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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[TCQuad]

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

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...)

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

[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: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?

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: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: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: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.

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.

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.