
EPIC Lawsuit to Suspend Deployment of Body Scanners at US Airports - mhb
http://epic.org/privacy/body_scanners/epic_v_dhs_suspension_of_body.html
======
warpwoof
Awesome, Bruce Schneier is part of the lawsuit:

"Three frequent air travelers are joining EPIC in the lawsuit: security expert
Bruce Schneier, human rights activist Chip Pitts, and the Council on American-
Islamic Relations legal counsel Nadhira Al-Khalili. The Petitioners have
brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Privacy Act, the
Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the
Fourth Amendment."

~~~
geuis
This isn't about religion. It's about invasion of privacy and degradation of
the human spirit by an uncontrolled government bureaucracy that thinks it has
a free hand by waving around the fear flag. This smells like the McCarthy era.

~~~
donohoe
Of course its not about religion in itself. Religion is only one aspect of
this, there were others: "Administrative Procedure Act, the Privacy Act, the
Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the
Fourth Amendment"... there 4 other reasons.

Not sure why you choose to pick on religion in itself when it was within
context of other reasons. For those of a religious persuasion the invasion of
privacy may be an additional problem on top of the normal intrusiveness of
these scanners.

------
sstone
Almost no politician would ever vote for removing this awful "security"
measure. They would risk being blamed when another incompetent terrorist
mastermind passes security and hopefully gets stopped by, now much more
vigilant passengers. Going to the courts seems like a good way around that -
sue the TSA.

If someone with experience on these types of issues could comment I would be
very interested to learn if this has any chance of removing those damn
machines from airports.

~~~
geuis
Make a list of congressmen and senators that require you to let nude photos of
your children to be taken by government employees. It's all about how you
frame the argument

~~~
mhb
That's good for the thin end of the wedge, but it might suggest that if the
children are exempted from this nonsense, then the problem is solved.

Also it sets up what could be spun as a bargaining chip. Exempt the kids and
they can scan the adults.

~~~
ryoshu
It depends on how you position the wedge. You start by asking officials why
they want to take naked pictures of innocent children. Once they are
sufficiently embarrassed about the notion of taking naked pictures of
children, you ask why they want to take naked pictures of innocent adults.
Every time a TSA or DHS official talks about how they don't store the
pictures, bring up the US Marshals Service storing naked pictures of children
and adults (<http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html>) using the
same technology, despite providing the /exact/ same assurances the TSA is
providing now.

When the TSA officials talk about the opt-out process and the subsequent
genital groping, ask about the TSA agent that was charged with raping a kid
([http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100310child...](http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20100310child_rape_charge_rocks_tsa_logan_employee_pats_down_air_travelers_at_scan_stations/))
and wanting to keep that child as a sex slave. Do parents really want
strangers feeling up the breasts and genitals of their underage children? What
type of person applies for a job where they are allowed to grope children? Is
it any better when those same agents want to grope adults?

It's not advanced screening technology, it's a machine that takes naked
pictures of children and stores them.

It's not a thorough pat down, it's having your genitals groped by strangers.

Control the language and you control the discussion.

------
ck2
Why didn't they add some kind of protection act for children to this lawsuit
as well?

They are making children go through these things and then showing them naked
to who knows? That violation should surpass the far more vague "religious
freedom".

~~~
daten
Can both sides play the "think of the children" card in the same fight?

~~~
pjscott
On that note, who says _only_ two sides can play the "think of the children"
card? To demonstrate otherwise, I'm going to make a third side which says that
naked children aren't inherently that big a deal, and that greater harm comes
from the implicit sexualization of children, and the paranoia about sexual
predators that it causes. I don't really mind backscatter machines in
airports; I find them funny and entertaining, if only for the vaguely
Caramelldansen-like hands-above-the-head pose they had me assume last time I
went through one.

What does bother me is how every time there's a sensational incident -- a
terrorist attack, or someone getting kidnapped, or whatever -- people start
screaming for someone in the government to DO SOMETHING!!1, and we end up
spending an inordinate amount of time and resources guarding against something
that happened once and isn't too likely to happen again. Smart terrorists
would stay the hell away from airports; they'd get a higher marginal return on
their efforts if they went for easier targets like sports stadiums or crowded
subways. And if that starts happening, what are we going to do? Put
backscatter machines and security guards everywhere? Completely sacrifice all
privacy to assuage our fears about the most unlikely events, while neglecting
the real killers, like car crashes and cancer?

So to hell with it. Go ahead and make me remove my shoes at the airport and
strike a ridiculous pose in a backscatter machine; I'll just laugh it off.
What worries me is the preposterous irrationality, and where it'll lead if we
give it free rein for long enough. Won't somebody please think of the
children?

~~~
pyre

      >  people start screaming for someone in the government
      > to DO SOMETHING!!1, 
    

This may have been the case with 9/11, but I didn't see _anyone_ screaming at
governments to 'DO SOMETHING!!11' the last couple of times that things
happened (underpants bomber, shoe bomber, liquid explosives conspiracy, etc).
If anything politicians and officials have been proactive (in the sense of
being reactive before their bosses -- the general public -- hound them to be
reactive).

------
daimyoyo
I want the airlines to pay attention to what I'm about to say: Until these
electronic strip search machines are taken out, I will NEVER fly again. I've
done nothing wrong and I will not tolerate being treated like a criminal
simply because you think you can get away with it.

~~~
wjy
With all due respect, if you want the airlines to listen to you, you should
say it to _them_ , not HN.

~~~
Silhouette
I'm with the GP, and we do better than merely saying it to the airlines: we
vote with our wallets.

Given the recent comments by air industry bigshots in the UK, it appears that
they're starting to get the point, too.

------
marquis
I wonder if women might, on mass, protest these machines by saying 'I may be
pregnant' or 'I am breastfeeding'. If this is a suitable means of gentle civil
disobedience, perhaps another method is suggest for men? I myself am
considering to use the 'possibly pregnant' method next time I fly in the US
and am curious what the response will be, and how I am treated in the pat-
down.

~~~
eof
I've been thinking about how to work myself up to a hard on before going
through as a form of reverse molestation.

------
mmaunder
I'd settle for TSA employees working naked - a kind of Orwellian nudist
colony. At least I could giggle back.

------
random42
As an Non-American, While reading the article, I got the vibe, that the
ideology at the TSA security check is,

 _Unless proven otherwise, everyone is a terrorist (criminal)_

IANAL, but where does US constitution/judicatory stand on it?

~~~
tptacek
The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of "administrative
searches", which aren't targeted, don't require a warrant, don't require
individual suspicion, and which are used to protect public safety and not to
conduct criminal investigations.

~~~
cowboyhero
IANAL, but I believe this also allows the cops to set up random DUI roadblocks
(ie, untargeted, no warrant, no individual suspicion, public good, etc).

~~~
tptacek
Those roadblocks clearly haven't been ruled unconstitutional (they happen in
Illinois all the time), but it's worth noting that they're set up expressly in
the service of criminal investigations, which is exactly what admin searches
_aren't_ supposed to be about.

For slightly more context, note that there is a scheme of "primary" and
"secondary" moving violations, which is why technically you're not supposed to
be able to get pulled over for not having your seatbelt on.

Mostly what they're doing at those checkpoints is racking up compliance
tickets, which is obviously a load of BS.

Fortunately, this is a problem easily addressed by technology.

------
oiuyftgrghjk
Of course if you were a terrorist wouldn't a line of hundreds of people all
being crowded into one space BEFORE security make a much nicer target?

And if somebody did detonate a backpack full of nails in the security queue
how they react - more security and make the queues longer?

~~~
SapphireSun
It seems to me the most expeditious way to keep people safe from bomb attacks
at the airport would be to have more flights with smaller airplanes that way
you reduce the concentration of people and remove the queues. If you have 40
passengers on a plane and 10 of them are terrorists, then that leaves 30+crew
to resist them less small children and cripples (so probably, pulling a number
out of the air, 15-25 people to resist 10).

~~~
oiuyftgrghjk
But you still have queues as 100,000 people all have to get into the airport
through one security point.

At my local airport they have even built it underground so you queue for
security in a long sloping concrete passageway - brilliantly designed for
maximum casualties, hardest exit and most difficult to fight a fire in

------
TallGuyShort
As exciting as this sounds, the dates are all at least several months old.
Anybody know more about the current status of this, or the direction it's
heading?

~~~
warpwoof
I think you are looking at other news items on the page that are several
months old?

The actual document submitted to the court is dated November 1, 2010.

[PDF]
[http://epic.org/privacy/litigation/EPIC_Body_Scanner_OB_Fina...](http://epic.org/privacy/litigation/EPIC_Body_Scanner_OB_Final.pdf)

------
knodi
"Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom
nor security." \- Benjamin Franklin

------
tptacek
My guess is they're going to get shellacked.

The first thing you have to understand here is that the constitutionality of
airport searches isn't in question. SCOTUS has upheld a doctrine of
"administrative searches", taken in order to advance public safety rather than
criminal investigations, which are explicitly intended to apply universally,
without a warrant, and without individualized suspicion.

The second bit of background you should have is 49 USC 44925, which _mandates_
that the TSA research and deploy advanced screening technology, specifically
to detect nonmetallic objects. I'm no lawyer, but I do enjoy reading SCOTUS
civil liberties opinions, and by and large the court seems to give deference
to the legislature when no clear constitutional issue is at stake. In sum: the
court has an "out" here, which is "the intent to search passengers is already
constitutional, so if this variant of the search is so bad, pass a law".

The Supreme Court has not outlawed strip searches (obviously they can't, as
virtually everyone who gets arrested and booked is strip searched, guilty or
not). If you read the Savana Redding opinion (8-1 "it's unconstitutional to
strip search an 8th grade girl for ibuprofen"), you'll see things like "Its
indignity does not outlaw the search, but it does implicate the rule that "the
search [be] ‘reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified
the interference in the first place.’". That is, unfortunately, not a hard
case for TSA to make. The fact that the Savana search was for "nondangerous
contraband" also factored into the opinion.

(If you want to throw up in your mouth a little bit, track down Clarence
Thomas' dissent which argued that it is indeed constitutional to strip search
a 13 year old girl in school to track down Advil.)

Finally, the arguments EPIC makes here do not seem awesome. Part of their
argument turns on administrative rulemaking procedures at TSA, which TSA seems
to dismantle efficiently in their response. Other parts drag in things like
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is (a) a longshot argument for
petitioners who can claim no personal religions infringed on and (b) is neatly
sidestepped by the TSA "opt-out" rule. Speaking of opt-out: EPIC claims that
there is no effective opt-out procedure, which is also a hard argument to
defend without an example of someone refused an opt-out. And on this janky
scaffold of arguments, EPIC wants an emergency injunction against the
scanners?

Don't get me wrong, I'm obviously in their corner on this. I'm thrilled if
they win. And they've got some painful evidence, such as FOIA docs showing TSA
required machines with store/transmit capabilities (oops!). But my guess is
that if we want to get rid of the strip search machines, we're going to have
to do it by voting out the people who approved them.

~~~
nubian
You're mistaken in practically every assertion you make above.

Without going over a point-by-point of the various ways your post is incorrect
(e.g. regarding the scope of administrative searches; the ability of the
SCOTUS to regulate searches at jails; the _actual_ lawsuits which have
resulted in most jails being much more limited in the scope of their searches
absent reasonable suspicion; the TSA's inability to detect shoe bombs with the
normal x-ray machines and underwear powder bombs with the new scanners; people
who HAVE been refused an opt-out (reports at FlyerTalk.com); "voting out" the
people who approved them, when a primary mover behind them is the Chertoff
group, headed by former DHS head Michael Chertoff, who stand to gain
financially from their lobbying thanks to ties to Rapiscan; and so forth), I
am going to repost something from the other day which bears repeating.

Original: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1854787>

\------------------------------------------------------------

There are multiple problems with TSA screening in general, and backscatter
machines in particular, which are listed below.

As these machines are ill-advised, you currently have the option to "opt out"
and receive a pat-down instead.

PAT-DOWNS:

New guidelines just instituted for the pat-down procedure include groping of
breasts, buttocks, and crotches. [8][15] Even for minors. [13] [14]

 _"My wife tells me that they grabbed my [10-year-old] son's privates and he
was crying the whole time and all she could do was stand there and tell him it
was going to be OK."_ [16]

Due to this, the ACLU is now taking reports of pat-down abuse:

[http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/tsa-pat-down-
sear...](http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/tsa-pat-down-search-abuse)

Note that going through a scan does NOT exempt you from a pat-down grope. You
may be groped if you trigger a metal detector, or if your backscatter shows an
"anomaly", or for any other reason or no reason at all. There are also gate
screenings, where you will be pulled aside at the gate, and since there are no
machines, you will be patted down / groped.

IMPACT

About 1 in 5 people are sexually assaulted by age 18. [1]

This means that even "normal" pat-downs are extremely distressing or damaging
to a significant percentage of the population, and these new procedures are
simply sexual assault under color of authority, which can be traumatic.
Victims of sexual assault, molestation, and rape often feel like they are re-
living their experiences, and even those who don't have such a background may
experience emotional damage from the procedure.

I defy anyone to belittle the experience of victims of sexual abuse, who do
not want any unwanted touching forced upon them, least of all groping of
private areas.

BACKSCATTER SCANS

All the official images have been redacted. Here is what it REALLY looks like,
scaled down:

[http://dams.rca.ac.uk/res/sites/Show2006/Images06/John_Wild_...](http://dams.rca.ac.uk/res/sites/Show2006/Images06/John_Wild_1.jpg)

This is an artist's self-portrait using a Rapiscan Secure 1000 security
scanner [17]. In addition to clearly seeing his genitals, note the penetration
into his kneecaps, shin bones, and feet. Then consider the _un_ protected
areas, such as face, neck, and _eyes_. Look more closely and you can see the
bones in his forearms (radius, ulna), part of his humerus, and his hands.

Then consider the findings of people like David Brenner, the head of Columbia
University’s Center for Radiological Research, who explains that the dose is
actually 20 times higher than the official estimate. [2] [3] [4] [5]

The energy is absorbed mostly in the skin, NOT throughout the volume of the
entire body as with other types of ionizing radiation. Also, the dosage is
delivered in a few (under 30) seconds. You have to consider dose per unit
time; the figures often mentioned for long flights mention the total dose,
which is distributed over a period of HOURS.

PRIVACY

The TSA originally claimed that these machines were simply INCAPABLE of
storing images. That wasn't true:

 _"The documents, released by the Department of Homeland Security, reveal that
Whole Body Imaging machines can record, store, and transmit digital strip
search images of Americans"_ [6]

This also goes for MMW (millimeter wave) machines used by courthouses:

" _Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images"_ [7]

ANONYMITY

Some locations are now using a full-color video camera _in addition to_ the
backscatter / MMW imager. This means your full-body color portrait and
unclothed image can be linked; and if they scan your boarding pass or other
identifying information, they can link your images to your name and other
personal information (phone number, address, BIRTH DATE). [12]

SLIPPERY SLOPE

Originally the TSA claimed the backscatter machines were optional and there
was no penalty for declining (no groping); that they had no capability to
store images; that they would NEVER be used as primary screening instead of
metal detectors (now they ARE being used as primary screening in some airports
with plans for the rest -- see [9] [10]).

The supposed motivation for storing images would be in case of another attempt
like the underwear bomber, to go back and "check the tapes" to see what they
missed.

 _You should probably assume that if you are scanned, your full-color and
naked images along with personal identifying information will be stored by
Federal agencies in perpetuity._

EVEN DHS HEAD REFUSES BODY SCANNER

 _"Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano yesterday hailed
them as an important breakthrough for airport security and the fight against
terrorism."_

 _"Yet when it came to testing the devices - which produce chalky, naked X-ray
images of passengers - she turned the floor over to some brave volunteers."_
[11]

OPT-OUTS MAY NOT LAST

In the U.K., whole-body scanners have been mandatory for some time. This may
well come to the U.S.

So, you will be forced to be scanned, after which you may be groped anyway,
then groped again at the gate, and your images both clothed and naked will be
in the bowels of a government database, which then gets turned over to various
private industry bidders, who all will have a copy of all your information.

Some scanners take images in real-time at a decent framerate, which means your
3D biometric information of every part of your body will soon be recorded
forever and used in any number of ways.

[1] <http://www.ncdsv.org/images/SexualAssaultStatistics.pdf>

[2] [http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/naked-scanners-may-
increa...](http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/naked-scanners-may-increase-
cancer-risk/story-e6frfq80-1225868706270)

[3]
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7862265/Airport...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7862265/Airport-
body-scanners-could-give-you-cancer.html)

[4] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-
bo...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-body-
scanners-deliver-radiation-dose-20-times-higher-thought.html)

[5] [http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/07/full-body-
sc...](http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/07/full-body-scanners-
pose-cancer-risk-at-airports-us-scientists-warn/98552/1)

[6] <http://epic.org/2010/01/update---epic-posts-tsa-docume.html>

[7]
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html?part=rss...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20)

[8] [http://news.travel.aol.com/2010/10/29/tsa-launches-
enhanced-...](http://news.travel.aol.com/2010/10/29/tsa-launches-enhanced-
patdown-draws-critics/)

[9] [http://www.management.travel/news.php?cid=body-scans-body-
sc...](http://www.management.travel/news.php?cid=body-scans-body-scanners-
airport-screening-2011.Mar-10.25)

[10] <http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/tag/backscatter-x-ray/>

[11]
[http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/22/2010-10-22_bo...](http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/22/2010-10-22_body_scanners_unveiled_at_jfk_airport_homeland_security_sect_janet_napolitano_do.html)

[12] [http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/no-birthdate-no-
ticket...](http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/no-birthdate-no-ticket-tsa-
secure-flight-is-sneaking-up-on-travelers/)

[13] [http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-
security/114134...](http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-
security/1141343-opt-out-minors-enhanced-patdowns-looking-facts-2.html)

[14] [http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-
security/341574...](http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-
security/341574-my-one-year-old-gets-patted-down.html)

[15] [http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-
the-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/10/for-the-first-
time-the-tsa-meets-resistance/65390/)

[16]
[http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/dyrr8/help_i_beli...](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/dyrr8/help_i_believe_the_tsa_violated_my_son/)

[17] <http://www.rupture.co.uk/Self_portrait.html>

~~~
uvdiv
I dispute this:

> _The energy is absorbed mostly in the skin, NOT throughout the volume of the
> entire body as with other types of ionizing radiation. Also, the dosage is
> delivered in a few (under 30) seconds. You have to consider dose per unit
> time; the figures often mentioned for long flights mention the total dose,
> which is distributed over a period of HOURS._

First, your comparison is misleading. The dose of a backscatter x-ray is about
0.02 uSv [1]. The dose rate at 40,000 ft is around 6 uSv/hour [2]. Simply
sitting in an airplane exposes you to the equivalent of a backscatter x-ray
every 12 seconds (not "hours"). The dose rates are comparable; the flights
last hundreds of times longer, hence give hundreds of times higher doses.

Second, your emphasis on "dose per unit time" (or dose rate) isn't actually
important. For low doses (and these are EXTREMELY low doses), there is no
difference between fast and slow exposure [3]:

> _When you are asked whether there is a critical time period over which 1 rem
> of dose may have a greater biological impact than it might otherwise have,
> the answer is "No." One rem of dose is sufficiently low that whether it was
> delivered within one second or spread over a year or more, we would not
> expect any difference in biological effects._

(Note 1 rem = 0.01 Sievert (Sv) -- 500,000x higher than a backscatter x-ray).

[1]
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1268330...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126833083)

[2] <http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/info/RadHaz.html>

[3] <https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q8325.html>

~~~
nubian
This is a little long, so I am going to summarize at the top. I will show
that:

1) The estimates are much higher than what you cite;

2) Typical exposure when flying is much lower than what you cite;

3) Dose per unit time DOES matter;

4) The HPS article references their own position paper which doesn't mention
differences with short time intervals;

5) The regulations for low-dose exposure are extrapolated from high dose data,
because of a lack of studies at low doses;

6) Because of this, the HPS recommends against _quantitative_ risk estimates,
because the _precise_ risk is hard to quantify;

7) The lack of data means they are being disingenuous when they say no, as
they lack the data to establish it. Note the phrasing: "we would not _expect_
" -- this despite the data we DO have, which establishes that units of time
_matter_ ;

8) Despite that one position paper, which tries to dismiss health risks below
5-10 rem, their own position paper on backscatter scanners recommends per-
screening and per-year (time limit!) maximums far below that threshold;

9) Going by the contact information and president, the HPS may have turned
into an industry front. Citing HPS might be as credible on these issues as
citing Philip Morris spokespeople on the dangers of cigarettes.

In order:

\---------

1) "According to the Health Physics Society (HPS), a person undergoing a
backscatter scan receives approximately 0.005 millirems (mrem, a unit of
absorbed radiation). American Science and Engineering, Inc., actually puts
that number slightly higher, in the area of .009 mrem."

<http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/backscatter.htm>

That's .05-.09 uSv. Secondly, as previously mentioned, Brenner estimates the
effective dose is 20 times as high due to factors like less volume for
absorption.

That means the estimated dosage is in the range of 1-1.8 uSv, or 50 to 90
times what you mention. Not a trivial discrepancy.

2)40,000 feet is close to the altitude ceiling for most commercial aircraft.
With a 30,000-foot cruising altitude, the exposure drops in half; at 20,000
feet, it drops to a sixth; at 10,000 feet, it's about 1/35th. According to
your second reference.

Short business trips may even be below 10,000 feet. It takes too much time
(and fuel) to reach riskier altitudes.

So "simply sitting in an airplane" is not the same as cruising at 40,000 feet
on a transatlantic flight.

3) You say:

> Second, your emphasis on "dose per unit time" (or dose rate) isn't actually
> important.

Let me quote from your own source:

 _"There have been numerous biological experiments conducted, with nonhuman
organisms, that demonstrate that the rate at which radiation dose is delivered
can affect the extent of biological response. Thus a sufficiently high dose
delivered over a period of a few minutes may be expected to have a greater
biological impact than the same dose spread over a year."_

The only question is what constitutes a "sufficiently high" dose, due to
extrapolation. See 5).

4) Further, the terse "no" answer looked disingenuous. The cited position
paper link was broken but I tracked it down.

It appears to be "Radiation Risk in Perspective", PS010-2 (which I assume is
the updated version of PS010-1).

 _It has nothing to say about doses over short time periods._

<http://www.hps.org/hpspublications/positionstatements.html>

5) The issue seems to be that there is very little data about low-dose
exposures, so regulations are based on extrapolation from high-dose exposures.

See <http://www.ncrponline.org/PDFs/TST_NRC%20_04-08-08.pdf> (third slide)

6) What it _does_ say is this:

"the Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of
health risks below an individual dose of 5 rem in one year or a lifetime dose
of 10 rem above that received from natural sources."

7) The whole point of their objection was that we lack the empirical evidence
to extrapolate from high doses to low doses. Then the article you cite does
exactly that. They go from saying, "we lack proof that the answer is X" to
saying, "the answer is ~X".

8) The recommended standard "limits the reference effective dose delivered to
the subject to 0.25 microsieverts (25 microrem) per screening. Additionally, a
screening facility should not expose any individual to more than 250
microsieverts (25 millirem) reference effective dose in a year."

"Use of Ionizing Radiation for Security Screening Individuals" PS017-1

<http://www.hps.org/hpspublications/positionstatements.html>

How they can go from saying in the first paper, _"However, below 5–10 rem
(which includes occupational and environmental exposures), risks of health
effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent"_ to supporting
a maximum of 0.025 rem per year is entirely unclear.

9) Doing some digging, PS010-2 lists a single reference:

"National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Uncertainties in
fatal cancer risk estimates used in radiation protection. Bethesda, MD: NCRP;
NCRP Report No. 126; 1997."

PS010-2 seems to be merely opinion.

The contact for HPS.org is from a consultancy: HPS@BurkInc.com

The current president of HPS is Edward F. Maher.

"In early 1996, Dr. Maher accepted the position as Director of the
Environmental Laboratory for Yankee Atomic Electric Company. The laboratory
provided ongoing environmental laboratory, remediation and consultative health
physics services for commercial nuclear power, Department of Energy and
Department of Defense clients. [...] In 2004, Dr. Maher joined Dade Moeller &
Associates"

<http://hpschapters.org/crs/maher-bio.htm>

Dade Moeller:

 _"Hirsch then zeroed in on Dade Moeller’s radiation plan and on the
controversial company itself, whose namesake testified back in the 1990s that
money spent on cleaning up Cold War-era nuclear facilities was being wasted
since there would be a cure for cancer._

 _Hirsch also questioned the lab’s integrity and pointed out that it is a
major Department of Energy (DOE) contractor. The area of Rocketdyne where most
of the nuclear mishaps occurred was operated by the DOE, which is responsible
for cleaning up the mess. It also borders Runkle Canyon, which leads Hirsch to
believe that Dade Moeller shouldn’t be overseeing radiation sampling there._

 _Some of Hirsch’s harshest criticism was aimed at Dade Moeller’s plan to take
a “tiny soil sample” every 19 acres based on the lab’s misconstruing of EPA
standards regarding soil investigations of potentially polluted properties.
The proximity of Runkle Canyon to Rocketdyne, and the fact that 58 soil
samples in a previous test all read high for the leukemia-causing radionuclide
strontium-90, were among several critical considerations that Dade Moeller
ignored, according to Hirsch._

 _“If you want to hire someone to make your problem go away, you hire Dade
Moeller,” Hirsch asserted. “That’s a generality, the reputation. If you read
the actual report, I’m afraid it is completely reinforced. Every time you can
manipulate an input, make a number go down, they do so.”_

 _Dade Moeller was the go-to lab for a covert set of strontium-90 tests of
Runkle Canyon’s soil in 2005, as this reporter previously uncovered. Those
tests, which took just five soil samples, were later dismissed as useless by
the California Department of Health Services, the very department that
conducted the secret limited sampling with Dade Moeller."_

[http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/simi_we_have_a_pr...](http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/simi_we_have_a_problem/6700/)

"Hirsch said the conclusions of the report should immediately raise suspicion
since the developer hired the consultant who created the report, Dade Moeller
& Associates. He called for DTSC to use an independent consultant.

 _“The city wanted an independent study,” Hirsch said. “You can’t hand that
over to the advocate for the developer.”"_

[http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/jan/30/developers-
radiation-...](http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/jan/30/developers-radiation-
report-draws-criticism/)

This seems to be in stark contrast to the activities of the founder of the
Health Physics Society. He was the first president of HPS, from 1955-1957, and
was apparently a real thorn in the side of the nuclear establishment.

<http://www.gfstrahlenschutz.de/en/morganen.htm>

------
waterlesscloud
forget court, write airlines and tell the why you now fly less. they have more
power here.

------
kia
From my experience full body scanners are much faster and more convenient
compared to traditional system when you take off your shoes and go through
metal detector. If you are unlucky an airport worker additionally scans you
with a hand metal scanner. With full body scanner you just enter the cabin and
voila! The scan takes 3 seconds.

~~~
jonnathanson
It's not even the nudity that bothers me, personally. It's the radiation. I
didn't sign up for unshielded exposure to dangerous levels of radiation when I
bought my airplane ticket.

Ultimately, I think a public health angle would have been a far more effective
tact to take in the lawsuit or in the arguments against these scanners. It's
the trump card. Privacy always loses an argument to fear and "security" in our
post-9/11 national discourse. Sad to say, but that's true. Health, though?
That's a different matter.

~~~
incomethax
From Wikipedia (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray>)

The Health Physics Society (HPS) reports that a person undergoing a
backscatter scan receives approximately 0.05 μSv (or 0.005 mrems) of
radiation; American Science and Engineering Inc. reports 0.09 μSv (0.009
mrems). At the high altitudes typical of commercial flights, naturally
occurring cosmic radiation is considerably higher than at ground level. The
radiation dose for a six hour flight is 20 μSv (2 mrems) - 200 to 400 times
larger than a backscatter scan. According to U.S. regulatory agencies, "1 mrem
per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single
source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure".

The radiation exposure with Backscatter X-Ray's is really a non-issue.

IMO its much more damning to bring on the "think of the children"/"The Chinese
government can hack your wife's nude pics" angle to convince the public
against these machines.

~~~
Jeema3000
Also from Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-
ray#Health_effect...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-
ray#Health_effects)

"However, researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, have
argued that the amount of radiation is higher than claimed by the TSA and body
scanner manufacturers because the doses were calculated as if distributed
throughout the whole body, but the radiation from backscatter x-ray scanners
is focused on just the skin and surrounding tissues"

"Furthermore, other scientists claim the health effects are backscatter are
well understood whereas those from millimeter wave scanners are not"

Some of the machines being deployed by the TSA are millimeter wave scanners,
BTW.

------
latch
Rights, like a muscle, must be exercised.

However, I feel entering a country which I'm not a citizen of (like the US),
is a privilege, not a right. Thus, they can ask anything of me they want..and
I can chose not to enter the country.

~~~
ojbyrne
Body scanners aren't just used at entry to the US, they're used to get on
domestic flights also.

~~~
latch
yes, I understand that, and I have no problems with a separate set of rules
(which, in fact, already exist). I'm just pointing out a different
perspective.

