7 ms·

Review of the TSA X-ray backscatter body scanner safety report

75 points by adulau 15y ago

matusz13 15y ago
I wonder how many americans live in fear of terrorist attacks vs. cancer.
DiabloD3 15y ago
So, when they said the terrorists have already won, I wonder if they meant this
thornad 15y ago
Terrorist have already won. They ARE the government and the corporations. TSA scanners are a HUGE business for the ex-head of Homelad Security and his clique.But they had to invent the terrorist first, to make people accept being irradiated like that and pay for it while getting screwed. Also may want to google "depopulation agenda" (Kissinger & all). Then it will make even more sense. It's not just about the money.
- mootothemax 15y ago
  Terrorist have already won. Also may want to google "depopulation agenda" Do you not see the problem with the above? If you want to successfully argue against what the TSA is doing, you need to drop the conspiracy stuff. It's not a question of being right or wrong: it's making sure that valid complaints can't be brushed aside by snide remarks such as "Yeah, whatever, he's a conspiracy nut." And just for the avoidance of doubt, when the first page of Google is littered with links discussing the Illuminati, that does, sadly, damage your credibility.
  - thornad 15y ago
    Thank you for your kind message. You are right from a certain perspective. I just post the information I find interesting enough to make people think. Some people will dismiss it. There is nothig I can do for them, despite the fact that more and more conspiracy theories are turning out to be facts in one form or another. I'm not attached to any of it, nor do I believe everything in the form it is presented, and I wish people can make up their own minds.
    - Goronmon 15y ago
      So, this sounds like you can make up whatever you want, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, then hand-wave any criticism away by claiming you are just presenting possibilities? I'm not sure how you think that's not a dishonest thing to do.
      - anamax 15y ago
        > I'm not sure how you think that's not a dishonest thing to do. I've found that such folks fall into one of three categories. (1) He's doing this for the attention. (2) He's incompetent. (3) He's lying to discredit his supposed cause.
    - pavel_lishin 15y ago
      > There is nothig I can do for them You can focus on one topic at a time, to avoid being labeled a crank.
      - thornad 15y ago
        Good idea. Thanks.
yummyfajitas 15y ago
By eyeballing the graph, it looks as if about 8% of the x-rays emitted are soft. This is interesting, and it is troubling that the TSA was not more clear about this point. Kudos to the author for spotting this. But some of his conclusions don't make much sense. "With that being said, because the scanners have both a radiation source AND a detector in the front AND back of the person in the scanner, it is actually possible for the hardware to conduct a classic, through-the-body X-ray...So the hardware has the capability to output quite high doses of radiation..." The conclusion does not follow from the premise. I would expect any backscattering system to have a detector behind the subject for the purposes of calibration, if nothing else. Overall, nothing he says (apart from the vague speculation above) cuts against the fundamental point of the report: the dose is exceedingly low and is highly unlikely to cause any significant damage. I'd also like to point out that much like the TSA report, this blog post is "NOT authored by anyone with either a Ph.D. or a M.D., raising serious concerns of the extent of the expertise of the individual". (Not that this should matter, but the OP seems to think it does.)
- benmccann 15y ago
  The blog was written by a Ph.D. candidate at UC Davis with expertise in the biochemistry of DNA repair. I'd say that he has some expertise and he likely has a greater knowledge of the effects of ionizing radiation than a mid-level TSA official would.
ck2 15y ago
Even if a study existed that found them 100% safe, here's the thing about science: the later discovery of a missing fact or understanding about some small unknown behavior can change EVERYTHING. But then you are left with people who simply flout the original study for political reasons or ignorance. Happens in every field. This is also why modern nuclear power plant design seem so safe. And then something they didn't factor in shows up, or someone takes a sloppy shortcut in building or regulations that wasn't accounted for and suddenly there's no way to undue the damage (and no way to stop the failure). If they won't let TSA agents wear dosimeters, well then you'd have to be a moronic zombie to become a TSA agent and work around these machines. And that's predictably who is left working there. But hey you can sue for lack of benefits when you are dying of cancer, only to be told on your deathbed that you fall within the range of people who get cancer anyway, couldn't be the machine. I'd say "stop flying" but of course these machines are now in portable versions in vans and they can just drive down a street and expose everyone to it, opt-in or not (this really exists, it's not tinfoil hat paranoia http://google.com/search?q=backscatter+vans http://google.com/search?q=backscatter+vans ).
- rimantas 15y ago
  > This is also why modern nuclear power plant design > seem so safe. Have you got any proof thet it is not safe? Or are you talking about 40 years old reactors struck by once-in-millenia earthquake and cunami?
  - madflo 15y ago
    A safe design for a device producing nuclear waste can't exclude once-in-millenia earthquakes and tsunamis parameters.
    - mfringel 15y ago
      Okay, so once in 1,000 years isn't enough. I'll buy that, especially where an accident's effect can last for up to a century. So, how about once in 10,000 years? Once in 100,000 years? That's on the level of meteor strikes, and I can't think of any power plant that could withstand those. I think that "never" is as impractical as "two years from now."
gcb 15y ago
So, what one should do to avoid this?
- fragsworth 15y ago
  Request a pat-down, which you are entitled to, but it can get you harassed by annoyed TSA agents.
  - swombat 15y ago
    Unfortunately, the pat-downs are not an option in Europe. If you're selected for the Porn Scanner, and you refuse, they won't let you on the flight.
    - CaptainZapp 15y ago
      source? As a matter of fact I haven't seen a lot of back scatter scanners in European airports. Actually only one, in Amsterdam and that was not operational. My observations may be biased, of course. But I'm pretty certain that I haven't seen any in ZRH, VIE, DUS and PRG and LCY. And even Amsterdam security (which is a huge operation) didn't have one last time I passed it in March. EDIT : To clarify, the only one I've seen in AMS was in the Summer of 2010. March 2011 I didn't see any
      - Silhouette 15y ago
        It's a matter of public record in the UK. Look at the web site of any major airport that uses the scanners. I saw some writing by a guy who (claimed to have) refused the scan a while back, who was (he claimed) told by airport staff that because so few people refuse the scan, his details would automatically be sent to some government department (read: watch list). No idea how accurate his account was, but he certainly seemed quite upset about it, and it does have the ring of truth about it. After all, as many people have observed, "don't fly" is not a practical answer for a lot of circumstances, and in the UK at least, if you want to fly and you're selected, you're getting the virtual strip search and radiation dosage. There ought to be a law that anyone who thinks a 99.whatever% "acceptance" rate under those circumstances implies that almost everyone is happy with the scanners should be locked inside an active scanner with a few textbooks until they get the point one way or another...
cincinnatus 15y ago
Anecdotally, flying yesterday when I went through security I declined the scanner and was simply waved through a regular metal detector. I also did not remove my belt or shoes. Kind of a pre 9/11 screen. 2 months ago at the same airport I got the full-on scrotum poke.
- suking 15y ago
  Ditto - I opted out a few months ago and basically got a hand job - a few weeks ago it was nothing, quick wave of the wand.
  - gravitronic 15y ago
    I went through the scanner a few weeks ago. I was a bit jetlagged so I didn't raise my concern quick enough, which I fully admit is my fault. They basically herded my fiancee and I through the machine without telling us what it was or that we had any option for a pat down. That's what bothers me the most I think. They seem to be ok with subjecting people to this without telling them or presenting them with the choice. After careful consideration being molested by the state would have been my preferred method of security authentication, given the opportunity.
    - suking 15y ago
      Same - they never said I didn't have to go through - they just said go through here. I knew better and got the tug instead.
Sukotto 15y ago
In addition to the radiation risk from the Rapescan machine (and the potential problems of overexposure raised by the OP), you also need to consider the extra radiation exposure you get from the flight itself. Some numbers here [1] and a calculator here [2]. [1] http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflig... [2] http://www.sievert-system.org/WebMasters/en/evaluation.html http://www.sievert-system.org/WebMasters/en/evaluation.html

75 points by adulau 15y ago

matusz13 15y ago

I wonder how many americans live in fear of terrorist attacks vs. cancer.

DiabloD3 15y ago

So, when they said the terrorists have already won, I wonder if they meant this

thornad 15y ago

Terrorist have already won. They ARE the government and the corporations. TSA scanners are a HUGE business for the ex-head of Homelad Security and his clique.But they had to invent the terrorist first, to make people accept being irradiated like that and pay for it while getting screwed. Also may want to google "depopulation agenda" (Kissinger & all). Then it will make even more sense. It's not just about the money.

mootothemax 15y ago
Terrorist have already won. Also may want to google "depopulation agenda" Do you not see the problem with the above? If you want to successfully argue against what the TSA is doing, you need to drop the conspiracy stuff. It's not a question of being right or wrong: it's making sure that valid complaints can't be brushed aside by snide remarks such as "Yeah, whatever, he's a conspiracy nut." And just for the avoidance of doubt, when the first page of Google is littered with links discussing the Illuminati, that does, sadly, damage your credibility.
- thornad 15y ago
  Thank you for your kind message. You are right from a certain perspective. I just post the information I find interesting enough to make people think. Some people will dismiss it. There is nothig I can do for them, despite the fact that more and more conspiracy theories are turning out to be facts in one form or another. I'm not attached to any of it, nor do I believe everything in the form it is presented, and I wish people can make up their own minds.
  - Goronmon 15y ago
    So, this sounds like you can make up whatever you want, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, then hand-wave any criticism away by claiming you are just presenting possibilities? I'm not sure how you think that's not a dishonest thing to do.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > I'm not sure how you think that's not a dishonest thing to do. I've found that such folks fall into one of three categories. (1) He's doing this for the attention. (2) He's incompetent. (3) He's lying to discredit his supposed cause.
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    > There is nothig I can do for them You can focus on one topic at a time, to avoid being labeled a crank.
    - thornad 15y ago
      Good idea. Thanks.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

By eyeballing the graph, it looks as if about 8% of the x-rays emitted are soft. This is interesting, and it is troubling that the TSA was not more clear about this point. Kudos to the author for spotting this. But some of his conclusions don't make much sense. "With that being said, because the scanners have both a radiation source AND a detector in the front AND back of the person in the scanner, it is actually possible for the hardware to conduct a classic, through-the-body X-ray...So the hardware has the capability to output quite high doses of radiation..." The conclusion does not follow from the premise. I would expect any backscattering system to have a detector behind the subject for the purposes of calibration, if nothing else. Overall, nothing he says (apart from the vague speculation above) cuts against the fundamental point of the report: the dose is exceedingly low and is highly unlikely to cause any significant damage. I'd also like to point out that much like the TSA report, this blog post is "NOT authored by anyone with either a Ph.D. or a M.D., raising serious concerns of the extent of the expertise of the individual". (Not that this should matter, but the OP seems to think it does.)

benmccann 15y ago
The blog was written by a Ph.D. candidate at UC Davis with expertise in the biochemistry of DNA repair. I'd say that he has some expertise and he likely has a greater knowledge of the effects of ionizing radiation than a mid-level TSA official would.

ck2 15y ago

Even if a study existed that found them 100% safe, here's the thing about science: the later discovery of a missing fact or understanding about some small unknown behavior can change EVERYTHING. But then you are left with people who simply flout the original study for political reasons or ignorance. Happens in every field. This is also why modern nuclear power plant design seem so safe. And then something they didn't factor in shows up, or someone takes a sloppy shortcut in building or regulations that wasn't accounted for and suddenly there's no way to undue the damage (and no way to stop the failure). If they won't let TSA agents wear dosimeters, well then you'd have to be a moronic zombie to become a TSA agent and work around these machines. And that's predictably who is left working there. But hey you can sue for lack of benefits when you are dying of cancer, only to be told on your deathbed that you fall within the range of people who get cancer anyway, couldn't be the machine. I'd say "stop flying" but of course these machines are now in portable versions in vans and they can just drive down a street and expose everyone to it, opt-in or not (this really exists, it's not tinfoil hat paranoia http://google.com/search?q=backscatter+vans http://google.com/search?q=backscatter+vans ).

rimantas 15y ago
> This is also why modern nuclear power plant design > seem so safe. Have you got any proof thet it is not safe? Or are you talking about 40 years old reactors struck by once-in-millenia earthquake and cunami?
- madflo 15y ago
  A safe design for a device producing nuclear waste can't exclude once-in-millenia earthquakes and tsunamis parameters.
  - mfringel 15y ago
    Okay, so once in 1,000 years isn't enough. I'll buy that, especially where an accident's effect can last for up to a century. So, how about once in 10,000 years? Once in 100,000 years? That's on the level of meteor strikes, and I can't think of any power plant that could withstand those. I think that "never" is as impractical as "two years from now."

gcb 15y ago

So, what one should do to avoid this?

fragsworth 15y ago
Request a pat-down, which you are entitled to, but it can get you harassed by annoyed TSA agents.
- swombat 15y ago
  Unfortunately, the pat-downs are not an option in Europe. If you're selected for the Porn Scanner, and you refuse, they won't let you on the flight.
  - CaptainZapp 15y ago
    source? As a matter of fact I haven't seen a lot of back scatter scanners in European airports. Actually only one, in Amsterdam and that was not operational. My observations may be biased, of course. But I'm pretty certain that I haven't seen any in ZRH, VIE, DUS and PRG and LCY. And even Amsterdam security (which is a huge operation) didn't have one last time I passed it in March. EDIT : To clarify, the only one I've seen in AMS was in the Summer of 2010. March 2011 I didn't see any
    - Silhouette 15y ago
      It's a matter of public record in the UK. Look at the web site of any major airport that uses the scanners. I saw some writing by a guy who (claimed to have) refused the scan a while back, who was (he claimed) told by airport staff that because so few people refuse the scan, his details would automatically be sent to some government department (read: watch list). No idea how accurate his account was, but he certainly seemed quite upset about it, and it does have the ring of truth about it. After all, as many people have observed, "don't fly" is not a practical answer for a lot of circumstances, and in the UK at least, if you want to fly and you're selected, you're getting the virtual strip search and radiation dosage. There ought to be a law that anyone who thinks a 99.whatever% "acceptance" rate under those circumstances implies that almost everyone is happy with the scanners should be locked inside an active scanner with a few textbooks until they get the point one way or another...

cincinnatus 15y ago

Anecdotally, flying yesterday when I went through security I declined the scanner and was simply waved through a regular metal detector. I also did not remove my belt or shoes. Kind of a pre 9/11 screen. 2 months ago at the same airport I got the full-on scrotum poke.

suking 15y ago
Ditto - I opted out a few months ago and basically got a hand job - a few weeks ago it was nothing, quick wave of the wand.
- gravitronic 15y ago
  I went through the scanner a few weeks ago. I was a bit jetlagged so I didn't raise my concern quick enough, which I fully admit is my fault. They basically herded my fiancee and I through the machine without telling us what it was or that we had any option for a pat down. That's what bothers me the most I think. They seem to be ok with subjecting people to this without telling them or presenting them with the choice. After careful consideration being molested by the state would have been my preferred method of security authentication, given the opportunity.
  - suking 15y ago
    Same - they never said I didn't have to go through - they just said go through here. I knew better and got the tug instead.

Sukotto 15y ago

In addition to the radiation risk from the Rapescan machine (and the potential problems of overexposure raised by the OP), you also need to consider the extra radiation exposure you get from the flight itself. Some numbers here [1] and a calculator here [2]. [1] http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflig... [2] http://www.sievert-system.org/WebMasters/en/evaluation.html http://www.sievert-system.org/WebMasters/en/evaluation.html