
Cato Comments on TSA Body Scanners - jdp23
http://www.cato.org/blog/cato-comments-tsa-nude-body-scanner-policy
======
tptacek
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.

~~~
gojomo
Different radiation sources aren't casually comparable as "banana multiples"
or by counting (or linearly multiplying) sieverts.

In particular, the radiation from the decay of potassium in bananas is
different particles, wavelengths, and energy than that of X-Rays, so using
"banana equivalents" to talk about X-Rays is obfuscatory oversimplification.

~~~
tptacek
I'm always happy to accept an argument that casts doubt on XKCD comics, so
let's stipulate you're right about the banana comparison. But the comparison
to the flight itself isn't similarly specious. The point of both comparisons
is that the amount of radiation we're talking about is very, very low.

(Fun thread on the RadSafe list about banana dose equivalents:
[http://health.phys.iit.edu/archives/2011-March/031410.html](http://health.phys.iit.edu/archives/2011-March/031410.html))

~~~
gojomo
Just because a lot of the cosmic radiation during the flight is also 'X-Rays'
also doesn't mean the exposure is equatable by a simple multiplier in tissue
effects.

The specific energy, delivery, and timing could all be worse or better. Given
non-linear effects like hormesis, the scanners (or flight) might even be good,
at some levels, then turn bad.

It ought to be studied, with the actual devices in real-world scenarios, and
to the same level of scrutiny of medical radiation devices -- which have
themselves killed people when misunderstood or misprogrammed. Instead, the
TSA's use seems rushed through a different less-accountable process, with a
bunch of hand-waving "this is kinda like that" reassurances.

------
jdp23
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
>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/...](http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-
content/uploads/cato_tsa_comments.pdf)

------
jdp23
Also, remember that the deadline is Monday for comments on regulations.gov for
the TSA scanners -- [http://tsacomments.net](http://tsacomments.net) has more

------
declan
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."

------
bediger4000
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.

