12 ms·

Airport full-body X-ray scanners banned across Europe as unsafe

422 points by ukdm 15y ago

mmcconnell1618 15y ago
Keep in mind that there are 2 types of machines in common use. 1) Backscatter (X-Ray) and 2) Millimeter Wave (Radio) and they operate very differently. Based on what I've read I'm comfortable with the millimeter wave system and have some concerns about the backscatter x-ray system. However, if the backscatter system operates correctly then the amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight. I still think I'd opt-out of the backscatter system until long term effects and performance are studied. Tip: Millimeter wave looks like a circular telephone booth, Backscatter x-ray looks like a big rectangular wall you stand in front of. http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/5/163631/3181/travel/Full-Body+Scanners+101%3A+The+Two+Types+and+How+They+Work http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/5/163631/3181/travel/Ful...
- ghurlman 15y ago
  if the backscatter system operates correctly That's putting a lot of faith into the TSA.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    Even leaving aside whether the TSA is well-run or not, the lack (as far as seems to be publicly known) of a rigorous risk analysis is a bit troubling. Not just as far as the medical questions go (e.g. what's a safe exposure level), but just standard engineering stuff. For example, since backscatter machines work by scanning a narrow beam very quickly over the body, a particularly problematic failure mode would be the beam remaining energized but failing to move, which would give a very high localized dose. Even if that "can't happen", you would typically have some sort of failsafe that should rapidly cut off the beam in that case. If this were a medical device, there are fairly well established ways of doing failure-mode analysis to quantify that risk and the reliability/speed of the failsafes. Have companies like Rapiscan done that?
    - nobody31415926 15y ago
      There is a huge difference in the dose even from properly certified medical X-rays, depending on how old the machine is, the maintenance, the settings and the method selected http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/ct-scan-radiation-may-cause-cancers/article1400123/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/ct-scan-radiation...
- po 15y ago
  However, if the backscatter system operates correctly then the amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight. The most compelling argument I've heard about the dangers is that while the total amount of ionizing radiation you receive is small compared to the flight itself, the radiation is chosen such that it doesn't pass through you and more of it is absorbed at the skin. Even if they are safe, I will probably opt-out but I definitely don't like being separated from my baggage on the belt during the pat-down process.
  - axiak 15y ago
    In my experience (I've opted-out 6 times now in the past 1.5 years), they let you take your baggage with you to the pat down area, and you never have to lose eye contact.
    - keithg 15y ago
      I've done it a few times now, and they have always had me identify my bag, shoes, etc on the belt before the pat down. Then they set the bags aside. They also insist that you don't touch it until you are finished with the patdown.
    - Nrsolis 15y ago
      This is not always true. I was at JFK Terminal 1 (International) and I got separated from my bags on the belt for an extended period of time. When I complained that my bags were at risk of being stolen or lost, the TSA agent said "You opted out. That's what happens." Needless to say, I found a supervisor and complained. I'm also filing an official complaint. I have no problem being patted-down but I do have a problem with them trying to coerce me to do something I've expressly asked to be excluded from, and using my fear of property loss to get me to do it. That's WRONG.
  - brk 15y ago
    Even if they are safe, I will probably opt-out but I definitely don't like being separated from my baggage on the belt during the pat-down process. This usually isn't an issue, you can see your bags or have them set aside. The issue I have personally been running intro (I travel about 2x per month on average, meaning potentially 4 trips through these things) is that when you opt-out it seems like it is taking longer and longer for them to find a suitable pat-down attendant. This could just be my own skepticism, but it certainly seems that the wait is getting longer and longer each time.
- bgarbiak 15y ago
  Yes, EU only banned X-Ray scanners. As for the other technologies of full body scanning, well, these are actually green lighted, not banned: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15532933,00.html http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15532933,00.html
- rdtsc 15y ago
  > The amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight. One difference. I get something back from the flight. I get to be in another place rather fast. I am willing to take a small radiation dose for it. I am not getting anything back from being scanned by a Rapiscan (that is the name of the company that makes most of them).
  - Groxx 15y ago
    That's horrible logic. To carry it to absurdity: the flight gets you from A to B rather quickly - why all the delays while they, you know, put fuel and peanuts into the plane? They should just do away with that, it's not the flight, all you need is the flight. Similarly: buy 1 get 1 free? Why not just give out the free one? As absurd as the security theater is, it's part of the packaged deal that includes "the flight". The radiation from the machines may not be part of the physical act of moving you from A to B, but that doesn't mean they can just be removed.
    - onemoreact 15y ago
      These machines don't provide any increased security over a pat down. It might be convent for the TSA but harms the passengers.
      - beej71 15y ago
        And given the number of test firearms that the TSA manages to get through the carry-on X-ray, it'd hardly be reassuring even if the full-body X-ray turned out to be useful.
      - Groxx 15y ago
        Completely agree. But that's a different issue entirely - arguing that it's useless because it's not part of the flight is complete nonsense.
        rdtsc 15y ago
        You still don't make any sense. Here is activity A: flying. Here is activity B: walking through a Rapiscan machine. One can do activity A & B independently. One can board a plan and fly ( I just did recently, got into a line that didn't have an x-ray machine and flew). Or one can do B -- keep buying tickets and go through security without flying and just do that all day. Now the argument was both activities will blast you with x-rays so at least "logically it doesn't make sense to complain about one but not the other". My comment was that it is not the same, there is a difference. I am willing to engage in activity A because that gets me from one place to another faster. I am not willing to engage in activity B because I get nothing for it. You said it yourself it is security theater, so I get nothing but harm from it. Therefore it the two activities are not the same.
- brlewis 15y ago
  What makes you comfortable with the mm wave system? My understanding is that more research is needed on how millimeter waves affect cells. http://thz.caltech.edu/ http://thz.caltech.edu/
  - mmcconnell1618 15y ago
    While more study is needed with any system it is my understanding that millimeter wave radio waves will not penetrate very far beyond the surface cells while x-rays will pass through the entire body mass. Just on the raw mass affected by the device the millimeter wave system seems less risky.
    - benmccann 15y ago
      The x-rays don't pass through the entire body. They go only into the skin. That's actually what's most concerning about them. Because they don't pass through the body, they are concentrated entirely in one layer which receives a much higher dose.
- powertower 15y ago
  http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/ http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/ Having a tendency to shred DNA is not what I would consider safe at all.
- marquis 15y ago
  >amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight Yes, I believe that's true however we should also consider the health of the TSA workers who are subject to constant exposure for 8 hours a day. For all that we can say, it's their choice to work there, that's not a fair assessment given today's job climate.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  However, if the backscatter system operates correctly then the amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight. Very true, but the danger from it is still about the same tiny magnitude as the danger from terrorists without the x-ray system.
  - danssig 15y ago
    But the tiny danger from terrorists is unaffected by the machines so we have that anyway. The machine is just extra risk for no gain.
    - Symmetry 15y ago
      I wouldn't say entirely uneffected, but I do think the reduction is very small. The point is, though, that even if we were to assume the machines were 100% effective the end result would be to be spending money to not make anyone any safer.
- buff-a 15y ago
  > The amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight. Except that you get it in a milliseconds, instead of over a period of several hours. I get a lot of sunshine in a day (haha who am i kidding i'm a programmer, but humor me), but ask an ant what its like to get the equivalent energy in a few seconds.
tallanvor 15y ago
While I'm happy to see them banned for any reason, I'd much rather they were banned on the basis that they constitute an unacceptable violation of peoples' privacy.
- Cushman 15y ago
  Is there a reason why the concept of "security theater" hasn't caught on in the mainstream? It seems like it should be easy to oppose things that make us feel safer but objectively make us less safe.
  - mooism2 15y ago
    Alas too many people ignore other people's objectivity and pay attention to their own feelings instead. And then they notice that many "objective" people say the security measures that make them "safer" really put them at increased "risk", and wonder what hidden agenda these "objective" people have and whose side they're really on.
  - Jach 15y ago
    Seven syllables is too many. But you're right, the article glosses over the bigger issue than the two it mentioned: these measures don't help security and very strong cases can and have been made that it actually hurts security.
  - martingordon 15y ago
    I experienced "security theater" just this past weekend coming back from Nashville. As the line for the x-ray scanner started to grow, they started letting people just go through the metal detectors. Once the line shrunk back down, they started forcing people to go through the scanner again. I opted out of the scanner just as they started letting people go through the metal detector again. The TSA agent told me, "you know these are completely safe and no human sees the pictures anymore, right?" If I had gotten in line just a few seconds later, I wouldn't have had to go through the scanner or be subject to the enhanced pat down. I mentioned this to the TSA agent doing my screening and he said, "sometimes timing is everything". If the scanners are as necessary as they want us to think, I'm glad to know that the chance that my plane gets blown up doesn't depend on how well those scanners work but simply on whether a would-be bomber went through security during a busy period.
jashkenas 15y ago
Read the original reporting at ProPublica instead: http://www.propublica.org/article/europe-bans-x-ray-body-scanners-used-at-u.s.-airports http://www.propublica.org/article/europe-bans-x-ray-body-sca...
- raldi 15y ago
  The original source they refer to is http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1343&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/1... ... which seems to indicate European airports can still use the scanners as long as they comply with privacy guidelines and the technology uses something other than X-rays. For example, passive-millimeter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_body_scanner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_body_scanner
  - brlewis 15y ago
    I think "completely inaccurate" is overstating it. Here's a quote from that source: In order not to risk jeopardising citizens' health and safety, only security scanners which do not use X-ray technology are added to the list of authorised methods for passenger screening at EU airports.
    - raldi 15y ago
      I edited my comment as you were replying, but still, this writeup totally buries this part of the story (from the opening paragraph of the original source): This legislation allows airports and Member States that wish to use security scanners for the screening of passengers to do so under strict operational and technical conditions. People who see the headline are going to think Europe isn't going to be deploying body scanners. But this story is about the opposite: The headline should be, "Europe approves passive-millimeter full-body airport scanners, prepares for rollout."
      - llimllib 15y ago
        But the intriguing part of the story is that they banned x-ray scanners, not that they approved millimeter-wave scanners. The headline is accurate. This has always been the sensible course of action; millimeter-wave machines are far safer than x-ray machines.
vizzah 15y ago
I couldn't remember seeing many (if any) x-ray scanners in European airports - it's almost always regular metal detector gates. X-rays do cause cancer and must not be used in airports. Enough using terrorists as an excuse, there are much easier targets - but it's been quiet for a while and hopefully continues that way.
- furyg3 15y ago
  At Amsterdam Schipol they are used for many flights (especially to the US). There is no opt-out, as there is in the US. I don't know if these are X-Ray or millimeter wave scanners, though.
  - cskau 15y ago
    > There is no opt-out, as there is in the US. This is actually not true. When I flew through Schipol this summer I was indeed on a flight where the scanners were "required". However, when it was my turn I stopped up and told the guy at the scanner that I wanted to opt-out. At first he just looked puzzled and said he did not understand what I was saying. After first repeating, and then rephrasing "I do not want to go through those scanners", he told me to talk to his supervisor. I then approached the metal detector (which was blocked by a mobile barrier) squeezed in between the two huge scanners. The guy on the other side then tried to wave me through the scanners again at which I simply pointed to the metal detector. After then shouting to him that I wanted to go through there he finally approached me. He removed the barrier and told me to then take off my shoes before going through (notably not a requirement in the scanners). This is where it a bothersome experience turned into a really lousy experience. Just as I passed through the detector when I was passing in between the two active scanners (imagine the radiation there) he came up to me face-to-face, at a really uncomfortably close distance. He asked me angrily why I didn't want to go through the scanners. Was it privacy issues? Because those were accounted for. So what could I possibly be thinking? It really felt like an interrogation. I told him I was concerned with the health risks associated with there scanners, and that a group of American academics had signed a letter stating that these scanners weren't actually proven safe. This is then where it got really bizarre, because at this he said plain out "Oh yeah? What do they know about these machines? What about trusting European scientists instead??". * At this point I was simply shocked and horrified. I believe I managed to ask him if he actually knew where the machines where from, before he finally just shrugged at me and let me escape from the scanners. I was later told by another, much nicer guard at another security check (we all actually had to go through two checks within the span of an hour), that I sure had the option to opt-out, but only until the end of this year at which point they would become mandatory for everyone. Notably, at no point in this security circus was I or any of the other passengers told that we even had the option of opt'ing-out. And as soon as I was through the metal detector, they closed it up again, so no other passengers might get the idea that they too had the right not to be scanned. * I do not believe these scanners have been tested for real in Europe or "by European scientists", before perhaps now.
danssig 15y ago
A reddit user on the real reason the US is buying these scanners: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/mdwox/eu_has_banned_the_use_of_xray_body_scanners_in/c305qjv http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/mdwox/eu_has_bann...
- alttag 15y ago
  I'd prefer you share the poster's assertion with us and provide commentary as to whether you agree or think the commenter is paranoid. Just posting a link doesn't add much.
  - danssig 15y ago
    He has links and things providing his point. I agree with him, it was clearly a corruption thing from the start. Otherwise, why would people need to be scanned while leaving the airport. It only makes sense for either (a) creating useless jobs for people and/or (b) buying useless equipment to do the useless job.
    - alttag 15y ago
      Yes, it was edited following my comment. He originally had just the link, and it came off as gossip, not insight.
- suivix 15y ago
  ""Let's not forget the REAL motivation for the US Gov't to buy these things [1] The former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff whose company, Rapiscan, miraculously won a contract worth $173 million just days after he left his office and essentially bought the company."" [1] http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/5240-getting-rich-from-the-naked-body-scanners http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/524...
bauchidgw 15y ago
visit geek.com with your ipad, its such a classic example of a redicret loop. (swipeware sucks)
Spearchucker 15y ago
The part that annoys me is that the security clearance process at airports is invasive. It serves no purpose other than to provide the perception of security. Policy dictates that passengers are not allowed to carry any weapons onto airplanes. The scanners and other mechanisms are used to detect firearms, knives with blades longer than 6cm, and so on and so forth. The ridiculous part is that you clear security, go into duty free, and buy a bottle of whiskey which you're allowed to take onto the airplane. If you're so inclined, once on the airplane break the bottle and threaten a passenger or the airhostess with it. That makes the whole process (at huge cost to the tax payer) a complete farce. There are other crazy things we're paying for, like finger printing, and forgoing the right not to have our laptops and phones searched. Anyone who wants to get around these measures can. It defies belief.
- adnam 15y ago
  As someone once said: "if you can hijack and aircraft with a pair of nail clippers, you can also hijack an aircraft without a pair of nail clippers".
  - neuroelectronic 15y ago
    Hahah, that's from reddit.
rmc 15y ago
Link to the original source: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1343&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/1...
nobody31415926 15y ago
That's because the Europeans have never had a problem with terrorism and so don't know how to respond. (It turns out that the IRA and ETA are just cultural groups misunderstood by the British and Spanish imperialist oppressors and Baader-Meinhof is too hard to spell so doesn't count.)
wbhart 15y ago
Now that the rotten things have been banned, I can tell my story without fear of being locked up. I went through a body scanner on a trip within Europe about a year or two ago. There was no random selection, they were just forcing everyone through the machine (I assume it was an x-ray but didn't actually have time to check). This machine was of the variety that did not have an operator viewing the images in a private room, but the operator standing at the machine had a display mounted on the machine itself (some parts of Europe are much less fussy about nudity). When I went through, the image was indistinct but showed "concealments" all over me (I was also permitted to see the image). The guy looked concerned and started to pat me down so he could figure out what these "concealments" were. After twenty seconds or so it was clear to him that I had no concealments and he confidently pronounced that the machines actually don't work if you are sweaty. Hilariously, a full bottle of water went through the (bag) X-ray machine unnoticed in my backpack. I pointed it out and they were kind enough to accept that I had left it in my bag accidentally and let me have it confiscated instead of what ever else it is they do with someone who has bottles of dangerous liquids like water in their bags. Since that humiliating experience I have travelled by plane in Europe as little as possible, taking the Eurostar train wherever practical. I do not travel to the US any more for any reason. I am delighted the machines are unsafe and have been banned, but naturally I believe they should have been banned on grounds of them being ineffective and an unnecessary invasion of personal privacy. Edit: I reviewed the information here: http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/5/163631/3181/travel/Full-Body+Scanners+101%3A+The+Two+Types+and+How+They+Work http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/5/163631/3181/travel/Ful... and I do not know which type of machine it was. Frankly, it doesn't match the description of either. There were no rotating walls, it did not take 40s, yet it was not a vertical wall. Unfortunate. It would have been nice to know.
- apr 15y ago
  Out of curiosity, why did you point out that the bottle of water had gone through their machine unnoticed. It was unnoticed, right?
  - wbhart 15y ago
    Because they asked me whether there were any liquids in my bag before I put it into the scanner. I initially answered no. When the bag was already through the scanner I remembered I hadn't actually taken the bottle out of the bag. I hadn't collected the bag yet though. So what is a man supposed to do?
jamgraham 15y ago
The opt-out process is very easy in America. For example: When I fly out of SFO and am in line for the body scanner I simply ask for an opt-out and they quickly take me over for a pad down. No big deal, all you have to do is ask.
ck2 15y ago
I think we need to start handing dosimeters to anyone working around the machines. They aren't allowed to have them and will get fired, problem solved and I have zero pity.
noduerme 15y ago
I don't think I'll be donating to the ACA or the ACLU to help out the TSA cancer victims who stood next to the machines...
techiferous 15y ago
> plus the fact 300+ “dangerous and illegal items” have been detected by employing the body scanners. 300+? Needs more context. What's the percentage of false positives and false negatives? And what's the cost compared to other alternatives?
prawn 15y ago
Just back from the US. Saw what I assumed to be these machines in use in LAX but couldn't understand the point as it was trivial to just pick the security lines that had the normal "doorway" scanners. I was pretty blatant in changing lines too once I'd seen the larger scanners ahead, and no one seemed to pay any attention.
wedesoft 15y ago
As far as I know the full body scanners are terahertz scanners. They do not use X-rays. An X-ray scan would show your bones! Also if you really want to reduce your exposure to radiation, you should avoid flying itself. That said, if there is a significant increase in cancer among TSA workers, that should be a cause for concern.
- nobody31415926 15y ago
  There are two types. Backscatter x-rays which use a low dose (hopefully) of x-rays but instead of measuring those that go through you 9as in a medical x-ray for bones) they measure the x-rays reflected back by metal objects such as guns and knives. These do give you a dose of x-rays, hopefully a properly installed, maintained and operated system will limit this to a safe dose. The alternative are mm-wave radar (terahertz imaging) these use similar radio waves to a mobile phone (but at lower power) They measure the change in the radio signal returned from metal and fluids in your body. Since they work on the same technology as mobile phones (but even lower power) they are assumed to be safe(r)
lgeek 15y ago
And yet they're still used in Manchester and probably other airports as well: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-15766544 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-15766544 > A spokesperson for Manchester Airport said: "Extensive tests by the UK Health Protection Agency and the US health authorities have already confirmed that back scatter body scanners pose a negligible risk to human health. It is irresponsible to suggest that because Europe has yet to complete its own health study, our passengers should be concerned."

422 points by ukdm 15y ago

Keep in mind that there are 2 types of machines in common use. 1) Backscatter (X-Ray) and 2) Millimeter Wave (Radio) and they operate very differently. Based on what I've read I'm comfortable with the millimeter wave system and have some concerns about the backscatter x-ray system. However, if the backscatter system operates correctly then the amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight. I still think I'd opt-out of the backscatter system until long term effects and performance are studied. Tip: Millimeter wave looks like a circular telephone booth, Backscatter x-ray looks like a big rectangular wall you stand in front of. http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/5/163631/3181/travel/Full-Body+Scanners+101%3A+The+Two+Types+and+How+They+Work http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/5/163631/3181/travel/Ful...

ghurlman 15y ago
if the backscatter system operates correctly That's putting a lot of faith into the TSA.
- _delirium 15y ago
  Even leaving aside whether the TSA is well-run or not, the lack (as far as seems to be publicly known) of a rigorous risk analysis is a bit troubling. Not just as far as the medical questions go (e.g. what's a safe exposure level), but just standard engineering stuff. For example, since backscatter machines work by scanning a narrow beam very quickly over the body, a particularly problematic failure mode would be the beam remaining energized but failing to move, which would give a very high localized dose. Even if that "can't happen", you would typically have some sort of failsafe that should rapidly cut off the beam in that case. If this were a medical device, there are fairly well established ways of doing failure-mode analysis to quantify that risk and the reliability/speed of the failsafes. Have companies like Rapiscan done that?
  - nobody31415926 15y ago
    There is a huge difference in the dose even from properly certified medical X-rays, depending on how old the machine is, the maintenance, the settings and the method selected http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/ct-scan-radiation-may-cause-cancers/article1400123/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/ct-scan-radiation...
po 15y ago
However, if the backscatter system operates correctly then the amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight. The most compelling argument I've heard about the dangers is that while the total amount of ionizing radiation you receive is small compared to the flight itself, the radiation is chosen such that it doesn't pass through you and more of it is absorbed at the skin. Even if they are safe, I will probably opt-out but I definitely don't like being separated from my baggage on the belt during the pat-down process.
- axiak 15y ago
  In my experience (I've opted-out 6 times now in the past 1.5 years), they let you take your baggage with you to the pat down area, and you never have to lose eye contact.
  - keithg 15y ago
    I've done it a few times now, and they have always had me identify my bag, shoes, etc on the belt before the pat down. Then they set the bags aside. They also insist that you don't touch it until you are finished with the patdown.
  - Nrsolis 15y ago
    This is not always true. I was at JFK Terminal 1 (International) and I got separated from my bags on the belt for an extended period of time. When I complained that my bags were at risk of being stolen or lost, the TSA agent said "You opted out. That's what happens." Needless to say, I found a supervisor and complained. I'm also filing an official complaint. I have no problem being patted-down but I do have a problem with them trying to coerce me to do something I've expressly asked to be excluded from, and using my fear of property loss to get me to do it. That's WRONG.
- brk 15y ago
  Even if they are safe, I will probably opt-out but I definitely don't like being separated from my baggage on the belt during the pat-down process. This usually isn't an issue, you can see your bags or have them set aside. The issue I have personally been running intro (I travel about 2x per month on average, meaning potentially 4 trips through these things) is that when you opt-out it seems like it is taking longer and longer for them to find a suitable pat-down attendant. This could just be my own skepticism, but it certainly seems that the wait is getting longer and longer each time.
bgarbiak 15y ago
Yes, EU only banned X-Ray scanners. As for the other technologies of full body scanning, well, these are actually green lighted, not banned: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15532933,00.html http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15532933,00.html
rdtsc 15y ago
> The amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight. One difference. I get something back from the flight. I get to be in another place rather fast. I am willing to take a small radiation dose for it. I am not getting anything back from being scanned by a Rapiscan (that is the name of the company that makes most of them).
- Groxx 15y ago
  That's horrible logic. To carry it to absurdity: the flight gets you from A to B rather quickly - why all the delays while they, you know, put fuel and peanuts into the plane? They should just do away with that, it's not the flight, all you need is the flight. Similarly: buy 1 get 1 free? Why not just give out the free one? As absurd as the security theater is, it's part of the packaged deal that includes "the flight". The radiation from the machines may not be part of the physical act of moving you from A to B, but that doesn't mean they can just be removed.
  - onemoreact 15y ago
    These machines don't provide any increased security over a pat down. It might be convent for the TSA but harms the passengers.
    - beej71 15y ago
      And given the number of test firearms that the TSA manages to get through the carry-on X-ray, it'd hardly be reassuring even if the full-body X-ray turned out to be useful.
    - Groxx 15y ago
      Completely agree. But that's a different issue entirely - arguing that it's useless because it's not part of the flight is complete nonsense.
      - rdtsc 15y ago
        You still don't make any sense. Here is activity A: flying. Here is activity B: walking through a Rapiscan machine. One can do activity A & B independently. One can board a plan and fly ( I just did recently, got into a line that didn't have an x-ray machine and flew). Or one can do B -- keep buying tickets and go through security without flying and just do that all day. Now the argument was both activities will blast you with x-rays so at least "logically it doesn't make sense to complain about one but not the other". My comment was that it is not the same, there is a difference. I am willing to engage in activity A because that gets me from one place to another faster. I am not willing to engage in activity B because I get nothing for it. You said it yourself it is security theater, so I get nothing but harm from it. Therefore it the two activities are not the same.
brlewis 15y ago
What makes you comfortable with the mm wave system? My understanding is that more research is needed on how millimeter waves affect cells. http://thz.caltech.edu/ http://thz.caltech.edu/
- mmcconnell1618 15y ago
  While more study is needed with any system it is my understanding that millimeter wave radio waves will not penetrate very far beyond the surface cells while x-rays will pass through the entire body mass. Just on the raw mass affected by the device the millimeter wave system seems less risky.
  - benmccann 15y ago
    The x-rays don't pass through the entire body. They go only into the skin. That's actually what's most concerning about them. Because they don't pass through the body, they are concentrated entirely in one layer which receives a much higher dose.
powertower 15y ago
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/ http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/ Having a tendency to shred DNA is not what I would consider safe at all.
marquis 15y ago
>amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight Yes, I believe that's true however we should also consider the health of the TSA workers who are subject to constant exposure for 8 hours a day. For all that we can say, it's their choice to work there, that's not a fair assessment given today's job climate.
Symmetry 15y ago
However, if the backscatter system operates correctly then the amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight. Very true, but the danger from it is still about the same tiny magnitude as the danger from terrorists without the x-ray system.
- danssig 15y ago
  But the tiny danger from terrorists is unaffected by the machines so we have that anyway. The machine is just extra risk for no gain.
  - Symmetry 15y ago
    I wouldn't say entirely uneffected, but I do think the reduction is very small. The point is, though, that even if we were to assume the machines were 100% effective the end result would be to be spending money to not make anyone any safer.
buff-a 15y ago
> The amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight. Except that you get it in a milliseconds, instead of over a period of several hours. I get a lot of sunshine in a day (haha who am i kidding i'm a programmer, but humor me), but ask an ant what its like to get the equivalent energy in a few seconds.

tallanvor 15y ago

While I'm happy to see them banned for any reason, I'd much rather they were banned on the basis that they constitute an unacceptable violation of peoples' privacy.

Cushman 15y ago
Is there a reason why the concept of "security theater" hasn't caught on in the mainstream? It seems like it should be easy to oppose things that make us feel safer but objectively make us less safe.
- mooism2 15y ago
  Alas too many people ignore other people's objectivity and pay attention to their own feelings instead. And then they notice that many "objective" people say the security measures that make them "safer" really put them at increased "risk", and wonder what hidden agenda these "objective" people have and whose side they're really on.
- Jach 15y ago
  Seven syllables is too many. But you're right, the article glosses over the bigger issue than the two it mentioned: these measures don't help security and very strong cases can and have been made that it actually hurts security.
- martingordon 15y ago
  I experienced "security theater" just this past weekend coming back from Nashville. As the line for the x-ray scanner started to grow, they started letting people just go through the metal detectors. Once the line shrunk back down, they started forcing people to go through the scanner again. I opted out of the scanner just as they started letting people go through the metal detector again. The TSA agent told me, "you know these are completely safe and no human sees the pictures anymore, right?" If I had gotten in line just a few seconds later, I wouldn't have had to go through the scanner or be subject to the enhanced pat down. I mentioned this to the TSA agent doing my screening and he said, "sometimes timing is everything". If the scanners are as necessary as they want us to think, I'm glad to know that the chance that my plane gets blown up doesn't depend on how well those scanners work but simply on whether a would-be bomber went through security during a busy period.

jashkenas 15y ago

Read the original reporting at ProPublica instead: http://www.propublica.org/article/europe-bans-x-ray-body-scanners-used-at-u.s.-airports http://www.propublica.org/article/europe-bans-x-ray-body-sca...

raldi 15y ago
The original source they refer to is http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1343&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/1... ... which seems to indicate European airports can still use the scanners as long as they comply with privacy guidelines and the technology uses something other than X-rays. For example, passive-millimeter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_body_scanner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_body_scanner
- brlewis 15y ago
  I think "completely inaccurate" is overstating it. Here's a quote from that source: In order not to risk jeopardising citizens' health and safety, only security scanners which do not use X-ray technology are added to the list of authorised methods for passenger screening at EU airports.
  - raldi 15y ago
    I edited my comment as you were replying, but still, this writeup totally buries this part of the story (from the opening paragraph of the original source): This legislation allows airports and Member States that wish to use security scanners for the screening of passengers to do so under strict operational and technical conditions. People who see the headline are going to think Europe isn't going to be deploying body scanners. But this story is about the opposite: The headline should be, "Europe approves passive-millimeter full-body airport scanners, prepares for rollout."
    - llimllib 15y ago
      But the intriguing part of the story is that they banned x-ray scanners, not that they approved millimeter-wave scanners. The headline is accurate. This has always been the sensible course of action; millimeter-wave machines are far safer than x-ray machines.

vizzah 15y ago

I couldn't remember seeing many (if any) x-ray scanners in European airports - it's almost always regular metal detector gates. X-rays do cause cancer and must not be used in airports. Enough using terrorists as an excuse, there are much easier targets - but it's been quiet for a while and hopefully continues that way.

furyg3 15y ago
At Amsterdam Schipol they are used for many flights (especially to the US). There is no opt-out, as there is in the US. I don't know if these are X-Ray or millimeter wave scanners, though.
- cskau 15y ago
  > There is no opt-out, as there is in the US. This is actually not true. When I flew through Schipol this summer I was indeed on a flight where the scanners were "required". However, when it was my turn I stopped up and told the guy at the scanner that I wanted to opt-out. At first he just looked puzzled and said he did not understand what I was saying. After first repeating, and then rephrasing "I do not want to go through those scanners", he told me to talk to his supervisor. I then approached the metal detector (which was blocked by a mobile barrier) squeezed in between the two huge scanners. The guy on the other side then tried to wave me through the scanners again at which I simply pointed to the metal detector. After then shouting to him that I wanted to go through there he finally approached me. He removed the barrier and told me to then take off my shoes before going through (notably not a requirement in the scanners). This is where it a bothersome experience turned into a really lousy experience. Just as I passed through the detector when I was passing in between the two active scanners (imagine the radiation there) he came up to me face-to-face, at a really uncomfortably close distance. He asked me angrily why I didn't want to go through the scanners. Was it privacy issues? Because those were accounted for. So what could I possibly be thinking? It really felt like an interrogation. I told him I was concerned with the health risks associated with there scanners, and that a group of American academics had signed a letter stating that these scanners weren't actually proven safe. This is then where it got really bizarre, because at this he said plain out "Oh yeah? What do they know about these machines? What about trusting European scientists instead??". * At this point I was simply shocked and horrified. I believe I managed to ask him if he actually knew where the machines where from, before he finally just shrugged at me and let me escape from the scanners. I was later told by another, much nicer guard at another security check (we all actually had to go through two checks within the span of an hour), that I sure had the option to opt-out, but only until the end of this year at which point they would become mandatory for everyone. Notably, at no point in this security circus was I or any of the other passengers told that we even had the option of opt'ing-out. And as soon as I was through the metal detector, they closed it up again, so no other passengers might get the idea that they too had the right not to be scanned. * I do not believe these scanners have been tested for real in Europe or "by European scientists", before perhaps now.

danssig 15y ago

A reddit user on the real reason the US is buying these scanners: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/mdwox/eu_has_banned_the_use_of_xray_body_scanners_in/c305qjv http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/mdwox/eu_has_bann...

alttag 15y ago
I'd prefer you share the poster's assertion with us and provide commentary as to whether you agree or think the commenter is paranoid. Just posting a link doesn't add much.
- danssig 15y ago
  He has links and things providing his point. I agree with him, it was clearly a corruption thing from the start. Otherwise, why would people need to be scanned while leaving the airport. It only makes sense for either (a) creating useless jobs for people and/or (b) buying useless equipment to do the useless job.
  - alttag 15y ago
    Yes, it was edited following my comment. He originally had just the link, and it came off as gossip, not insight.
suivix 15y ago
""Let's not forget the REAL motivation for the US Gov't to buy these things [1] The former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff whose company, Rapiscan, miraculously won a contract worth $173 million just days after he left his office and essentially bought the company."" [1] http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/5240-getting-rich-from-the-naked-body-scanners http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/524...

bauchidgw 15y ago

visit geek.com with your ipad, its such a classic example of a redicret loop. (swipeware sucks)

Spearchucker 15y ago

The part that annoys me is that the security clearance process at airports is invasive. It serves no purpose other than to provide the perception of security. Policy dictates that passengers are not allowed to carry any weapons onto airplanes. The scanners and other mechanisms are used to detect firearms, knives with blades longer than 6cm, and so on and so forth. The ridiculous part is that you clear security, go into duty free, and buy a bottle of whiskey which you're allowed to take onto the airplane. If you're so inclined, once on the airplane break the bottle and threaten a passenger or the airhostess with it. That makes the whole process (at huge cost to the tax payer) a complete farce. There are other crazy things we're paying for, like finger printing, and forgoing the right not to have our laptops and phones searched. Anyone who wants to get around these measures can. It defies belief.

adnam 15y ago
As someone once said: "if you can hijack and aircraft with a pair of nail clippers, you can also hijack an aircraft without a pair of nail clippers".
- neuroelectronic 15y ago
  Hahah, that's from reddit.

rmc 15y ago

Link to the original source: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1343&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/1...

nobody31415926 15y ago

That's because the Europeans have never had a problem with terrorism and so don't know how to respond. (It turns out that the IRA and ETA are just cultural groups misunderstood by the British and Spanish imperialist oppressors and Baader-Meinhof is too hard to spell so doesn't count.)

wbhart 15y ago

Now that the rotten things have been banned, I can tell my story without fear of being locked up. I went through a body scanner on a trip within Europe about a year or two ago. There was no random selection, they were just forcing everyone through the machine (I assume it was an x-ray but didn't actually have time to check). This machine was of the variety that did not have an operator viewing the images in a private room, but the operator standing at the machine had a display mounted on the machine itself (some parts of Europe are much less fussy about nudity). When I went through, the image was indistinct but showed "concealments" all over me (I was also permitted to see the image). The guy looked concerned and started to pat me down so he could figure out what these "concealments" were. After twenty seconds or so it was clear to him that I had no concealments and he confidently pronounced that the machines actually don't work if you are sweaty. Hilariously, a full bottle of water went through the (bag) X-ray machine unnoticed in my backpack. I pointed it out and they were kind enough to accept that I had left it in my bag accidentally and let me have it confiscated instead of what ever else it is they do with someone who has bottles of dangerous liquids like water in their bags. Since that humiliating experience I have travelled by plane in Europe as little as possible, taking the Eurostar train wherever practical. I do not travel to the US any more for any reason. I am delighted the machines are unsafe and have been banned, but naturally I believe they should have been banned on grounds of them being ineffective and an unnecessary invasion of personal privacy. Edit: I reviewed the information here: http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/5/163631/3181/travel/Full-Body+Scanners+101%3A+The+Two+Types+and+How+They+Work http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/5/163631/3181/travel/Ful... and I do not know which type of machine it was. Frankly, it doesn't match the description of either. There were no rotating walls, it did not take 40s, yet it was not a vertical wall. Unfortunate. It would have been nice to know.

apr 15y ago
Out of curiosity, why did you point out that the bottle of water had gone through their machine unnoticed. It was unnoticed, right?
- wbhart 15y ago
  Because they asked me whether there were any liquids in my bag before I put it into the scanner. I initially answered no. When the bag was already through the scanner I remembered I hadn't actually taken the bottle out of the bag. I hadn't collected the bag yet though. So what is a man supposed to do?

jamgraham 15y ago

The opt-out process is very easy in America. For example: When I fly out of SFO and am in line for the body scanner I simply ask for an opt-out and they quickly take me over for a pad down. No big deal, all you have to do is ask.

ck2 15y ago

I think we need to start handing dosimeters to anyone working around the machines. They aren't allowed to have them and will get fired, problem solved and I have zero pity.

noduerme 15y ago

I don't think I'll be donating to the ACA or the ACLU to help out the TSA cancer victims who stood next to the machines...

techiferous 15y ago

> plus the fact 300+ “dangerous and illegal items” have been detected by employing the body scanners. 300+? Needs more context. What's the percentage of false positives and false negatives? And what's the cost compared to other alternatives?

prawn 15y ago

Just back from the US. Saw what I assumed to be these machines in use in LAX but couldn't understand the point as it was trivial to just pick the security lines that had the normal "doorway" scanners. I was pretty blatant in changing lines too once I'd seen the larger scanners ahead, and no one seemed to pay any attention.

wedesoft 15y ago

As far as I know the full body scanners are terahertz scanners. They do not use X-rays. An X-ray scan would show your bones! Also if you really want to reduce your exposure to radiation, you should avoid flying itself. That said, if there is a significant increase in cancer among TSA workers, that should be a cause for concern.

nobody31415926 15y ago
There are two types. Backscatter x-rays which use a low dose (hopefully) of x-rays but instead of measuring those that go through you 9as in a medical x-ray for bones) they measure the x-rays reflected back by metal objects such as guns and knives. These do give you a dose of x-rays, hopefully a properly installed, maintained and operated system will limit this to a safe dose. The alternative are mm-wave radar (terahertz imaging) these use similar radio waves to a mobile phone (but at lower power) They measure the change in the radio signal returned from metal and fluids in your body. Since they work on the same technology as mobile phones (but even lower power) they are assumed to be safe(r)

lgeek 15y ago

And yet they're still used in Manchester and probably other airports as well: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-15766544 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-15766544 > A spokesperson for Manchester Airport said: "Extensive tests by the UK Health Protection Agency and the US health authorities have already confirmed that back scatter body scanners pose a negligible risk to human health. It is irresponsible to suggest that because Europe has yet to complete its own health study, our passengers should be concerned."