6 ms·

The scariest thing about this, to me, was seeing how people not even in the scanner were picked up. I suppose it's to be expected, since it isn't exactly shiel

by bmelton 16y ago

The scariest thing about this, to me, was seeing how people not even in the scanner were picked up. I suppose it's to be expected, since it isn't exactly shielded in the way you'd expect it to be, but if this thing is just spewing radiation all over the place, I can't imagine what's going to become of the people that actually work near it all day long. My privacy is one thing, and I do a good deal to avoid the Backscatters, but this is potentially an actual life and death situation that people may not have even considered, or worse, that is drowned out by all the discussion about our freedoms.

detst 16y ago
In another post, I made the comment that anyone that opts out of going through these machines should use this fact to plant fear in the minds of TSA agents. Every one of them should at least be a little concerned about this and it would be great to see them oppose these machines for their own safety, if nothing else.
- johnglasgow 16y ago
  You act like TSA agents came up with the idea to grope and body scan everyone in the airport. This is a huge pain the in ass for them, and they know that it poses a health risk for themselves. However, this is their job, and they are carrying out orders from their superiors. So there's no reason to make snide remarks to the agents.
  - dwwoelfel 16y ago
    They can quit.
  - detst 16y ago
    > This is a huge pain the in ass for them I'm sure it is. > However, this is their job, and they are carrying out orders from their superiors. I fundamentally oppose this reasoning as justification for doing something you think is wrong. > So there's no reason to make snide remarks to the agents. Saying this as you out opt isn't snide: "I'm a little concerned about the radiation myself but I can't imagine what it's like for you to stand near this machine all day. It must be worrying". I would argue that many of these people are told that the machines are perfectly safe and don't even consider that they are being exposed while standing outside.
    - paulgb 16y ago
      > I fundamentally oppose this reasoning as justification for doing something you think is wrong. Nobody does evil all by themselves. If everyone thought like you do, there would be less room for evil in the world.
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        Exactly. Personally I wish that, legally, using the Nuremberg ("just doing my job") Defense would get you a much more severe sentence. If no one were willing to do evil things because "it's their job" most of the biggest atrocities we can think of couldn't have been committed and we would have never heard of many of the most evil people in history. None of them could have accomplished anything all by themselves.
  - spacemanaki 16y ago
    While this opinion is clearly unpopular, to a certain extend I agree with the johnglasgow. I hope that I would quit if I were in a similar situation as the TSA employees, but I'm fortunate to have finished college and actually have an interest in a relatively lucrative field (computer programming, natch). While, technically, they might use the Nuremberg defense, I think bringing that up is a little harsh. Some of the TSA workers probably do disagree, but some of them also have been working in this job since before the scanners were introduced, or before other less controversial practices were introduced. If you have a stable job and not too many other prospects, it is particularly difficult to leave, due to human inertia etc... I know how this can be as I'd like to find a new job right now too, because I really hate using CVS where I work now :) In addition, if they are less educated, they might genuinely believe that what they are doing is helping prevent terrorism. I'm sure there is plenty of mild to heavy indoctrination done during training, and I doubt that many of the TSA agents at the gate are reading Bruce Schneier. I think it would behoove HNers to have a little more compassion for these people, it is highly likely that they are less fortunate than most of HN. Needless to say, I disagree with the TSA policies. And actually I think "snide" remarks about the possible health dangers, and educating other passengers similar to a story posted yesterday, is great. Unfortunately, I think comments about the safety of the machines are probably pretty infrequent, and that the agents probably get a lot more incoherent flak than that about all the inane procedures.
- mattbauer 16y ago
  This is a good point. I bet the level of radiation is an OSHA violation. Nothing like one government agency fighting another.
  - runT1ME 16y ago
    >This is a good point. I bet the level of radiation is an OSHA violation. Nothing like one government agency fighting another. You sir, are a mad genius. But really, how long before a class action lawsuit thrown against the government for exposing many to this type of thing? On one hand, I hope it takes a long time for people to feel the ill effects, buton the other...
    - samd 16y ago
      I would be disappointed if these machines were eventually decommissioned because of radiation safety issues. That's not why they're wrong, and it won't help us avoid these sorts of crimes against liberty in the future. They'll just come up with some new, safer way of violating our rights.
      - daten 16y ago
        That's not why they're wrong I would argue that it's one of many reasons they are wrong. I'm equally as concerned about the privacy and civil rights violations. But it's still a problem that the machines pose a physical risk to passengers and TSA employees.
- watchandwait 16y ago
  Yes, ask them why they aren't wearing dosimeter badges like health care workers who are potentially exposed to radiation. Ask them how can they be sure the machines are functioning properly.
Confusion 16y ago
I don't think it's a good idea to spread FUD based on irrational fears of 'radiation'. That has done enough damage to our lives already. These machines or no more dangerous than microwaves, GSM telephones or regular flying. Now of course, people will respond to me citing authorities or papers claiming otherwise. However, that doesn't mean a thing. There is no issue in the world on which you can't cite someone or something seemingly relevant to support some point. However, if that point is a minority opinion, we usually trust the majority. We accept the majority opinion of doctors, engineers and other professionals in science-backed professions all the time. Straying from that principle in this specific case, because you want to believe that this case is different, is being inconsistent. Inconsistency breeds distrust, which is a reason not to behave inconsistently if you can help it. Therefore, don't just start believing stuff and spreading FUD about it because it suits you. There's nothing to complain about the radiation of these scanners, if you accept there is nothing sufficiently unsafe about microwaves, WiFi, GSM and regular flying.
- audeyisaacs 16y ago
  >These machines or no more dangerous than microwaves, GSM telephones Not necessarily true. Some of these machines use x-rays, which are far more dangerous than WiFi(ISM Band 2.4GHz) and GSM(<2GHz). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionising_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionising_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
  - Confusion 16y ago
    I Am A Physicist and well aware of that. My arguments is based on the safety ratings of these machines and the research supporting those ratings. I'm not arguing that the safety of microwaves carries over to these machines: I'm arguing the same methods of judging the safety carries over. I also didn't include regular flying for nothing. Finally, we used to be sitting behind CRT monitors all the time...
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      People are worried about the x-ray machines, not the microwave ones. The x-ray are by far the majority and that radiation damage is cumulative. That means that it doesn't matter how much we're getting elsewhere, we are adding to the damage unnecessarily, and the TSA workers at an even larger rate.
marze 16y ago
This scanner is not an x-ray scanner like the ones deployed to scan air travelers. X-rays are ionizing radiation, the kind which can cause cancer. The machine in the picture uses millimeter waves which are not ionizing, and produces a much fuzzier image. Although the TSA claims the x-ray dose given to air travelers is safe, there are reasons for concern. For one, they refuse to disclose the x-ray flux. Also, the comparisons the TSA makes with other radiation sources are flawed because they compare to the absorbed x-ray dose and average it over the entire volume of a person. Anyone in radiation safety understands the important number is the dose absorbed in specific portions of the body. In this case, the x-ray radiation is absorbed in the skin (minus the very small scattered fraction), not your entire body volume, resulting in a much higher local dose than you would expect if you modeled the exposure as uniform through the volume. Since the x-ray source strength is quite low (assuming the machine isn't multifunctioning), the health risks to occasional travelers are likely to be low. Maybe frequent travelers or airline employees should have greater concern, or those at risk of cataracts. See: http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf
- docgnome 16y ago
  Thanks for explaining this. I was a bit unclear about the reasons for concern as everything I've found has just been to spread FUD.

by bmelton 16y ago

detst 16y ago

In another post, I made the comment that anyone that opts out of going through these machines should use this fact to plant fear in the minds of TSA agents. Every one of them should at least be a little concerned about this and it would be great to see them oppose these machines for their own safety, if nothing else.

johnglasgow 16y ago
You act like TSA agents came up with the idea to grope and body scan everyone in the airport. This is a huge pain the in ass for them, and they know that it poses a health risk for themselves. However, this is their job, and they are carrying out orders from their superiors. So there's no reason to make snide remarks to the agents.
- dwwoelfel 16y ago
  They can quit.
- detst 16y ago
  > This is a huge pain the in ass for them I'm sure it is. > However, this is their job, and they are carrying out orders from their superiors. I fundamentally oppose this reasoning as justification for doing something you think is wrong. > So there's no reason to make snide remarks to the agents. Saying this as you out opt isn't snide: "I'm a little concerned about the radiation myself but I can't imagine what it's like for you to stand near this machine all day. It must be worrying". I would argue that many of these people are told that the machines are perfectly safe and don't even consider that they are being exposed while standing outside.
  - paulgb 16y ago
    > I fundamentally oppose this reasoning as justification for doing something you think is wrong. Nobody does evil all by themselves. If everyone thought like you do, there would be less room for evil in the world.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      Exactly. Personally I wish that, legally, using the Nuremberg ("just doing my job") Defense would get you a much more severe sentence. If no one were willing to do evil things because "it's their job" most of the biggest atrocities we can think of couldn't have been committed and we would have never heard of many of the most evil people in history. None of them could have accomplished anything all by themselves.
- spacemanaki 16y ago
  While this opinion is clearly unpopular, to a certain extend I agree with the johnglasgow. I hope that I would quit if I were in a similar situation as the TSA employees, but I'm fortunate to have finished college and actually have an interest in a relatively lucrative field (computer programming, natch). While, technically, they might use the Nuremberg defense, I think bringing that up is a little harsh. Some of the TSA workers probably do disagree, but some of them also have been working in this job since before the scanners were introduced, or before other less controversial practices were introduced. If you have a stable job and not too many other prospects, it is particularly difficult to leave, due to human inertia etc... I know how this can be as I'd like to find a new job right now too, because I really hate using CVS where I work now :) In addition, if they are less educated, they might genuinely believe that what they are doing is helping prevent terrorism. I'm sure there is plenty of mild to heavy indoctrination done during training, and I doubt that many of the TSA agents at the gate are reading Bruce Schneier. I think it would behoove HNers to have a little more compassion for these people, it is highly likely that they are less fortunate than most of HN. Needless to say, I disagree with the TSA policies. And actually I think "snide" remarks about the possible health dangers, and educating other passengers similar to a story posted yesterday, is great. Unfortunately, I think comments about the safety of the machines are probably pretty infrequent, and that the agents probably get a lot more incoherent flak than that about all the inane procedures.
mattbauer 16y ago
This is a good point. I bet the level of radiation is an OSHA violation. Nothing like one government agency fighting another.
- runT1ME 16y ago
  >This is a good point. I bet the level of radiation is an OSHA violation. Nothing like one government agency fighting another. You sir, are a mad genius. But really, how long before a class action lawsuit thrown against the government for exposing many to this type of thing? On one hand, I hope it takes a long time for people to feel the ill effects, buton the other...
  - samd 16y ago
    I would be disappointed if these machines were eventually decommissioned because of radiation safety issues. That's not why they're wrong, and it won't help us avoid these sorts of crimes against liberty in the future. They'll just come up with some new, safer way of violating our rights.
    - daten 16y ago
      That's not why they're wrong I would argue that it's one of many reasons they are wrong. I'm equally as concerned about the privacy and civil rights violations. But it's still a problem that the machines pose a physical risk to passengers and TSA employees.
watchandwait 16y ago
Yes, ask them why they aren't wearing dosimeter badges like health care workers who are potentially exposed to radiation. Ask them how can they be sure the machines are functioning properly.

Confusion 16y ago

I don't think it's a good idea to spread FUD based on irrational fears of 'radiation'. That has done enough damage to our lives already. These machines or no more dangerous than microwaves, GSM telephones or regular flying. Now of course, people will respond to me citing authorities or papers claiming otherwise. However, that doesn't mean a thing. There is no issue in the world on which you can't cite someone or something seemingly relevant to support some point. However, if that point is a minority opinion, we usually trust the majority. We accept the majority opinion of doctors, engineers and other professionals in science-backed professions all the time. Straying from that principle in this specific case, because you want to believe that this case is different, is being inconsistent. Inconsistency breeds distrust, which is a reason not to behave inconsistently if you can help it. Therefore, don't just start believing stuff and spreading FUD about it because it suits you. There's nothing to complain about the radiation of these scanners, if you accept there is nothing sufficiently unsafe about microwaves, WiFi, GSM and regular flying.

audeyisaacs 16y ago
>These machines or no more dangerous than microwaves, GSM telephones Not necessarily true. Some of these machines use x-rays, which are far more dangerous than WiFi(ISM Band 2.4GHz) and GSM(<2GHz). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionising_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionising_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
- Confusion 16y ago
  I Am A Physicist and well aware of that. My arguments is based on the safety ratings of these machines and the research supporting those ratings. I'm not arguing that the safety of microwaves carries over to these machines: I'm arguing the same methods of judging the safety carries over. I also didn't include regular flying for nothing. Finally, we used to be sitting behind CRT monitors all the time...
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    People are worried about the x-ray machines, not the microwave ones. The x-ray are by far the majority and that radiation damage is cumulative. That means that it doesn't matter how much we're getting elsewhere, we are adding to the damage unnecessarily, and the TSA workers at an even larger rate.

marze 16y ago

This scanner is not an x-ray scanner like the ones deployed to scan air travelers. X-rays are ionizing radiation, the kind which can cause cancer. The machine in the picture uses millimeter waves which are not ionizing, and produces a much fuzzier image. Although the TSA claims the x-ray dose given to air travelers is safe, there are reasons for concern. For one, they refuse to disclose the x-ray flux. Also, the comparisons the TSA makes with other radiation sources are flawed because they compare to the absorbed x-ray dose and average it over the entire volume of a person. Anyone in radiation safety understands the important number is the dose absorbed in specific portions of the body. In this case, the x-ray radiation is absorbed in the skin (minus the very small scattered fraction), not your entire body volume, resulting in a much higher local dose than you would expect if you modeled the exposure as uniform through the volume. Since the x-ray source strength is quite low (assuming the machine isn't multifunctioning), the health risks to occasional travelers are likely to be low. Maybe frequent travelers or airline employees should have greater concern, or those at risk of cataracts. See: http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

docgnome 16y ago
Thanks for explaining this. I was a bit unclear about the reasons for concern as everything I've found has just been to spread FUD.