

TSA Puts Off Safety Study of X-ray Body Scanners  - danso
http://www.propublica.org/article/tsa-puts-off-safety-study-of-x-ray-body-scanners

======
VladRussian
"There are currently 500 body scanners, split about evenly between the two
technologies, deployed in airports. The TSA plans to deploy 1,275 backscatter
and millimeter-wave scanners covering more than half its security lanes by the
end of 2012 and 1,800 covering nearly all lanes by 2014."

potential risk to such a huge contract with a company Chertoff is profiting
from seems like a pretty darn good reason to delay the study.

~~~
rhizome
It's hard to come out with a study saying they're completely safe right when
the EU is banning them for being unsafe.

------
ck2
Give the gift of a dosimeter badge this holiday traveling season.

(TSA agents aren't allowed to have one, maybe the brighter ones will start to
wonder why.)

~~~
AngryParsley
It's very easy to get false positives with dosimeters. See
[http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/515496-YZWUcS/webvi...](http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/515496-YZWUcS/webviewable/515496.pdf)
A nuclear waste disposal facility had 10% of dosimeters falsely trigger each
quarter. Eventually they traced the cause to some overhead lights. Different
types of dosimeters can be falsely triggered by heat, cold, UV, or solvents.

People at the TSA know this, which is why they banned dosimeters. Even if
backscatter machines are perfectly safe, the TSA is big enough that there will
be countless false positives.

~~~
ck2
That's not why the TSA banned them. It ruins the security theater illusion and
would bring on countless lawsuits.

The real way to end the TSA reign of terror is to force congresspeople, tsa
executives and everyone else who wrote themselves into exemption from all
scans and gropes - to actually have to go through lines and security theater.
Then it would end quickly.

------
psychotik
How much harm do the scanners do to TSA employees who are around it for hours
each day? If it's shown to severely affect them, or if they can be 'scared'
into believing it does, it might solve this problem once and for all.

~~~
epoxyhockey
The closest thing I've seen regarding backlash from TSA workers is this
inquiry by TSA union reps at Boston's Logan Airport about a possible cancer
cluster: [http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/30/did-airport-
scanners-g...](http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/30/did-airport-scanners-
give-boston-tsa-agents-cancer/)

The union asked TSA to provide workers with dosimeters, but the request was
never fulfilled.

For those of you who don't know, Boston Logan is like ground zero for the xray
backscatter machines. The TSA there is a well oiled machine, busy irradiating
a very high percentage of airport travelers. It's one of the few airports
where I routinely have to request a pat down since they rarely have _that one
line_ that is only being sent through a metal detector. I wouldn't be
surprised if the entire Boston population starts to glow in a couple of years
from all of the radiation being dished out at this airport.

------
DrHankPym
It amazes me that people continuously complain about these things, yet nothing
ever changes. People still go through the scanners, and the TSA keeps buying
more.

~~~
dlsspy
I've never gone through one. It's been really inconvenient for me (and them) a
few times, but the constant propaganda of "this won't hurt you, but will
protect you," seems to work.

It makes no sense to me that people choose to go through the scanners knowing
that _they_ don't have anything to hide from the scanner, and anyone who does
just wouldn't go through it.

~~~
jdfreefly
"This won't hurt you, but it will protect you. I can't really explain to you
why, but you should trust me."

I have never gone through one, and I don't intend to ever go through one. If I
do it will be against my will.

------
Gaussian
I rather enjoy loudly opting out every chance I get. I say it loud enough so
the whole line hears me. And really, who doesn't enjoy a nice pat down? Sadly,
my complaints have not yet convinced anybody else in these lines to join me.
Sheep. Yet I'm the one corralled into the opt-out pen.

~~~
markbao
Well, you've just convinced me to (very) loudly opt-out every time. Thanks!

------
nodata
Does anyone have a reference to the allegation that someone who influenced the
decision on purchasing the scanners has a vested interest in the scanner
company?

~~~
steelaz
Google Michael Chertoff, Rapiscan Systems. Some articles/posts have conspiracy
vibe, but the facts are there.

------
hello_moto
Ever since the introduction of plastic, we, human being, are slowly doomed.

This is not to say that X-Ray is good or bad. Just that, the cause of cancer
is everywhere and it becomes our lifestyle.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Are you trying to link X-Rays to cancer, or plastic?

I'm not a scientist, but as I understand it one of the leading causes of
cancer is simply that we live long enough to get it these days.

~~~
jjtheblunt
What does 'as you understand it' mean?

The leading causes of cancer might be carcinogens, including documented viral
infections, synthetic chemicals similar to hormones, bioaccumulating toxins,
but not only age related accumulation of random transcription errors.

~~~
gwillen
Carcinogens mostly cause small increases in the probability of cancer. GP is
right; the main cause of cancer is "being old". It's true that, if you
eliminated every source of DNA damage and miscopying, cancer wouldn't happen;
but even if you eliminated all external carcinogens, that wouldn't stop the
process, just slow it a bit.

~~~
Retric
Or more simply, oxygen is a carcinogen by the strictest definition.

