3 ms·

> As far as we know, there is no general ban on wearing instrumentation of any other on the job, unless it is somehow clumsy and would interfere with their duti

> As far as we know, there is no general ban on wearing instrumentation of any other on the job, unless it is somehow clumsy and would interfere with their duties or the appearance of their uniform. Who is "we"? Aren't you just pleading ignorance here? What do really you know about what TSA agents can and can't wear? Anything can "interfere" with the appearance of a uniform, including a "small photographic patch". > The only plausible reason to forbid this is to prevent any kind of whistleblower event. Then why do they do allow third party monitoring? Having further looked into this, the page you posted is outdated and they ended up handing out dosimeters themselves: https://www.livescience.com/36079-airport-security-screening-personal-radiation-monitoring.html https://www.livescience.com/36079-airport-security-screening... The result was negative. Of course you can't prove a negative, maybe there's radiation somewhere else where they didn't look... > 2) There are medical limits on how many x-ray and CT-Scan procedures are allowed for patients, again due to the cumulative nature of radiation exposure. > 3) The TSA machines do produce sufficient radiation in their beam to fog ASA800 and higher film. This is definitely a non-trivial dose. According to: https://www.radiologybusiness.com/topics/business-intelligence/tsa-tests-radiation-scanners-acceptable-levels https://www.radiologybusiness.com/topics/business-intelligen... " TSA claims the “backscatter machines” cannot produce more than 0.005 millirem of radiation per scan. In comparison, the agency says, a chest x-ray exposes patients to 10 millirem of radiation, and the maximum recommended exposure to radiation from man-made sources is 100 millirem per year." That would mean that if you had a machine that was completely unshielded, you would have to perform 2000 scans to get the equivalent of a chest X-Ray. Compare that to the radiation exposure of your average flight attendant.

toss1 7y ago
>> Anything can "interfere" with the appearance of a uniform, including a "small photographic patch". Not if it is inside your pocket. Get real. >> Then why do they do allow third party monitoring? Obviously because they can control when it is done as well as how the results are distributed, or not distributed. >> " TSA claims the “backscatter machines” cannot produce more than 0.005 millirem of radiation per scan. In comparison, the agency says, a chest x-ray exposes patients to 10 millirem of radiation, and the maximum recommended exposure to radiation from man-made sources is 100 millirem per year." >> That would mean that if you had a machine that was completely unshielded, you would have to perform 2000 scans to get the equivalent of a chest X-Ray 1) this assumes that the "0.005 millirem per scan" is the total output of the machine, including all radiation absorbed by the lensing & shielding. We do not know if this figure is the total generation output, or only the total amount put to the target & receiving sensors. 2) one thing we do know is that the radiation will NOT be scattered evenly; there will be lobes and hotspots and cold spots. 3) even if we assume .005millirem/scan, at the rate of two/minute, that's 1000 minutes to get a chest x-ray, or 16 hours, basically two work days. In LESS THAN ONE MONTH, they are over the yearly dose. More importantly, this is only counting the backscatter machines that are specifically designed for super-low doses as they are specifically irradating people. This does NOT look at the luggage scanners, either for carry-ons or for checked luggage, which likely have much higher outputs. Finally, even if your arguments are correct and there is truly no risk, there should be no problem at all for officers to wear their own dosimeters -- the results would merely be putting their minds at ease that they are not getting exposed. Thus, we are back to the only reason to prevent officers from wearing dosimeters is an attempt to control the information and prevent whistleblowers and/or lawsuits. Again, I sincerely hope you are not an employer with this attitude.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Obviously because they can control when it is done as well as how the results are distributed, or not distributed. Let's apply some Occam's Razor here. I am led to believe they know that these machines are harmful and therefore they are carefully orchestrating all testing of these devices by, among others, all of the following parties: "U.S. Army Public Health Command, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL)". That's all done to prevent some sort of mass lawsuit, which might cost the United States some money. The simpler explanation is that TSA rules are simply really strict, because that's just how TSA rules are. https://www.quora.com/Are-TSA-screeners-permitted-to-wear-radiation-exposure-badges https://www.quora.com/Are-TSA-screeners-permitted-to-wear-ra... The rules don't have to make sense. There's a whole lot about the TSA and its procedures that doesn't make sense. > We do not know if this figure is the total generation output, or only the total amount put to the target & receiving sensors. I'm content with the description given that these machines "cannot produce" more than that. You can do your own research on the matter. > 3) even if we assume .005millirem/scan, at the rate of two/minute, that's 1000 minutes to get a chest x-ray, or 16 hours, basically two work days. In LESS THAN ONE MONTH, they are over the yearly dose. ...assuming no shielding whatsoever. You would hope that after two months without shielding on the device, someone might notice. Even then, such exposure would be well below the occupational limit for radiation workers (5000 millirem): https://ehs.stanford.edu/manual/radiation-protection-guidance-hospital-staff/maximum-permissible-occupational-doses https://ehs.stanford.edu/manual/radiation-protection-guidanc... > This does NOT look at the luggage scanners, either for carry-ons or for checked luggage, which likely have much higher outputs. Fair enough, but you picked an article that was specifically concerned with those backscatter devices.
  - toss1 7y ago
    >>I am led to believe they know that these machines are harmful and therefore they are carefully orchestrating... That's not even close to the simplest explanation. Far simpler is that they are careless, clueless, and paranoid, and don't want anyone finding out something bad on their watch. Or they just don't want to allow anyone to get concerned. >> The rules don't have to make sense. Unless we're living in a Kafka or Vonnegut book, they are supposed to have actual reasons and make sense. Calling out one particular type of measuring device, which happens to measure the one plausible type of hazard in that workplace, yeah, that's suspicious. >> .assuming no shielding whatsoever. Does not assume no shielding whatsoever, only a plausible hotspot or focus. The point is that the potential dosing is in the range of values that could cause a hazard, and even at 10% of that value, would be overdosing within a year. It is not like it is totally off the scale (as are many of the public's fears). >> You would hope that after two months without shielding on the device, someone might notice. Yes, you would hope that. However, if you've ever read reports on industrial issues, you'll find that far worse and more noticeable hazards go unnoticed/unfixed for YEARS at a time before they get around to killing someone. And this sort of low-level radiation is particularly pernicious, as it is completely unnoticeable until after it is too late. The simple solution is, assuming that these machines are largely safe (which I generally expect), is to say "you can buy dosimeters on your own dime and wear them if you like, just keep them out of sight in your pocket while on duty. If anyone gets any unexpectedly high readings, we'll investigate, but remember since you haven't got a chain of custody around the meter, it'll be only the beginning of an investigation, not immediate acceptance of your results." Ye, it may turn out to be bit more work, but it shows you're on the side of worker safety, and on the road to getting things fixed. Mostly, it'll quell any fear and likely cause no one to wear one. With the rules as it is, I'd be damn sure to sneak dosimeters into my clothes while working there.

toss1 7y ago

>> Anything can "interfere" with the appearance of a uniform, including a "small photographic patch". Not if it is inside your pocket. Get real. >> Then why do they do allow third party monitoring? Obviously because they can control when it is done as well as how the results are distributed, or not distributed. >> " TSA claims the “backscatter machines” cannot produce more than 0.005 millirem of radiation per scan. In comparison, the agency says, a chest x-ray exposes patients to 10 millirem of radiation, and the maximum recommended exposure to radiation from man-made sources is 100 millirem per year." >> That would mean that if you had a machine that was completely unshielded, you would have to perform 2000 scans to get the equivalent of a chest X-Ray 1) this assumes that the "0.005 millirem per scan" is the total output of the machine, including all radiation absorbed by the lensing & shielding. We do not know if this figure is the total generation output, or only the total amount put to the target & receiving sensors. 2) one thing we do know is that the radiation will NOT be scattered evenly; there will be lobes and hotspots and cold spots. 3) even if we assume .005millirem/scan, at the rate of two/minute, that's 1000 minutes to get a chest x-ray, or 16 hours, basically two work days. In LESS THAN ONE MONTH, they are over the yearly dose. More importantly, this is only counting the backscatter machines that are specifically designed for super-low doses as they are specifically irradating people. This does NOT look at the luggage scanners, either for carry-ons or for checked luggage, which likely have much higher outputs. Finally, even if your arguments are correct and there is truly no risk, there should be no problem at all for officers to wear their own dosimeters -- the results would merely be putting their minds at ease that they are not getting exposed. Thus, we are back to the only reason to prevent officers from wearing dosimeters is an attempt to control the information and prevent whistleblowers and/or lawsuits. Again, I sincerely hope you are not an employer with this attitude.

gridlockd 7y ago
> Obviously because they can control when it is done as well as how the results are distributed, or not distributed. Let's apply some Occam's Razor here. I am led to believe they know that these machines are harmful and therefore they are carefully orchestrating all testing of these devices by, among others, all of the following parties: "U.S. Army Public Health Command, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL)". That's all done to prevent some sort of mass lawsuit, which might cost the United States some money. The simpler explanation is that TSA rules are simply really strict, because that's just how TSA rules are. https://www.quora.com/Are-TSA-screeners-permitted-to-wear-radiation-exposure-badges https://www.quora.com/Are-TSA-screeners-permitted-to-wear-ra... The rules don't have to make sense. There's a whole lot about the TSA and its procedures that doesn't make sense. > We do not know if this figure is the total generation output, or only the total amount put to the target & receiving sensors. I'm content with the description given that these machines "cannot produce" more than that. You can do your own research on the matter. > 3) even if we assume .005millirem/scan, at the rate of two/minute, that's 1000 minutes to get a chest x-ray, or 16 hours, basically two work days. In LESS THAN ONE MONTH, they are over the yearly dose. ...assuming no shielding whatsoever. You would hope that after two months without shielding on the device, someone might notice. Even then, such exposure would be well below the occupational limit for radiation workers (5000 millirem): https://ehs.stanford.edu/manual/radiation-protection-guidance-hospital-staff/maximum-permissible-occupational-doses https://ehs.stanford.edu/manual/radiation-protection-guidanc... > This does NOT look at the luggage scanners, either for carry-ons or for checked luggage, which likely have much higher outputs. Fair enough, but you picked an article that was specifically concerned with those backscatter devices.
- toss1 7y ago
  >>I am led to believe they know that these machines are harmful and therefore they are carefully orchestrating... That's not even close to the simplest explanation. Far simpler is that they are careless, clueless, and paranoid, and don't want anyone finding out something bad on their watch. Or they just don't want to allow anyone to get concerned. >> The rules don't have to make sense. Unless we're living in a Kafka or Vonnegut book, they are supposed to have actual reasons and make sense. Calling out one particular type of measuring device, which happens to measure the one plausible type of hazard in that workplace, yeah, that's suspicious. >> .assuming no shielding whatsoever. Does not assume no shielding whatsoever, only a plausible hotspot or focus. The point is that the potential dosing is in the range of values that could cause a hazard, and even at 10% of that value, would be overdosing within a year. It is not like it is totally off the scale (as are many of the public's fears). >> You would hope that after two months without shielding on the device, someone might notice. Yes, you would hope that. However, if you've ever read reports on industrial issues, you'll find that far worse and more noticeable hazards go unnoticed/unfixed for YEARS at a time before they get around to killing someone. And this sort of low-level radiation is particularly pernicious, as it is completely unnoticeable until after it is too late. The simple solution is, assuming that these machines are largely safe (which I generally expect), is to say "you can buy dosimeters on your own dime and wear them if you like, just keep them out of sight in your pocket while on duty. If anyone gets any unexpectedly high readings, we'll investigate, but remember since you haven't got a chain of custody around the meter, it'll be only the beginning of an investigation, not immediate acceptance of your results." Ye, it may turn out to be bit more work, but it shows you're on the side of worker safety, and on the road to getting things fixed. Mostly, it'll quell any fear and likely cause no one to wear one. With the rules as it is, I'd be damn sure to sneak dosimeters into my clothes while working there.