3 ms·

I find it odd that a community like HN is reasonable, calm, and science-based on all but a few issues, like the TSA. The problem is not the body scanners. The p

I find it odd that a community like HN is reasonable, calm, and science-based on all but a few issues, like the TSA. The problem is not the body scanners. The problem is the TSA and the disregard of the bill of rights. Health claims: Passive mm-wave scanners do not produce radiation. The active mm-wave scanners use non-ionizing radiation which has been studied and shown not to cause cancer. One study even suggested it might reduce metastasis: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20208/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20208/abstrac... You'll pick up far more radiation on the flight itself at a fairly low 5 mrem (50 µSv). Even that would only be a significant factor if you're part of the flight crew. http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.... http://xkcd.com/radiation/ http://xkcd.com/radiation/ It's true that the machine itself hasn't been studied much, but the type of radiation it emits has been studied extensively. Barring any novel delivery system, that's enough. By analogy, you don't need to study the health effects of every single x-ray machine because we know what x-rays do. You just need to know the machine's dosage and wavelength. The lack of health concern is more than a stab in the dark. Invasion of privacy: Yes, the scans are absolutely an invasion of privacy. So is submitting to a pat-down. The problem isn't the scanner - it's the bureaucratic nonsense that makes the security state and the TSA possible. I believe a business should have the right to search you before coming on board if they want to and you agree, but they shouldn't HAVE TO. Flyers should have an option between airlines that use the security measures the market determines people actually want. Specifically, the "naked body" invasion: It does us harm to spout misinformation in our quest for privacy and freedom. The machines no longer store or display images of your body - they store and display images of a generic body with the data received from you. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/tsa-abandons-nude-scanners/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/tsa-abandons-nude-s... (the initial announcement) http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tsa-completely-removed-full-body-scanners-rep-article-1.1360143 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tsa-completely-remo... I dislike the TSA and government paternalism more than almost anyone, but we're getting caught up spreading misinformation and nonsense when we should be thinking about how to get our personal freedom back.

epoxyhockey 13y ago
Your first points should really be addressing active Terahertz radiation and its effects on living things. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation The summary is that we don't know enough about terahertz radiation to draw any solid conclusions yet, and there is at least one reputable source pondering, "How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA": http://www.technologyreview.com/view/416066/how-terahertz-waves-tear-apart-dna/ http://www.technologyreview.com/view/416066/how-terahertz-wa... Do you know how much power is emitted by the terahertz-wave scanner as two antennas are swept across your mid-section in close proximity? Here are some responses to your other points about mm-wave: Passive mm-wave scanners do not produce radiation Passive mm-wave scanners are not used in airports and not relevant to this discussion. You'll pick up far more radiation on the flight itself at a fairly low 5 mrem (50 µSv) Also, irrelevant as the xray body scanners have largely been removed from US airports due to their safety concerns. The EU has also banned the use of those scanners. The study that you cite is for radiation applied to the entire body mass, while the xray body scanners applied all of the ionizing radiation only to the outer layer of the body (skin + some bones + male reproductive organs + brain).
- ignostic 13y ago
  Thanks for bringing the MIT article to my attention. I wouldn't say I referenced the type of radiation, but was just a little less specific. The only source for the article you pointed to (http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294 http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294) was a model, not an experiment or test. Given the potential for DNA damage, though, it would be silly of me not to agree that more research should be done to see whether this model theory of "resonant effects" have any significant real-world impact.
wpietri 13y ago
On the one hand, I agree that these machines are unlikely to be a public health risk, and I further agree with you on the real problems here. On the other, I think that that it's misleading to compare risks you choose with risks that are forced upon you. That's part of what has people up in arms here; it's clear that the TSA didn't really care about safety or privacy when they started with this, so I'm ok with people being deeply suspicious about the "no, really, it's all safe and private now" shtick. Also, I think this is dangerous: "By analogy, you don't need to study the health effects of every single x-ray machine because we know what x-rays do. You just need to know the machine's dosage and wavelength." It's worth considering the THERAC-25, a device with software bugs that killed 3 people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 There's always a difference between what a machine is supposed to do and what it actually does. None know that better than HNers. Given that this is a novel technology rushed into production using giant government contracts to satisfy the security theater apparatus, it's reasonable to worry whether corners were cut, worries suppressed, or facts buried. I'm happy to trust my dentist's x-ray machine because he's a licensed, trained medical professional who's focused on healing, and who plans to stand right next to it for a couple decades. None of that applies in the TSA situation. I think the TSA scanners are probably fine anyhow, and I've used them happily when I don't have time to be obstreperous. But I don't fault people who refuse to trust the TSA on this.

epoxyhockey 13y ago

Your first points should really be addressing active Terahertz radiation and its effects on living things. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation The summary is that we don't know enough about terahertz radiation to draw any solid conclusions yet, and there is at least one reputable source pondering, "How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA": http://www.technologyreview.com/view/416066/how-terahertz-waves-tear-apart-dna/ http://www.technologyreview.com/view/416066/how-terahertz-wa... Do you know how much power is emitted by the terahertz-wave scanner as two antennas are swept across your mid-section in close proximity? Here are some responses to your other points about mm-wave: Passive mm-wave scanners do not produce radiation Passive mm-wave scanners are not used in airports and not relevant to this discussion. You'll pick up far more radiation on the flight itself at a fairly low 5 mrem (50 µSv) Also, irrelevant as the xray body scanners have largely been removed from US airports due to their safety concerns. The EU has also banned the use of those scanners. The study that you cite is for radiation applied to the entire body mass, while the xray body scanners applied all of the ionizing radiation only to the outer layer of the body (skin + some bones + male reproductive organs + brain).

ignostic 13y ago
Thanks for bringing the MIT article to my attention. I wouldn't say I referenced the type of radiation, but was just a little less specific. The only source for the article you pointed to (http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294 http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294) was a model, not an experiment or test. Given the potential for DNA damage, though, it would be silly of me not to agree that more research should be done to see whether this model theory of "resonant effects" have any significant real-world impact.

wpietri 13y ago

On the one hand, I agree that these machines are unlikely to be a public health risk, and I further agree with you on the real problems here. On the other, I think that that it's misleading to compare risks you choose with risks that are forced upon you. That's part of what has people up in arms here; it's clear that the TSA didn't really care about safety or privacy when they started with this, so I'm ok with people being deeply suspicious about the "no, really, it's all safe and private now" shtick. Also, I think this is dangerous: "By analogy, you don't need to study the health effects of every single x-ray machine because we know what x-rays do. You just need to know the machine's dosage and wavelength." It's worth considering the THERAC-25, a device with software bugs that killed 3 people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 There's always a difference between what a machine is supposed to do and what it actually does. None know that better than HNers. Given that this is a novel technology rushed into production using giant government contracts to satisfy the security theater apparatus, it's reasonable to worry whether corners were cut, worries suppressed, or facts buried. I'm happy to trust my dentist's x-ray machine because he's a licensed, trained medical professional who's focused on healing, and who plans to stand right next to it for a couple decades. None of that applies in the TSA situation. I think the TSA scanners are probably fine anyhow, and I've used them happily when I don't have time to be obstreperous. But I don't fault people who refuse to trust the TSA on this.