12 ms·

There was also that incident where the guy didn't want to go through the scanners, and tried to leave. They tried to prevent him from leaving and said that once

by pyre 11y ago

There was also that incident where the guy didn't want to go through the scanners, and tried to leave. They tried to prevent him from leaving and said that once he enters the line he has to go through the scanners (even though he was willing to do other things like metal detector, pat-down, etc).

toomuchtodo 11y ago
I remember that, and that also greatly concerns me. I can be held by the TSA solely for being concerned for my or my wife's wellbeing. Disclaimer: I'm not a nutjob. I completely understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. I simply don't believe enough research has gone into terahertz imaging, and don't believe I'll have any recourse against the US government (based on their track record) in the event its proven to have negative health effects in the future.
- MCRed 11y ago
  It doesn't matter whether they are dangerous or not. The fourth amendment is clear. The US Code 18-242 makes it a crime for them to search you, a felony if they are armed. The idea that the TSA has the "Right" to do what it does, but that expecting the US government to obey the law makes you a "nut job" is what's really nuts.
- stcredzero 11y ago
  I agree that there hasn't been enough research on terahertz X-ray scanners. The kind of justification they used wouldn't be enough to get a PhD. There's no call to put the health of millions of people on the line with that level of carelessness.
  - physicsyogi 11y ago
    Regarding the research, I think the majority (if not the only) research on the scanners has been conducted by the manufacturers themselves.
- NhanH 11y ago
  I've always wondered about this: is the machine physically incapable of blasting you with a stronger dose than it's supposed to, or is that software controlled? Because there is no way I'd believe the software on that thing doesn't have a bug.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Before I opted out of body scanners, I thought of this whenever I was in one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
  - CaptSpify 11y ago
    It's been a long time since I've looked into this, so my info may be out of date: They aren't releasing the data for when these machines are audited for safety/compliance. https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2015/OIG_15-86_May15.pdf https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2015/OIG_15-86_May15.pdf
  - tigerente 11y ago
    On rapiscan models (backscatter scans) it is basically software controlled, although the modularization makes it non trivial to be changed in a hack, as reported in this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_f4HUrn-NA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_f4HUrn-NA
- Diederich 11y ago
  Re: your disclaimer: thank you for posting this. We need to leave room for people who are cautious in reasonable ways, as you are describing. When our child was born in 2002, there was a lot of 'buzz' about the dangers of vaccinations. Most of it we were quickly able to filter out, but there was a body of research that had strong correlations between lower incidents of a whole variety of early childhood problems in '1st world' countries that didn't vaccinate as early and aggressively as the United States, such as Japan and some part of northern Europe. We decided to not vaccinate until our son was five years old, an age when he was getting into more crowded social situations. And he has been current ever since. We weren't 100% convinced that the broad spectrum and very early age vaccinations in the United States were a problem, but we weren't convinced otherwise. At the same time, we knew that vaccinations are an absolutely critical part of modern society. Like you, we made some conservative BUT WELL REASONED decisions regarding our child. That kind of middle of the road thinking needs to be way more commonplace. Sorry for totally hijacking your post. :)

by pyre 11y ago

toomuchtodo 11y ago

I remember that, and that also greatly concerns me. I can be held by the TSA solely for being concerned for my or my wife's wellbeing. Disclaimer: I'm not a nutjob. I completely understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. I simply don't believe enough research has gone into terahertz imaging, and don't believe I'll have any recourse against the US government (based on their track record) in the event its proven to have negative health effects in the future.

MCRed 11y ago
It doesn't matter whether they are dangerous or not. The fourth amendment is clear. The US Code 18-242 makes it a crime for them to search you, a felony if they are armed. The idea that the TSA has the "Right" to do what it does, but that expecting the US government to obey the law makes you a "nut job" is what's really nuts.
stcredzero 11y ago
I agree that there hasn't been enough research on terahertz X-ray scanners. The kind of justification they used wouldn't be enough to get a PhD. There's no call to put the health of millions of people on the line with that level of carelessness.
- physicsyogi 11y ago
  Regarding the research, I think the majority (if not the only) research on the scanners has been conducted by the manufacturers themselves.
NhanH 11y ago
I've always wondered about this: is the machine physically incapable of blasting you with a stronger dose than it's supposed to, or is that software controlled? Because there is no way I'd believe the software on that thing doesn't have a bug.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Before I opted out of body scanners, I thought of this whenever I was in one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  It's been a long time since I've looked into this, so my info may be out of date: They aren't releasing the data for when these machines are audited for safety/compliance. https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2015/OIG_15-86_May15.pdf https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2015/OIG_15-86_May15.pdf
- tigerente 11y ago
  On rapiscan models (backscatter scans) it is basically software controlled, although the modularization makes it non trivial to be changed in a hack, as reported in this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_f4HUrn-NA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_f4HUrn-NA
Diederich 11y ago
Re: your disclaimer: thank you for posting this. We need to leave room for people who are cautious in reasonable ways, as you are describing. When our child was born in 2002, there was a lot of 'buzz' about the dangers of vaccinations. Most of it we were quickly able to filter out, but there was a body of research that had strong correlations between lower incidents of a whole variety of early childhood problems in '1st world' countries that didn't vaccinate as early and aggressively as the United States, such as Japan and some part of northern Europe. We decided to not vaccinate until our son was five years old, an age when he was getting into more crowded social situations. And he has been current ever since. We weren't 100% convinced that the broad spectrum and very early age vaccinations in the United States were a problem, but we weren't convinced otherwise. At the same time, we knew that vaccinations are an absolutely critical part of modern society. Like you, we made some conservative BUT WELL REASONED decisions regarding our child. That kind of middle of the road thinking needs to be way more commonplace. Sorry for totally hijacking your post. :)