
Review of the TSA X-ray backscatter body scanner safety report - adulau
http://myhelicaltryst.blogspot.com/2010/11/tsa-x-ray-backscatter-body-scanner.html
======
matusz13
I wonder how many americans live in fear of terrorist attacks vs. cancer.

------
cincinnatus
Anecdotally, flying yesterday when I went through security I declined the
scanner and was simply waved through a regular metal detector. I also did not
remove my belt or shoes. Kind of a pre 9/11 screen. 2 months ago at the same
airport I got the full-on scrotum poke.

~~~
suking
Ditto - I opted out a few months ago and basically got a hand job - a few
weeks ago it was nothing, quick wave of the wand.

~~~
gravitronic
I went through the scanner a few weeks ago.

I was a bit jetlagged so I didn't raise my concern quick enough, which I fully
admit is my fault.

They basically herded my fiancee and I through the machine without telling us
what it was or that we had any option for a pat down. That's what bothers me
the most I think. They seem to be ok with subjecting people to this without
telling them or presenting them with the choice.

After careful consideration being molested by the state would have been my
preferred method of security authentication, given the opportunity.

~~~
suking
Same - they never said I didn't have to go through - they just said go through
here. I knew better and got the tug instead.

------
yummyfajitas
By eyeballing the graph, it looks as if about 8% of the x-rays emitted are
soft. This is interesting, and it is troubling that the TSA was not more clear
about this point. Kudos to the author for spotting this.

But some of his conclusions don't make much sense. "With that being said,
because the scanners have both a radiation source AND a detector in the front
AND back of the person in the scanner, it is actually possible for the
hardware to conduct a classic, through-the-body X-ray...So the hardware has
the capability to output quite high doses of radiation..."

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. I would expect any
backscattering system to have a detector behind the subject for the purposes
of calibration, if nothing else.

Overall, nothing he says (apart from the vague speculation above) cuts against
the fundamental point of the report: the dose is exceedingly low and is highly
unlikely to cause any significant damage.

I'd also like to point out that much like the TSA report, this blog post is
"NOT authored by anyone with either a Ph.D. or a M.D., raising serious
concerns of the extent of the expertise of the individual". (Not that this
should matter, but the OP seems to think it does.)

~~~
benmccann
The blog was written by a Ph.D. candidate at UC Davis with expertise in the
biochemistry of DNA repair. I'd say that he has some expertise and he likely
has a greater knowledge of the effects of ionizing radiation than a mid-level
TSA official would.

------
thornad
Terrorist have already won. They ARE the government and the corporations. TSA
scanners are a HUGE business for the ex-head of Homelad Security and his
clique.But they had to invent the terrorist first, to make people accept being
irradiated like that and pay for it while getting screwed. Also may want to
google "depopulation agenda" (Kissinger & all). Then it will make even more
sense. It's not just about the money.

~~~
mootothemax
_Terrorist have already won._

 _Also may want to google "depopulation agenda"_

Do you not see the problem with the above? If you want to successfully argue
against what the TSA is doing, you need to drop the conspiracy stuff. It's not
a question of being right or wrong: it's making sure that valid complaints
can't be brushed aside by snide remarks such as _"Yeah, whatever, he's a
conspiracy nut."_

And just for the avoidance of doubt, when the first page of Google is littered
with links discussing the Illuminati, that does, sadly, damage your
credibility.

~~~
thornad
Thank you for your kind message. You are right from a certain perspective. I
just post the information I find interesting enough to make people think. Some
people will dismiss it. There is nothig I can do for them, despite the fact
that more and more conspiracy theories are turning out to be facts in one form
or another. I'm not attached to any of it, nor do I believe everything in the
form it is presented, and I wish people can make up their own minds.

~~~
Goronmon
So, this sounds like you can make up whatever you want, with no supporting
evidence whatsoever, then hand-wave any criticism away by claiming you are
just presenting possibilities?

I'm not sure how you think that's not a dishonest thing to do.

~~~
anamax
> I'm not sure how you think that's not a dishonest thing to do.

I've found that such folks fall into one of three categories.

(1) He's doing this for the attention. (2) He's incompetent. (3) He's lying to
discredit his supposed cause.

------
ck2
Even if a study existed that found them 100% safe, here's the thing about
science: the later discovery of a missing fact or understanding about some
small unknown behavior can change EVERYTHING. But then you are left with
people who simply flout the original study for political reasons or ignorance.
Happens in every field.

This is also why modern nuclear power plant design seem so safe. And then
something they didn't factor in shows up, or someone takes a sloppy shortcut
in building or regulations that wasn't accounted for and suddenly there's no
way to undue the damage (and no way to stop the failure).

If they won't let TSA agents wear dosimeters, well then you'd have to be a
moronic zombie to become a TSA agent and work around these machines. And
that's predictably who is left working there. But hey you can sue for lack of
benefits when you are dying of cancer, only to be told on your deathbed that
you fall within the range of people who get cancer anyway, couldn't be the
machine.

I'd say "stop flying" but of course these machines are now in portable
versions in vans and they can just drive down a street and expose everyone to
it, opt-in or not (this really exists, it's not tinfoil hat paranoia
<http://google.com/search?q=backscatter+vans> ).

~~~
ugh
What evidence could convince you of the safety of these devices?

~~~
Vivtek
Thirty years of use and demonstrable, well-documented lack of increased cancer
rates in the users. That's why it's irresponsible to use them for political
reasons. Or are you among those people who think they make you more secure?

------
Sukotto
In addition to the radiation risk from the Rapescan machine (and the potential
problems of overexposure raised by the OP), you also need to consider the
extra radiation exposure you get from the flight itself. Some numbers here [1]
and a calculator here [2].

[1]
[http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflig...](http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html)

[2] <http://www.sievert-system.org/WebMasters/en/evaluation.html>

------
DiabloD3
So, when they said the terrorists have already won, I wonder if they meant
this

------
gcb
So, what one should do to avoid this?

~~~
fragsworth
Request a pat-down, which you are entitled to, but it can get you harassed by
annoyed TSA agents.

~~~
swombat
Unfortunately, the pat-downs are not an option in Europe. If you're selected
for the Porn Scanner, and you refuse, they won't let you on the flight.

~~~
CaptainZapp
source?

As a matter of fact I haven't seen a lot of back scatter scanners in European
airports.

Actually only one, in Amsterdam and that was not operational.

My observations may be biased, of course. But I'm pretty certain that I
haven't seen any in ZRH, VIE, DUS and PRG and LCY. And even Amsterdam security
(which is a huge operation) didn't have one last time I passed it in March.

EDIT : To clarify, the only one I've seen in AMS was in the Summer of 2010.
March 2011 I didn't see any

~~~
gst
On my AMS to SFO flight around two months ago the scanners were operational.

The funny thing is that in the US they have this complicated process "to
protect the passengers pricacy" where the person viewing the pictures is
located in a special room. The personal directly dealing with the passengers
never sees the pictures but just receives an Ack or Nak for each passenger.

In Amsterdam the displays are located directly on the scanners for everyone to
see. The makes the whole thing much faster and I think Europeans do not really
care about this as much as Americans.

~~~
CaptainZapp
Where you forced through the scanner or did they offer you a choice?

As for UK airports. They seem to have a rather inflexible approach as _DO AS
WE SAY, OR ELSE!_ Haven't seen them in London City Airport, though.

I could also imagine that Amsterdam only channels US travelers through the
scanners. In Zurich airport the US airlines essentially have half a terminal
building reserved for their flight operations during the morning hours. I
haven't seen scanners there, but flying mostly within the Schengen area I
wouldn't necessarily know.

