4 ms·

You can also opt out of the cylindrical x-ray. The correct incantation is: "I would like to opt out of the millimeter wave." If you do this, then someone of t

by chasil 2y ago

You can also opt out of the cylindrical x-ray. The correct incantation is: "I would like to opt out of the millimeter wave." If you do this, then someone of the same gender will run their gloved hands over (somewhat sensitive) areas of your body, then test the gloves for explosive residue. At my age, I probably shouldn't care about any of this, but I don't like needless x-rays.

joe5150 2y ago
Not to suggest that you shouldn't opt out for any reason you want, but the mm wave scanner doesn't use x-rays. I don't think the x-ray scanners were ever widely deployed and none of them are in use anymore. You're exposed to so much radiation just sitting in an aircraft at 35,000 feet that anything beamed at you during security screening would have to be of very little consequence.
- dijit 2y ago
  > You're exposed to so much radiation just sitting in an aircraft at 35,000 feet that anything beamed at you during security screening would have to be of very little consequence. I've heard this before, but this really isn't how radiation works. The higher dosages you're exposed to and the longer, the more likely the negative affects. But it's strangely additive, like getting wet. Which is a poor analogy but the most fitting I can think of. You might get "more wet" by standing in the rain than getting splashed with puddle, sure, but you're still increasing your "wet-ness" by not drying out before getting splashed. Only this wet gives you cancer if you stay wet too long, or get too wet.
  - joe5150 2y ago
    I agree that's a poor analogy. Nonetheless, millimeter wave scanners don't use ionizing radiation.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > this really isn't how radiation works. Yes, actually it is, at least as far as the risks of security scanners vs. flying are concerned. The radiation you get exposed to in an airplane at altitude is largely ionizing radiation. The radiation you get exposed to in security scanners is not. So in addition to the much shorter time of exposure, and hence the much smaller overall dose, the type of radiation in security scanners is much, much less damaging to your body even at comparable doses. > it's strangely additive I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you mean that the additional radiation from security scanners is somehow "additive" with the radiation you are exposed to in the airplane, no, that's not correct. They're different types of radiation and do different things to your body. There's no cumulative effect between them.
    - dijit 2y ago
      If you were correct the repeated exposure to low doses of radiation would not be cause for concern. Truthfully, the amount of radiation you are exposed to does accumulate its negative affects, we certainly consider it as such for every work environment for a reason. You are confident in this, and more eloquent than me at 2am, whoever I cannot let that falsehood stand. As far as ionising radiation goes, if its ionising then its ionising, there’s not “different types”- however the parent is correct that millimetre waves do not penetrate the skin and are considered non-ionising
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > the amount of radiation you are exposed to does accumulate its negative affects What kind of radiation? If you mean ionizing radiation, the evidence, as far as I know, is mixed; some indicates there is buildup over time, some indicates that there are threshold effects and single doses below threshold, separated in time, do not accumulate. We do have lifetime dose limits as well as single exposure dose limits for such radiation because the evidence is mixed and we can't rule out that there are accumulation effects. But if you mean non-ionizing radiation, such as is used in the millimeter wave security scanners, there is no evidence of accumulation of effects over time from low doses (i.e., doses that do not cause immediate harmful effects) that I'm aware of. Do you know of any?
      - 2y ago
  - prepend 2y ago
    I think the issue is that people don’t think about limiting their airline flights, so why think about limiting mmwave? Not that it isn’t additive, it’s that people don’t care like they don’t care that eating a banana vs eating another item [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
- hammock 2y ago
  They are still using backscatter X-ray scanners in parts of Europe, for example Berlin. That airport does allow you to opt out of them. And in the US, backscatter X-rays have found continued use in jails and prisons. There is actually one that is used in Cook County (Chicago) that is a conveyor belt you stand on to get a full 5 seconds of X-ray exposure. Opting out of the prison scanner may be possible depending on your circumstances, but undoubtedly more difficult
  - Klonoar 2y ago
    Does Berlin actually tell you anywhere that you can opt out? Flew through there recently and didn't see anything... prior to having TSA Pre I'd always opt out in the USA, would love to know if it's as simple in Germany for when I fly through.
    - hammock 2y ago
      Not that I saw. But I saw people talking about it online. I did the same thing I do in the US, tell the scanner guy I’d like to opt out. I think they wanded me, no pat down. No fuss.
  - joe5150 2y ago
    that's good to know but disappointing to learn!
MengerSponge 2y ago
X-rays are sub-nanometer waves. Millimeter wave scanners are fancy radar (with microwave photons) I always opted out of x-ray backscatter machines, but mm-wave scanners aren't worth the hassle.
- kiratp 2y ago
  https://theintercept.com/2015/05/27/tsa-body-scanner-lobbyist-takes-congressional-job-overseeing-spending-tsa-security/ https://theintercept.com/2015/05/27/tsa-body-scanner-lobbyis... https://www.propublica.org/article/tsa-removes-x-ray-body-scanners-from-major-airports https://www.propublica.org/article/tsa-removes-x-ray-body-sc... The whole implementation of these scanners was layers of corruption. Still worth it IMO - as long as they have to train people to maintain the manual process, its a signal that there are people out there who won't just fold.
  - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
    They have to do manual pat downs for people who "fail" the scanner, either because there was something that warranted a double check or the computer randomly assigned someone to receive extra scrutiny. I've walked out of the security perimeter to reschedule after a flight cancellation in an airport with <10 passengers in the terminal. Upon reentering I was "randomly" selected for an explosives swab despite passing the first time with the same bag and not walking more than 50 feet away from the TSA checkpoint.
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      I "Failed" the scanner once because I was wearing too much deodorant! It decided the titanium or aluminum in my extremely sweaty armpits was clearly explosive. I felt sorta bad for the TSA guy who had to grope my sweaty armpits to make sure I wasn't a terrorist somehow
- theGnuMe 2y ago
  Are these things regulated by the FDA? And if not, why not?
koolba 2y ago
For bonus points make sure to refuse to send your bags through the X-ray scanner, blocking everyone else behind you as well, until the agent is ready for your manual pat down. When they demand you put your bags through, speak in a loud commanding voice, “Do not touch my bag! It must remain in my sight!”. If they’re not prepared for passengers to opt out, the public needs to be aware and the only way they’ll be aware is by delaying hundreds of passengers directly behind you.
- idle_zealot 2y ago
  This is a great way to spread awareness that anyone who cares about privacy rights is a crazy and annoying weirdo.
pcmaffey 2y ago
This is the primary reason I pay for TSA Precheck, to automatically opt out of the scanner without requesting a groping.

by chasil 2y ago

joe5150 2y ago

Not to suggest that you shouldn't opt out for any reason you want, but the mm wave scanner doesn't use x-rays. I don't think the x-ray scanners were ever widely deployed and none of them are in use anymore. You're exposed to so much radiation just sitting in an aircraft at 35,000 feet that anything beamed at you during security screening would have to be of very little consequence.

dijit 2y ago
> You're exposed to so much radiation just sitting in an aircraft at 35,000 feet that anything beamed at you during security screening would have to be of very little consequence. I've heard this before, but this really isn't how radiation works. The higher dosages you're exposed to and the longer, the more likely the negative affects. But it's strangely additive, like getting wet. Which is a poor analogy but the most fitting I can think of. You might get "more wet" by standing in the rain than getting splashed with puddle, sure, but you're still increasing your "wet-ness" by not drying out before getting splashed. Only this wet gives you cancer if you stay wet too long, or get too wet.
- joe5150 2y ago
  I agree that's a poor analogy. Nonetheless, millimeter wave scanners don't use ionizing radiation.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > this really isn't how radiation works. Yes, actually it is, at least as far as the risks of security scanners vs. flying are concerned. The radiation you get exposed to in an airplane at altitude is largely ionizing radiation. The radiation you get exposed to in security scanners is not. So in addition to the much shorter time of exposure, and hence the much smaller overall dose, the type of radiation in security scanners is much, much less damaging to your body even at comparable doses. > it's strangely additive I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you mean that the additional radiation from security scanners is somehow "additive" with the radiation you are exposed to in the airplane, no, that's not correct. They're different types of radiation and do different things to your body. There's no cumulative effect between them.
  - dijit 2y ago
    If you were correct the repeated exposure to low doses of radiation would not be cause for concern. Truthfully, the amount of radiation you are exposed to does accumulate its negative affects, we certainly consider it as such for every work environment for a reason. You are confident in this, and more eloquent than me at 2am, whoever I cannot let that falsehood stand. As far as ionising radiation goes, if its ionising then its ionising, there’s not “different types”- however the parent is correct that millimetre waves do not penetrate the skin and are considered non-ionising
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > the amount of radiation you are exposed to does accumulate its negative affects What kind of radiation? If you mean ionizing radiation, the evidence, as far as I know, is mixed; some indicates there is buildup over time, some indicates that there are threshold effects and single doses below threshold, separated in time, do not accumulate. We do have lifetime dose limits as well as single exposure dose limits for such radiation because the evidence is mixed and we can't rule out that there are accumulation effects. But if you mean non-ionizing radiation, such as is used in the millimeter wave security scanners, there is no evidence of accumulation of effects over time from low doses (i.e., doses that do not cause immediate harmful effects) that I'm aware of. Do you know of any?
    - 2y ago
- prepend 2y ago
  I think the issue is that people don’t think about limiting their airline flights, so why think about limiting mmwave? Not that it isn’t additive, it’s that people don’t care like they don’t care that eating a banana vs eating another item [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
hammock 2y ago
They are still using backscatter X-ray scanners in parts of Europe, for example Berlin. That airport does allow you to opt out of them. And in the US, backscatter X-rays have found continued use in jails and prisons. There is actually one that is used in Cook County (Chicago) that is a conveyor belt you stand on to get a full 5 seconds of X-ray exposure. Opting out of the prison scanner may be possible depending on your circumstances, but undoubtedly more difficult
- Klonoar 2y ago
  Does Berlin actually tell you anywhere that you can opt out? Flew through there recently and didn't see anything... prior to having TSA Pre I'd always opt out in the USA, would love to know if it's as simple in Germany for when I fly through.
  - hammock 2y ago
    Not that I saw. But I saw people talking about it online. I did the same thing I do in the US, tell the scanner guy I’d like to opt out. I think they wanded me, no pat down. No fuss.
- joe5150 2y ago
  that's good to know but disappointing to learn!

MengerSponge 2y ago

X-rays are sub-nanometer waves. Millimeter wave scanners are fancy radar (with microwave photons) I always opted out of x-ray backscatter machines, but mm-wave scanners aren't worth the hassle.

kiratp 2y ago
https://theintercept.com/2015/05/27/tsa-body-scanner-lobbyist-takes-congressional-job-overseeing-spending-tsa-security/ https://theintercept.com/2015/05/27/tsa-body-scanner-lobbyis... https://www.propublica.org/article/tsa-removes-x-ray-body-scanners-from-major-airports https://www.propublica.org/article/tsa-removes-x-ray-body-sc... The whole implementation of these scanners was layers of corruption. Still worth it IMO - as long as they have to train people to maintain the manual process, its a signal that there are people out there who won't just fold.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  They have to do manual pat downs for people who "fail" the scanner, either because there was something that warranted a double check or the computer randomly assigned someone to receive extra scrutiny. I've walked out of the security perimeter to reschedule after a flight cancellation in an airport with <10 passengers in the terminal. Upon reentering I was "randomly" selected for an explosives swab despite passing the first time with the same bag and not walking more than 50 feet away from the TSA checkpoint.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    I "Failed" the scanner once because I was wearing too much deodorant! It decided the titanium or aluminum in my extremely sweaty armpits was clearly explosive. I felt sorta bad for the TSA guy who had to grope my sweaty armpits to make sure I wasn't a terrorist somehow
theGnuMe 2y ago
Are these things regulated by the FDA? And if not, why not?

koolba 2y ago

For bonus points make sure to refuse to send your bags through the X-ray scanner, blocking everyone else behind you as well, until the agent is ready for your manual pat down. When they demand you put your bags through, speak in a loud commanding voice, “Do not touch my bag! It must remain in my sight!”. If they’re not prepared for passengers to opt out, the public needs to be aware and the only way they’ll be aware is by delaying hundreds of passengers directly behind you.

idle_zealot 2y ago
This is a great way to spread awareness that anyone who cares about privacy rights is a crazy and annoying weirdo.

pcmaffey 2y ago

This is the primary reason I pay for TSA Precheck, to automatically opt out of the scanner without requesting a groping.