and provide a blood sample" vendor every time.

Re:This should not be an issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Detection systems in general have this as a common problem. It's very hard to quantify the effect that they're having on the problem they're trying to solve because the system is already in place. TSA could be deterring fifty attacks a year or none. Without a control set we really have no idea, and I don't think the public would be happy about permanently adding a few airports to a no-security list so that we can see how many terrorists take over planes from those airports. We'll never really know how effective TSA is, but the cost of terrorist attacks is so high that we'll continue funding TSA anyways.

Re:This should not be an issue

[pluther]

There are some ways of studying the effects.

For example, the FAA routinely tries to smuggle fake guns and bombs onto airplanes to see how many get through.

Last I heard, that number had not changed significantly since TSA was started.

One number that has gone up significantly since TSA took over is amount of theft from luggage and at baggage screening points. As I recall, laptop thefts went up over 1000% between 2000 - 2005.

But, major terrorist attacks - yeah, it's hard to measure changes in something that happens on the average once every twenty years.

Re:This should not be an issue

[mdielmann]

There are other options. Examine countries with similar foreign policies and dissimilar airport security policies, and see which has a greater rate of captured terrorists, and which has more terrorist attempts. Of course, there just aren't a lot of countries with similar policies to the US, but there are a few countries with a similar policy by the terrorists, a prime one being Israel. So, what does Israel do to get their rates with dealing with terrorism, and why doesn't the US follow that 40-year practice instead of constantly reacting to a single threat that evaded their system?

Re:This should not be an issue

[bcong]

You're looking at it the wrong way. They don't care if you have a bomb/gun/knife in an airport, they care if you have a bomb/gun/knife and then get on a plane and it goes airborne. Then (despite the metal door) they think the plane will fly into something important.

Re:This should not be an issue

[bill_mcgonigle]

You're looking at it the wrong way. They don't care if you have a bomb/gun/knife in an airport, they care if you have a bomb/gun/knife and then get on a plane and it goes airborne. Then (despite the metal door) they think the plane will fly into something important.

And, fortunately for us, private airplanes could never crash into a building. Why, since they're not screened at all, the terr-ists would never think of trying to use them. Also fortuante, no terr-ists are willing to risk getting caught at a TSA booth, despite a 65% chance of getting through.

Re:This should not be an issue

[PRMan]

Ding. Ding. Ding. You are correct, sir! Mod this man up.

Re:Yawn

[shentino]

They aren't right.

It's just treason to disagree with them.

Prediction:

[SuricouRaven]

Either the report will be completed, but in large part classified leading to conspiracy theories.
Or the report will say no hazard, but no-one is going to believe this because they do not trust the TSA to be truthful.

Re:Capitalisim

[geminidomino]

Yeah, no, it's not.

Re:Not just airport scanners

[vlm]

Not to mention the frequency range is about 6 to 10 orders of magnitude lower... Its not relevant beyond the "I don't understand therefore I'm scared, and I don't want to understand, so you do the math" level.

TSA incompetence

[Anonymous Coward]

"These scanners should have to go through the same FDA approval process as any medical device."

Is merely approving the device nearly enough? Do you really trust poorly educated, overworked, and underpaid TSA employees to properly calibrate, use, and maintain these machines?

Even with medical-grade x-ray technology that's FDA certified, and operated by way more qualified technicians than the TSA is ever likely to bother with has had accidents when massive overdoses of radiation have been administered... sometimes to lethal effect.

Re:Capitalisim [sic]

[Vainglorious Coward]

They're a cash grab for scanner makers, who are politically connected to the TSA.

eg Michael Chertoff, former Homeland Security secretary who shilled hard on the "need" to install full-body scanners, then later acknowledged that his consulting agency had a client that manufactured the machines. That is the kind of corruption one would expect in a third world tinpot dictatorship.

Re:Prediction

[vlm]

As well, these now become mandatory for train travel

Somebody's going to hijack Thomas the Tank Engine and crash him into the Freedom Tower, thus collapsing it... not likely. More likely is people switching to train travel, so the airlines purchased the regulation that train passengers must be harassed and punished as much as airplane passengers.

strange side effect

[slashmydots]

Maybe they'll even discover why everyone who steps into one gets a strong urge to punch the operator of it and most others within a 10 foot radius. It must be some kind of brain wave-interfering radiation, lol.

Photon is photn is photon

[aepervius]

All those radiation are in the same "nature" they are electromagnetic radiation, or better called photon. They differs in *energy* and thus in effect. Simplifying, Microwave will excite barely rotational level in molecules, Infra red is akin to vibrational levels in structure/molecules, and short infrared/color/UV is electron excitation from an outter shell level to another. Xray more or less is excitation from the inner core shell level. Gamma is even more, can only be gotten IIRC thru nuclear reactions. But they are the same in nature, only the different energy level and the quantic nature of matter make the effect different.

Re:Not just airport scanners

[blueg3]

The dosage is much less than the airport scanners. In that the dosage of ionizing radiation in airport scanners is nonzero (for X-ray backscatter type scanners) and the dosage of ionizing radiation in anti-shoplifting RFID detectors is zero. So, yeah, pretty different. I wouldn't worry about the effect, though. It's zero too.

Re:Not just airport scanners

[Anonymous Coward]

Practically every mall store has a shoplift tag detector you have to walk through to get in and out of the store, although obviously the dosage is much less than the airport scanners. I'm a bit worried about the effect of those on the eyes.

The problem is there are actually several distinct devices:

Some us optical light, others use sonar, and the ones everyone is afraid of use x-ray.

Unfortunately, reporters can't be arsed to sort this out and just lump all the "naked picture machines" together assuming the underlying technologies are all equivalent.

How many terrorist have ...

[3seas]

... the TSA caught?

Re:How many terrorist have ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zero (0).

Good grief

[JasoninKS]

We all know how this will turn out. They'll run a few tests with bubbling beakers and screens full of pretty graphs and come back with the magical answer of "The data is inconclusive so we'll keep using them."

Getting the core facts right...

[Shoten]

Okay, there are two kinds of body scanners. One uses backscatter x-rays, the other uses millimeter-wave radio waves. The ones deployed at airports are the latter, not the former; x-rays are not being used to scan people in airports in the United States. So let's recognize that what the TSA is doing here is evaluating a kind of scanner that they have not deployed . In other words, they're making sure it's safe before they use it. Backscatter x-ray scanners are more commonly used to examine vehicles; they produce a 2-d image rather than the 3-d representation you get from a millimeter wave scanner, so they aren't nearly as good at detecting hidden objects under clothing.

I hate the TSA at least as much as anyone else (I'm a frequent business traveler...so yeah...they are a huge pain in my ass between the security lines, the extra time needed, the restrictions on what I can carry, and the surly inspectors doing the "Uncle Touchy" routine), but facts are still facts, and in this case they haven't deployed first, tested later.

"Study"

[Dereck1701]

I'm sure that after a "long and detailed study" they'll find that there are no adverse health effects from the scanners, no matter what the medical data says.

Re:There is no completely safe lower limit

[vlm]

There is no completely safe lower limit of ionizing radiation. It's a risk benefit situation.

Actually no, you need to talk to a telecom EE about signal to noise ratios or a statistician or a nuke industry guy about banana equivalent dose.

Depending on who's fishy numbers you use, the BED of a ctscan varies a heck of a lot but is probably around a quarter million bananas depending on your bananas and your scanner. You're wise from a dosage perspective to not ctscan people for fun, but its not a terrifying risk nor certain death, its merely about ten extra lifetimes of eating bananas, depending on how many bananas you eat, no big deal as long as you don't do it annually for a lifetime or something.

On the other hand natural background in an airliner at altitude is about a dozen bananas per hour. This is below the long term lower noise boundary for an occasional traveler, but starting to be a signal above the noise for a typical airline pilot. Your total average natural background, again depending on who's fishy numbers, is surprisingly high at about 2 BED per hour. This makes concern about "no such thing as a lower limit" dosages under 50 BED per day or under 20 kilobananas per year extremely fishy to even discuss.

Given a decent scintillation detector or an old fashioned geiger I can detect precisely one individual atomic decay. We live, naturally, in a sea of radiation that's immense orders of magnitudes higher than the minimum we can measure, with a remarkably high standard deviation, making "no lower bound" nonsense to discuss from a noise perspective.

For what it's worth

[Gordo_1]

I travel every other week between LAX and SFO and both airports have removed the backscatter machines from security checkpoints I use. In addition to standard metal detectors, you will still find the older millimeter wave machines (the ones that give a simple red or green indicator) in some places.

It's nice not to have to go through the "opt out" groping routine on a regular basis any longer.

Re:For what it's worth

[Solandri]

Yeah, I noticed that too. On a recent trip I was going to assert my privacy rights and refuse to go through the scanners. At both LAX and ORD, the scanners were sitting unused in closed lines, and people were being directed through the regular metal detectors.

Ok, but you have the core facts wrong.

[Gordo_1]

Up until a couple months ago, there were *both* backscatter X-Ray machines and millimeter wave machines in use in US airports. The backscatter X-Ray machines WERE NOT properly tested and WERE deployed FIRST. They're undoing that mistake now by removing the backscatter machines (at least from the airport checkpoints I frequent.)

I heard that the backscatter machines were being relegated to smaller airports, but I have no firsthand knowledge of that situation.

Re:Ok, but you have the core facts wrong.

[Natros]

I can tell you that Washington Dulles (IAD) airport, installed the Rapiscan backscatter machines in their brand-new security checkpoint that opened last year. They're still using them as of 2 weeks ago, and I've not heard any indication that they're planning to change to the millimeter wave detectors. That's a *very* major US airport, with a lot of people being exposed every day. Albuquerque (ABQ), on the other hand, uses the millimeter wave detectors, and that's a relatively small airport, even if it is the main one for its region.

Re:Just Sound

[MysteriousPreacher]

Go easy on the guy. A few months ago he was probably dressed as giant hotdog, busy handing out leaflets in a mall.

Study is useless...

[ChilyWily]

So long as the people who make these part of the "Law" and yet are never subject to it themselves, nothing will change. The day they see their children or loved ones or themselves get cancer or suffer to a state mandated molestation, or even if they simply have to take off their shoes and catch a foot fungus, that's the day when this crap will stop. Until then, who cares... this will always be so, and incremental, meaningless studies will be done to give the impression that the people who purport to represent us, "care". Sorry to sound jaded, but the current Executive, Legislative and Judiciary are the worst ever.

Re:Capitalisim [sic]

[bill_mcgonigle]

That is the kind of corruption one would expect in a third world tinpot dictatorship.

Don't believe the propaganda. Every government that's ever existed on Earth has been corrupt, to one degree or another.

First Class Fliers Shouldn't Get Faster Screening

[woztheproblem]

There is a petition on change.org asking TSA to get rid of "priority" screening lines. As the petition says, the speed of a government service should NOT depend on how much we pay to an airline, and TSA should not allow airlines to profit by offering better access to a government service as a perk for a high priced ticket (or participation in their reward programs). The petition doesn't have a lot of signatures yet, but to me it's a no brainer, so I hope it catches on.

Re:Capitalisim [sic]

[bill_mcgonigle]

Do we just not give a fuck about conflict of interest anymore?

'Anymore' suggests that things used to be different. "The good old days" is a myth.

TSA & Gun Control

[assertation]

One guy, over 10 years ago, makes a failed shoe bombing attempt so the Republicans make all of us take off our shoes whenever we get on an airplane.

One guy successfully guns down almost all 30 people and they will not pass one law regulating guns.

Re:TSA & Gun Control

[Jason Levine]

Guns don't kill people, shoes kill people?

On the other hand, let's just be glad they didn't go the "shoe bomber reaction" route when the underwear bomber struck. Though requiring everyone strip naked to get through the line *would* be a quick way to get the TSA's requirements looked at closely.

Re:TSA & Gun Control

[DNS-and-BIND]

There are plenty of laws regulating guns. Ask anyone who's had to deal with the ATF. But don't let that get in the way of hating people who have different political beliefs than you - you sound like you're really enjoying yourself.

Re:TSA & Gun Control

[mcamino]

But they basically did. They make everyone virtually strip down naked with their technology. Sure you dont have to physically remove your clothes, but that makes no difference.

Re:Just Sound

[Crypto Gnome]

Go easy on the guy. A few months ago he was probably dressed as giant hotdog, busy handing out leaflets in a mall.

By the actions of some of them, I'd have assumed it was only a few days ago.

Re:Capitalisim [sic]

[radtea]

Every government that's ever existed on Earth has been corrupt, to one degree or another.

Saying "all governments are corrupt" is either an observation that is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, or an imputation that the gross and rampant corruption that Americans experience every day is somehow of no greater concern than the tiny bits of corruption the rest of us in the developed world experience.

Either option marks you out as kind of a twit, y'know?

Let's do scanner math!

[Iamthecheese]

According to this article the TSA spent 80 million dollars on scanners. According to This article they're spending 245 million dollars more to test them. According to this article a human life is worth 7.4 million dollars. We've spend an extra 40 billion dollars since 9/11 on airport security. That means we need to have saved 34 lives by body scanner alone or 5405 lives by all airport security.

It doesn't add up.

Re:Just Sound

[cffrost]

Go easy on the guy. A few months ago he was probably dressed as giant hotdog, busy handing out leaflets in a mall.

In my view, giant hotdog is a more respectable profession than TSA thug.

Re:Prediction

[cffrost]

Somebody's going to hijack Thomas the Tank Engine and crash him into the Freedom Tower, thus collapsing it... not likely.

Mercifully, the PANYNJ ditched the Newspeak name in favor of One World Trade Center in 2009.