9 ms·
Backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers. You get a much higher dose of radiation from the flight. The only real health concerns are for the worker
by driverdan 14y ago
Backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers. You get a much higher dose of radiation from the flight. The only real health concerns are for the workers who are exposed to them continuously.
X-ray, mm-wave, magic pixie scanners, I don't care what type they are, I'm still opting out because it's a blatant violation of the 4th amendment (when mandated, staffed, and managed by the gov).
I'll be celebrating when body scanners and other security theater is ended entirely. I'm not getting my hopes up.
- gallamine 14y agoPoison is about dosage and duration. The dose during the flight may be the same, but the duration certainly is not.
- bradly 14y ago> I'm still opting out because it's a blatant violation of the 4th amendment Aren't you still being searched by hand when you opt out, though? It that much different?
- Karunamon 14y agoGiven the choice between getting felt up through my clothes and having a naked picture taken, i'll take the feel up every time. That, and I flatly do not trust these machines and who's administering them. It's a matter of when, not if someone (or lots of someones) gets a bad dose of radiation through these things.
- dp1234 14y agoAnd not just a naked picture taken. A naked picture taken of you and potentially stored on disk.
- tedunangst 14y agoIt's a naked picture of you that doesn't really look anything like you and contains no identifying metadata. Imagine if the last 100 naked pictures from Logan ended up on the internet. Would anybody be able to identify them?
- krickle 14y agoMaybe not, but they also have a list of exactly who was there at the time. We cannot examine the software, so we have no guarantee that it really blurs face and privates. Don't you think they might be able to do some analysis with either a full-body or partially blurred collection of scans over time?
- appleflaxen 14y agoIt's not that it's different; it's a form of civil disobedience (which isn't even that disobedient) by requiring more time/energy/work on the part of the TSA agents. If enough people opt out, the line slows down, and the machine gets turned off.
- driverdan 14y agoappleflaxen put it well. Opting out is a method of showing TSA agents that some people think about these things and care. It also puts more demand on their limited time and resources. If everyone opted out they'd have to get rid of the procedure all together.
- SageRaven 14y agoI'm with you on the whole government intrusion thing. I haven't flown since 9/11 because all of the security BS. My career has probably taken a hit, but we all gotta take a stand somewhere.
- stcredzero 14y ago> Backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers. You get a much higher dose of radiation from the flight. Backscatter is set up so that the majority of the energy is deposited in your skin. The problem comes from the fact that most of the data we've collected is with X-rays that deposit their energy evenly throughout your body's volume. The heuristics based on that data erroneously suggest that skin is one of the least cancer prone tissues. However, we know on the basis of microbiology that this isn't the case. It's only because the skin constitues a small fraction of the absorption cross section of the entire body that biases the numbers this way. This is a "spherical cow" assumption applied by self-interested bureaucrats. Such an oversight wouldn't be allowed in a PhD thesis defense. Why is it allowed when applied to the health and well being of hundreds of millions of people? Yes, the dose is low, but the geometry of the delivery is radically different. For something that affects so many, more testing is warranted. The only real health concerns are for the workers who are exposed to them continuously. I agree that that's also a major issue.
- AngryParsley 14y agoThere's all kinds of FUD surrounding these devices, and it seems like many with health concerns are engaging in motivated cognition. For example: if the dose is concentrated in the skin, couldn't that be a good thing? Our skin is constantly bombarded with ionizing radiation. UV rays, alpha and beta particles, etc. When it comes to these sorts of insults, the skin is one of the most resilient organs. But instead of arguments, we can look at the evidence. The FDA is notoriously risk-averse, but it has done studies on the safety of backscatter devices and concluded they're safe: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/SecuritySystems/ucm227201.htm http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmitt... According to the FDA, the dose to the skin is 89,000 times lower than the annual limit. If backscatter scanners caused harm, it would tell us something new about physics, biology, or both. Are backscatter scanners an invasion of privacy? Yes. Are they a waste of money? Almost certainly. Do I wish airports got rid of them? Yes. But unless our understanding of physics and/or biology is very wrong, they're not dangerous.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- WiseWeasel 14y agoI'd say your claim of no health risk is premature. Backscatter X-ray focuses the ionizing radiation on the surface of your skin and immediately underlying tissue, so the effective local dose on your skin is much higher than other types of X-ray which are distributed evenly throughout your body. This is of particular concern to men, whose reproductive organs are located near the surface of the skin, as X-ray exposure to reproductive organs in parents is associated with leukemia in their children. For medical X-rays, measures are taken to limit exposure to reproductive organs.
- sjg007 14y agoIndeed. I opt out, I will opt out my children. It is a unnecessary risk.
- nickgeiger 14y agoFor families with children, I've noticed that most airports (I've been to anyway) now have a family security line, which uses traditional metal detectors instead of body scanners and doesn't try to make kids go through the scanners. The lines are also usually shorter and friendlier to the extra time it takes getting kids through the line. However, I'm usually slower than the kids because I have to get all my laptops out, belt and shoes off, etc. If I'm by myself or somehow end up with body scanner as the only option, I always opt-out. I guess part of the theater is designed to embarrass me, but I wonder why I should be more embarrassed than the dude squatting down below me to give me the feel in front of everybody (and no, I don't want a private screening, get down there and feel me up right here in the open). Like someone else suggested, I think they're as embarrassed as I am (or am supposed to be).
- pndmnm 14y ago> Backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers. But we really don't know that, because no studies have been done using this equipment. In addition to concerns that the radiation, while lower in total than that absorbed during a flight, is absorbed over a much smaller volume of tissue, adequate validation that the machines can't break in dangerous ways hasn't been performed (and even the most basic detection mechanisms for failure such as having the operators wear dosimeters have been neglected or banned outright). It violates every principle of radiation safety.
- goostavos 14y agoI'm glad to hear that others still opt out. I fly constantly for work, and I've watched the number of people opting out slowly drifting down till it feels like, well, just me. If I'm getting my rights violated, I'm at least getting a reach around for it. Plus, even though I know it's terribly childish, being able to ask if they're happy that they grew up to make a living by touching my balls gives me a little bit of false empowerment in a crappy situation. Ya, just can't get that satisfaction when walking through a scanner.
- zacharycohn 14y agoI opt out 100% of the time.
- caseysoftware 14y agoMe too. I make it an ordeal for the TSA agents by applying simple logic to their absurd rules: "So wait, 3oz of fluid in a 3oz container is okay.. but 3oz in a 5oz container is not? Is it more dangerous for some reason?" #fuTSA
- tlrobinson 14y agoAnd one 6oz container isn't ok, but two 3oz containers is?
- apendleton 14y agoMy favorite part is that empty bottles are always allowed, regardless of size. So you can have a six-ounce bottle with two ounces of liquid in it, and an empty three-ounce bottle, and that violates the rules, but if you pour the contents if the first bottle into the second, it's suddenly allowed, even though you have all of the same materials as before: bottles, liquids, etc. Totally irrational.
- nnnnni 14y agoThat's why it's called security theatre, not security.
- mhurron 14y ago> it's a blatant violation of the 4th amendment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Border_search_exception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_... The US Court of Appeals disagrees. FYI in the US, the boarder is defined as a 100 mile wide swath of land around any actual boarder. Live within 100 miles of a cost line? Congratulations, the 4th Amendment boarder exception applies to you. http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-con...
- macchina 14y agoI'm fairly sure that full body scans do not fall under the border search exception. For one, the exception only applies to international borders, and usually, these types of searches would be performed by Customs agents—not the TSA.
- Symmetry 14y agoIt doesn't pose a non-trivial health risk, but IIRC there's no decade of air travel where the number of deaths per flight from terrorists was higher than the number these x-rays are expected to cause.
- sukuriant 14y agoToo many negatives in this sentence. Trying to parse: "It may pose a real health risk; but, iirc, for each decade of air travel, the number of deaths by terrorists has been less than the combined impact of these new x-rays." Did I parse that right?
- jlgreco 14y agoEven medical grade x-ray equipment that is seemingly well and regularly maintained operated by trained medical professionals in hospitals can go horrifically wrong. These machines are none of those things. Why should I give them the benefit of the doubt?
- waqf 14y agoI disagree with your emphasis of "hospitals", because I think of hospitals as much more dangerous and threatening than airports. Your odds per visit of being killed by hospital-acquired infections alone are hugely greater than all forms of death caused by air travel.
- jlgreco 14y agoI emphasis that not because I think hospitals are particularly safe but because I think the damage a malfunctioning x-ray machine may cause has a higher chance of being recognized for what it is in a hospital. At the very least, people in hospitals tend to stay there longer. The radiation burns from Therac-25 took up to several days to become visible. Any damage that these machines may cause is likely going to be much more subtle, making the situation even worse.
- tedunangst 14y agoThe Therac-25 wasn't plugged into a wall socket.
- jlgreco 14y agoThese machines are plugged into wall sockets, therefore they must be safe. Is that what you wish to imply?
- tedunangst 14y agoYup.
- bcantrill 14y agoAs others have pointed out, there is little basis for your assertion that "backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers." As my father (a physician) enjoys pointing out: we used to use X-rays to treat acne -- they were thought to not pose any health risk either! More generally, the history of technology is littered with arrogant overshoots where risks were dismissed until evidence became overwhelming; while one cannot conclude that backscatter is at a level to be dangerous, one can certainly not conclude that it "doesn't pose any health risk." Or to flip it around, I opt out because I happen to know something that the TSA doesn't: I pose no risk to the aircraft, and scanning me in no way makes the aircraft safer. I can therefore assert with absolute certainty that my opting out poses less risk to the travelling public than being scanned poses a risk to me. (Plus, I think I might secretly enjoy TSA agents awkwardly and apologetically rubbing the backs of their hands on my crotch.)
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- tedunangst 14y agoThe radiation one received to treat acne was substantially more than the amount of radiation one received in the car ride to the doctor's office.
- daniel-cussen 14y agoThen why does anyone have acne?
- tedunangst 14y agoBecause we don't zap people with lots of radiation to treat it anymore.
- ghshephard 14y agoI'm completely comfortable with people who are concerned about the radiation we are getting from "Back Scatter X-Rays" - but I'm just wondering where they heck they were when trying to protect us from the radiation we get while flying? If those brief, minimal x-ray scans we get during TSA searches is worth considering, then I wish someone would do something about shielding us while we're flying, and getting a great deal more radiation...
- splat 14y ago> Backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers. This is possibly only true if there are no problems with the machines. If the machine is functioning properly, an X-ray beam will quickly scan you from head to toe. But if the scanner gets stuck (which happens from time to time), all of the dosage is concentrated in a single part of the body.
- waqf 14y agoThat sounds like a serious accusation. Can you provide a citation?
- hammock 14y agoHas anyone seen data on # of opt-outs? The little bit I've seen came from a recent visit to a small regional airport in a swing state which I'll keep anonymous. This airport serves ~4000 passengers per day. The woman had a piece of paper where she kept tally of opt-outs. At mid-day there were ~40 opt outs (including mine). So 80/4000 = 2% opt-out rate I'd say is higher than I was expecting!
- ble 14y agoThe reason for the controversy is 1) this level of dose is thought safe if absorbed throughout the body; 2) there is no consensus on whether this level is safe if absorbed solely in the skin; it sounds like the question simply has not been studied.
- methodover 14y agoAbout radiation: Let's say that the article is correct and the radiation risk is very low -- 6 to 100 additional cancer cases per year among the millions that fly. The question I have is this: Are the machines preventing 6 to 100 injuries or deaths from a terrorist attack every year? If so, then perhaps the extra cancer cases are worth it. But if not -- if the scanners do not reduce the risk of terrorist attacks enough to offset the very small increase in cancer cases, then the machines are a waste.
- gnosis 14y agoDo you really expect your typical underpaid, undereducated, and overworked TSA employee to properly calibrate, maintain, or use a backscatter machines? Even in hospitals, which have much stricter standards of safety and training have had accidents[1] where patients have been administered overdoses of radiation (some to lethal effect). Just give the TSA another 10 or 20 years.. I would not be at all surprised to hear of major lawsuits from travelers who've been seriously injured by these machines, due to TSA incompetence in purchasing junky machines, maintaining/calibrating them poorly, or not training their employees to use them properly. [1] - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/health/29radiation.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/health/29radiation.html?_r...