6 ms·

Cato Comments on TSA Body Scanners

40 points by jdp23 13y ago

jdp23 13y ago
Also, remember that the deadline is Monday for comments on regulations.gov for the TSA scanners -- http://tsacomments.net http://tsacomments.net has more
jdp23 13y ago
The key point: TSA’s nude body scanning policies probably cause more deaths than they prevent. For this reason, we recommend in our comment that the TSA suspend the current policies, commence a new rulemaking, and implement a rational policy resulting from an examination of all issues on the public record.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>The last day to comment on the proposed rules is Monday, June 24th. You can submit your comments until then. Cato's 50 page comment. If you want any ideas. http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/cato_tsa_comments.pdf http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 13y ago
The stated dose of radiation from the original X-Ray based TSA scanners has a banana equivalent of somewhere between 1/2 a banana and 4 bananas. The UCSF letter of concern about the penetrative depth of the radiation (here, weirdly, deeper penetration is better) was refuted by the scanner's inventor, who said the doctors confused two different metrics (radiation dose metrics, which were deep, and imaging depth, which was as designed shallow). But even if you believe the UCSF letter; what banana multiple are we talking about here? A 10x error in the amount of radiation the original backscatter machines generated would still work out to just tens of bananas. Moreover, the flight itself totally dominates the radiation cost of an airline trip. NYC to LA is 10's of microsieverts; multiple hundreds of bananas. The problem with backscatter machines isn't that they're unhealthy, and people shouldn't twist science into knots to make political points. Be careful about cheering for our side using a tactic that can easily be used against us in the future. The problem with the machine is that they're strip searches, and administrative strip searches are unreasonable.
- ThomPete 13y ago
  I have had one melanoma and have more than a thousand moles. Shallow isnt a problem?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - jmduke 13y ago
    The post to which you are replying isn't arguing that shallow radiation is not a problem.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > Moreover, the flight itself totally dominates the radiation cost of an airline trip. Except the flight has a real benefit and scanning has almost no benefit. So calculate the cost-benefit between the cost of radiation for flying vs. the scanners.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    The radiation you receive during a flight also has no benefit, and could be mitigated to some extent at some expense by the airlines. Either way: I think we're getting up in arms about single digit bananas. We should be up in arms about the strip search itself.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      Here here. Though now that they've taken backscatter out of the majority of major airports and have scaled back to the millimeter wave, I find it harder to object to on principle. I mean, I do still object to it on principle, specifically in that it violates my fourth amendment rights, but even as somebody who definitely knows better, it's hard to get up in arms over that alone. At least with the backscatter machines I could be upset that the TSA was taking nude photos of my daughter that I could be realistically pissed about. I still find it morally reprehensible, but that alone is harder to argue when so many other Americans just don't care.
bediger4000 13y ago
I particularly liked how Cato kept calling it a "nude body scanner", and how the TSA would lie, cheat, steal and beat it's momma to keep the "nude body scanners" around. Way to make it seem like the TSA has a nude body scan porno problem, Cato. Love that sort of thing.
declan 13y ago
From an interview I did in 2010, no bananas: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20022541-281.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20022541-281.html The administration's defense of the controversial machines, which use X-rays to perform what critics have dubbed naked strip searches, has "many misconceptions, and we will write a careful answer pointing out their errors," said John Sedat, a UCSF professor of biochemistry and biophysics and member of the National Academy of Sciences... Their letter to Holdren said "it appears that real independent safety data do not exist." In addition, the authors say: "There has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations."

40 points by jdp23 13y ago

jdp23 13y ago

Also, remember that the deadline is Monday for comments on regulations.gov for the TSA scanners -- http://tsacomments.net http://tsacomments.net has more

jdp23 13y ago

The key point: TSA’s nude body scanning policies probably cause more deaths than they prevent. For this reason, we recommend in our comment that the TSA suspend the current policies, commence a new rulemaking, and implement a rational policy resulting from an examination of all issues on the public record.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

>The last day to comment on the proposed rules is Monday, June 24th. You can submit your comments until then. Cato's 50 page comment. If you want any ideas. http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/cato_tsa_comments.pdf http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

tptacek 13y ago

The stated dose of radiation from the original X-Ray based TSA scanners has a banana equivalent of somewhere between 1/2 a banana and 4 bananas. The UCSF letter of concern about the penetrative depth of the radiation (here, weirdly, deeper penetration is better) was refuted by the scanner's inventor, who said the doctors confused two different metrics (radiation dose metrics, which were deep, and imaging depth, which was as designed shallow). But even if you believe the UCSF letter; what banana multiple are we talking about here? A 10x error in the amount of radiation the original backscatter machines generated would still work out to just tens of bananas. Moreover, the flight itself totally dominates the radiation cost of an airline trip. NYC to LA is 10's of microsieverts; multiple hundreds of bananas. The problem with backscatter machines isn't that they're unhealthy, and people shouldn't twist science into knots to make political points. Be careful about cheering for our side using a tactic that can easily be used against us in the future. The problem with the machine is that they're strip searches, and administrative strip searches are unreasonable.

ThomPete 13y ago
I have had one melanoma and have more than a thousand moles. Shallow isnt a problem?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jmduke 13y ago
  The post to which you are replying isn't arguing that shallow radiation is not a problem.
darkarmani 13y ago
> Moreover, the flight itself totally dominates the radiation cost of an airline trip. Except the flight has a real benefit and scanning has almost no benefit. So calculate the cost-benefit between the cost of radiation for flying vs. the scanners.
- tptacek 13y ago
  The radiation you receive during a flight also has no benefit, and could be mitigated to some extent at some expense by the airlines. Either way: I think we're getting up in arms about single digit bananas. We should be up in arms about the strip search itself.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Here here. Though now that they've taken backscatter out of the majority of major airports and have scaled back to the millimeter wave, I find it harder to object to on principle. I mean, I do still object to it on principle, specifically in that it violates my fourth amendment rights, but even as somebody who definitely knows better, it's hard to get up in arms over that alone. At least with the backscatter machines I could be upset that the TSA was taking nude photos of my daughter that I could be realistically pissed about. I still find it morally reprehensible, but that alone is harder to argue when so many other Americans just don't care.

bediger4000 13y ago

I particularly liked how Cato kept calling it a "nude body scanner", and how the TSA would lie, cheat, steal and beat it's momma to keep the "nude body scanners" around. Way to make it seem like the TSA has a nude body scan porno problem, Cato. Love that sort of thing.

declan 13y ago

From an interview I did in 2010, no bananas: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20022541-281.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20022541-281.html The administration's defense of the controversial machines, which use X-rays to perform what critics have dubbed naked strip searches, has "many misconceptions, and we will write a careful answer pointing out their errors," said John Sedat, a UCSF professor of biochemistry and biophysics and member of the National Academy of Sciences... Their letter to Holdren said "it appears that real independent safety data do not exist." In addition, the authors say: "There has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations."