Annnnnd now there's no way my pregnant wife is going to travel with me by air. Thanks security theater!
EDIT: I have TSA Pre via DHS/CBP Global Entry, as does my wife. There should be no reason for us to go through a body scanner if the TSA and DHS believe their background check and fingerprinting are effective.
I have to wear a "life sustaining medical device" (as printed on it and the 'airport' card I was given). The manufacturers are very, very explicit that the unit will be damaged by these scanners and that under no circumstances will they entertain any claim if it is. The old-fashioned metal detector is OK for the brief exposure but will set it off and force a manual pat-down. The x-ray baggage scanner is also a total no-no (but given it's implanted, that would tend to involve me going through it too).
Opting out was practically encouraged last time I went via EWR - the woman doing the pat-downs seemed to be on training to do them, so they were funneling people to her rather than the scanners.
I see argument in some comments that the risk to a pregnant woman may not be so large (I have no idea), but there are many people with medical devices who could be seriously harmed by a mandatory policy.
If device manufacturers are so clear that the devices are not designed to be subjected to EMF from these scanners, will the TSA be replacing devices and compensating people ?
The security theater just got officially dangerous (ok, more dangerous than before).
>> There should be no reason for us to go through a body scanner if the TSA and DHS believe their background check and fingerprinting are effective.
The general concept of security in layers is perfectly reasonable because no measure can be 100% effective. Combining a few 99% effective measures can get you acceptably close. We do the same thing in cybersecurity.
That said, the TSA is still dumb because of how arbitrary and unfair the requirements can be.
The problem is there trying to combine 20% effective methods. Last time they used box cutters, a wooden stake would be just as effective. Or just do something else, it's not like aircraft are the only thing out there.
The TSA is basically just building a 50 foot fencepost in the middle of nowhere and pretending people need to climb it instead of walking around.
Even bringing a literal gun onto a plane wouldn't help someone hijack it now. The only reason 9/11 worked was because the threat of it happening was unheard of, now everyone would swarm them before they had a chance of getting anywhere near the locked cockpit
The problem here is the TSA is hashing the password client side and storing that hash as is, and then patting themselves on the back for how much better their security system is.
I'd also like to point out that it's completely legal to own and to fly with firearms in the US. Finding a gun doesn't mean they found a terrorist. It simply means they likely found someone who forgot to check it. It makes this even that much sadder, but more of a profound, Kakfa-esque tragedy sad instead of simply incompetent sad.
Thank you, TSA, for protecting us from making small and minor mistakes!
Background checks ( of the TSA's depth ) don't reveal if a candidate is susceptible to blackmail or coercion, so physical checks are always a good idea.
After all it's not who you are but what you possess that constitutes a threat.
So what is the point of pre-"clearance"? Revenue, I suspect.
Well, either it's intentionally lining someone's pockets, or the TSA are so badly administrated that they're leaking/losing money somewhere. Given the history of administrative errors, I'd be more likely to wager that it is the latter case.
It's called security theater because it only gives the illusion of security: there are many examples where people have successfully brought knives, guns, explosives and what have you through these full-body scanners.
Further, it's theatric because the many of the "dangerous" items have no obvious malicious use, and the rules are totally arbitrary. I can't bring knitting gear on an airplane, but my small pocket knife is totally fine (according to official rules, though some airport security agents will disagree).
Finally, any attempt at plane hijacking nowadays will cause passengers to fight for their life to prevent it. Prior to 9/11 people would just sit still and wait to land in Cuba or whatever, but now people associate hijacking with flying into a building and will act thereafter.
It could actually be safer to allow knives and similar "weapons" that can't penetrate the plane body, so people have a chance to defend themselves when some terrorist inevitably smuggles aboard a handgun and starts shooting.
There are plenty of "weapons" you can take with you in the plane. I didn't realize the rules had been relaxed when I recently traveled with a set of kitchen shears in my computer bag. Leaving DFW no one said a thing. Coming back through CLE they searched my bag and found them. I expected I would have to toss them in the garbage, but was told they are OK being under the 4" limit [0].
There are a lot of "weapons" you could take based on the Tools category [1].
It's effectively zero, so yes. Taking the gun statistic in their blog [0]. Let's say they prevented a total of 5,000 noteworthy things ( that includes their gun statistic). I think that's a reasonable estimate given their figures.
0.000007656967% of the time they did something. In reality it's half of that. In reality of actual danger being present it's even lower than half of that. I'm talking near 7.6e^-8 in rarity.
The odds of being stuck by lightning is higher than the TSA ensuring anyone's safety.
A fun thing to look at is where those happened. Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Tennessee. I did a quick search on each of these states, and they all have very liberal firearms rules. What are the odds that most of these were quite innocent mistakes? E.g. you always carry, and you forgot to leave it at home locked up.
I'm Canadian, but I have a similar story. I was travelling with my mother, and my backpack was swabbed and X-Rayed at security. No problems. It wasn't until I got home and was unpacking that I realized I had a bottle of aerosol nitroglycerine (!) in my carry-on! My mother's got a heart condition and I was carrying around a spare canister just in case something happened.
> Do you really think everything the TSA does is literally 0% effective?
Yes, for the purpose of "protecting American at large", it's approximately that.
And it's very simple to see too! The most effective way to prevent airplane terror is to stop everyone from traveling, are we gonna be safer thank to that, even disregard all the downsides of not being to travel? You know the bad guy can just plot their scheme elsewhere, right? What's next? Millimeters scanner at Taylor Swift concert?
Also, since this is HN, I believe your maths is incorrect. The effective rate is (100 - (100-x)(100-y)(100-z)...)%
It is literally 0% effective. At least for what they claim to do. What they do will only stop a dumb criminal, like one who couldn't even blow up his own underwear. But against any sophisticated terrorist, it will do nothing.
But is it a deterrent? For what? How many people are going out and hijacking or blowing up planes? Now, or before?
Pretty much all it does is waste time and money.
Independent of the general problem of security theater, are you actually concerned about electromagnetic-based scanning on pregnant women? All the ionizing radiation-based scanners were (somewhat ironically) moved to prisons about two years ago: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/banned-airport-full-body... Unless you're concerned about wi-fi and cellular signals affecting pregnancy, you probably don't need to stay up worrying about millimeter-wave scanners.
We've spent several years trying to get pregnant, and had to resort to several rounds of IVF before success. Yes, minimally researched terahertz body scanners that are mandatory for travel keep me up.
You have my sympathy. That's a really difficult thing for any couple to go through. Still, in that case, you're probably trying to control a lot of other variables that already rule out air travel, no? For routine pregnancy there is no risk from EM identified in the literature that I know of.
Aren't the new scanners using T-Rays (terahertz radiation), which is relatively new to public facing applications, and is also definitely not the same frequency as wifi and cellular?
The problem is, I can't take the chance we get to the airport, go through the Pre line, and then they refuse us passage if my wife refuses the mandatory body imaging scan.
There was also that incident where the guy didn't want to go through the scanners, and tried to leave. They tried to prevent him from leaving and said that once he enters the line he has to go through the scanners (even though he was willing to do other things like metal detector, pat-down, etc).
I remember that, and that also greatly concerns me. I can be held by the TSA solely for being concerned for my or my wife's wellbeing.
Disclaimer: I'm not a nutjob. I completely understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. I simply don't believe enough research has gone into terahertz imaging, and don't believe I'll have any recourse against the US government (based on their track record) in the event its proven to have negative health effects in the future.
I've always wondered about this: is the machine physically incapable of blasting you with a stronger dose than it's supposed to, or is that software controlled? Because there is no way I'd believe the software on that thing doesn't have a bug.
On rapiscan models (backscatter scans) it is basically software controlled, although the modularization makes it non trivial to be changed in a hack, as reported in this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_f4HUrn-NA
It doesn't matter whether they are dangerous or not. The fourth amendment is clear. The US Code 18-242 makes it a crime for them to search you, a felony if they are armed.
The idea that the TSA has the "Right" to do what it does, but that expecting the US government to obey the law makes you a "nut job" is what's really nuts.
Re: your disclaimer: thank you for posting this. We need to leave room for people who are cautious in reasonable ways, as you are describing.
When our child was born in 2002, there was a lot of 'buzz' about the dangers of vaccinations. Most of it we were quickly able to filter out, but there was a body of research that had strong correlations between lower incidents of a whole variety of early childhood problems in '1st world' countries that didn't vaccinate as early and aggressively as the United States, such as Japan and some part of northern Europe.
We decided to not vaccinate until our son was five years old, an age when he was getting into more crowded social situations. And he has been current ever since.
We weren't 100% convinced that the broad spectrum and very early age vaccinations in the United States were a problem, but we weren't convinced otherwise. At the same time, we knew that vaccinations are an absolutely critical part of modern society.
Like you, we made some conservative BUT WELL REASONED decisions regarding our child.
That kind of middle of the road thinking needs to be way more commonplace.
I agree that there hasn't been enough research on terahertz X-ray scanners. The kind of justification they used wouldn't be enough to get a PhD. There's no call to put the health of millions of people on the line with that level of carelessness.
The problem is, I can't take the chance we get to the airport, go through the Pre line, and then they refuse us passage if my wife refuses the mandatory body imaging scan.
You're exercising really terrible risk assessment, arguably even worse than the TSA's own.
My best guess as to why they changed this procedure is not to increase security (since they know body scanners to be ineffective), but because so many people were opting out that it was increasing delays. I always opt out and notice they try to incentivize me by saying "We're really busy right now, it'll be a while". I always politely wait. Sadly, now that they have this as an option, I doubt I'll want to do much flying anymore.
Yep. They also have no system for it. I believe they intentionally don't create an area for you to wait in, so you feel awkward standing there. Your stuff often gets sent through the scanner WAY before you actually get a pat down, so you end up constantly searching for a line of site to the end of the scanner to make sure your stuff is still there.
Put your stuff under the metal table. If they object, tell them to check their handbook.
They are required to let you keep your eyes on your stuff, if you request this. When someone is ready for you, you put your stuff on the belt, and then go get groped.
The hassle of a 2 hour flight is no longer "cheaper" than a 7 hour drive. I didn't even think about flying this holiday... never even looked up the prices. I know it would be monetarily cheaper, but I can't abide the abuse.
Joke's on you: It seems that when the TSA get really busy, such as at Seatac on 12/19 at 6am, they simply shut off the body scanners and switch to a single dog sniff and metal detectors. I didn't even have to take off my jacket or shoes! Which only serves as further evidence in my mind that the imaging devices are bullshit and the TSA knows it.
At least the backscatter x-ray machines are gone, now replaced entirely in the US with millimeter-wave scanners.
Personally, I don't care if somebody's looking at my body on a computer monitor. However, I do care if I'm being exposed to extra ionizing radiation for no good reason. Which is why I always opted out of the x-ray machines, but don't really mind going through millimeter-wave ones.
(Obviously, other folks will feel very different about this. If your concern is privacy, the millimeter-wave machines aren't much of an improvement -- though I do believe most of the human elements of the system have been replaced with image recognition on newer versions.)
I would love to have a job where I got to try to break through all the TSA's nonsense security.
If I believed any of it was making us safer I'd happily comply, but the whole process is so ham-handed it's embarrassing.
I brought a small radio transceiver with some coils of wire through recently and the look on the agent's face when he removed it from my bag was "oh shit I've found an explosive device". He looked extremely relieved when I told him it was a radio (but didn't inspect it further), then he proceeded to lecture me about the importance of putting my toiletries into a zip lock bag (they were in a similarly sized see-through bag with a zipper)...
This seemed inevitable to me. There's officially nothing wrong with the scanners, right? Out-opters are just old fashioned, and they're just putting up with us for now until we die out, or they slowly but inevitably loosen the last fingers from our grip on our own dignity.
I've already been denied entrance into the secure area of an airport once a couple years ago, until I went through a scanner, because they found traces of some chemicals on me and/or my luggage. (Was probably from a campfire).
That was exactly my position. Then I got really uncomfortable during a pat-down at SFO and decided that I'd rather suffer humiliation at the hands of a machine.
Really? I call the process "molestation" and refer to the goons as "kiddie-fondlers" in every day conversation, but honestly I've never been uncomfortable with how they've actually touched me. I don't particularly want to be touched, but maybe my violation meter has already been pegged by the larger process or maybe I'm just happy to finally get through the obvious-target-of-next-false-flag chokepoint and interact with someone closer to being a human. Or maybe SFO is different due to having privatized thugs plus SF, uh, customs.
If you've never been uncomfortable with how they've touched you, maybe it's probably because you've never been firmly searched.
I thought the "light touch" was universal, but once I did get an agent who really "got up in there" . It wasn't traumatic for me, and I'd do it again, but it was a very different experience from previous pat-downs.
I think perspective has a lot to do with it. I try to make a point of getting eye contact with people mindlessly going through the cancer scanner [0]. So I'm thinking more "bring it on", and if they do anything I reflexively react to, all the better for illustrating the modern state of USG.
And as I said, having to completely unpack my backpack and separate myself into 4 or 5 bins is violating enough. Their net function is basically to destroy security.
[0] Standard operating theory of the machines likely doesn't add to cancer risk, but I don't see why I should take on liability for unknowable malfunctions that may. And boy those goons sure do get hyper defensive when you ask why they're not wearing dosimeters.
I do not know what process is emitting the millimeter waves, their intensity/harmonics, or ways it can fail. I have the background to investigate these things, but do not see the point of spending time justifying totalitarianism, even if it is scientific totalitarianism. Furthermore, any technical conclusion of mine would only be half the story, given the lack of long term studies on biological effects of those frequencies.
If the situation were completely different and a friend had one and offered cool pictures of myself, I would do some diligence and make a conscious choice about stepping into one. But as it stands, there is just no upside.
It does feel slightly dirty pushing non-scientific FUD [0], but it seems like an appropriate way to possibly convey the concept that USG actually doesn't have your interests at heart. If your average punter was concerned with objective truth, they wouldn't have been goaded by fairy tales about terrorists in the first place.
Re: dosimeter, does the same apply to the baggage scanner? I doubt it, since then it couldn't see through most things. And my point there is mostly about the extreme cognitive dissonance of the individual thugs.
The baggage scanners do use x-rays. Much stronger than the body scanners, in fact, since (as you pointed out) the goal is to see through things. So yes, a dosimeter would react to them.
I was about to say "hopefully nobody's sticking their hand inside one", but then I found this:
It started when the agent asked if I had ever been patted down before. I said something like "many times." He told me a story about some guy who flies out of SFO twice a week and always opts out. His tone was creepy, and he suggested that this fellow must really like getting patted down. Meanwhile, he was taking his time, giving me an unusually thorough "screening." I was disturbed by the whole thing and felt violated.
You know that the agents of the system whose time you are ostensibly wasting are paid to be there, right? And that the system is explicitly designed to accommodate such a 'protest'?
Or they had a melanoma like me and their doctor said that the aren't sure it's such a good idea (yes we are aware it's not radioactive, yes we are aware that flying itself is also dangerous but no reason to add more)
What's interesting is, flying out of SFO a few weeks ago, I was directed into a line with no body scanners and only a metal detector. I was also instructed to keep my laptop in my bag and my shoes on.
But there was a K9 unit tensa-barrier-ed off that everyone had to walk past.
That was probably the precheck lane. They send randos through it every once in a while. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a sales pitch or if controlling the lines plays into it.
I have precheck and have never seen a dog there, but I've randomly gotten swabbed for explosives a few times.
TSA Pre is also no guarantee. With Pre, you normally proceed through a metal dectector. However, the metal detectors randomly alarm to force some passengers through the image scanner. You could previously opt-out at that point and receive a manual screening. With this policy change, you might additonally be compelled to go through the scanner.
Pre is a racket. At my home airport, they regularly send non-Pre passengers through the Pre line. They have no way of knowing past that point who has Pre and who doesn't. (In theory I guess they could ask to see your ticket again, but they don't.)
Added to clarify:
I have Pre and it is printed on my boarding pass, otherwise I could not enter the Pre line. They check for the "Pre" stamp both when I enter the line, and when they scan the pass at the end of the line. After that point, I put away my ID and boarding pass and enter a "reduced screening" line (the point where they check your baggage and send you through the metal detector).
What I'm saying is that at my airport, they sometimes also direct non-Pre passengers (who've had their boarding pass checked via a separate line) into the same "reduced screening" line. At that point, both Pre and non-Pre passengers are receiving the same "reduced screening".
It is at this point where I've had the metal detector randomly flag me for going through the image scanner. When I protested that I had Pre, their response was "we don't have any way to know that at this point").
Pre almost always saves me time, so it's not a racket in that sense. But it is a racket in the sense that it's no guarantee you won't end up with a pat-down.
It's theater in the sense that: either the government trusts me, or they don't. If they don't trust me, they shouldn't have issued me Pre. If they do trust me, then I shouldn't need to be patted down.
In most airports I haven't really needed it, but having it when going through security at any of the NYC airports during busy hours can make a HUGE difference. I was flying JFK->Charleston last month, and the regular security line had hundreds of people in it. The pre-check line was literally empty, and I got right through security in about 2 minutes.
I tried to casually walk down the Pre aisle at SFO a couple weeks ago and the TSA agent correctly assessed my ineligibility. I think it gets encoded into your boarding pass.
Interestingly, my wife got Pre and I did not but now whenever she books things for the two of us, I also get Pre. I figured they'd kick me out when they scanned the pass, but it has worked now at six different airports.
It's part of the data in the barcode on the boarding pass. If the boarding pass says Pre-check you're good; my GF also gets it consistently when we're on the same PNR but on her own (same booking that gets split or booked individually) she never receives it.
It appears from the wording that you can still request an opt out, but that they can refuse:
"While passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of physical
screening, TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening for some passengers."
Because going through the body scanners prevented the mass shooting or Boston Bombing, right? If we just make airport security more invasive, we'll be safe, right? Wrong.
Security theater is a fool's game. We'd be better off adjusting our geopolitical and societal priorities (such as mental health care, among other things) so that people don't want to terrorize us-- which will never be completed, by the way. Violence is going to happen no matter what, so our task is harm reduction rather than feel-invasive-but-do-nothing measures a la TSA.
The PDF does not define what TSA Advanced Imaging Technologies are. It implies rather than defines that it is a x-Ray even though the image is a generic drawing of a person with a superimposed an icon what area should be searched.
The TSA doesn't use backscatter x-ray machines any more. They were all removed because the company that makes them (Rapiscan) couldn't figure out a way to mask the naked images.
Now they just use millimeter wave machines, which have the body outlines only. I really don't find this objectionable from a privacy standpoint. It it basically a better metal detector in that it detects non-metal objects, too, and shows the scanner exactly where they are on the body.
Fun story: Last time I flew, the scanner detected the surgical plate in my right shoulder. The TSA agent saw the diagram and put his hand on my left shoulder before letting me walk.
In October, I also triggered the machine for having a suspicious back.
The cause? I was in Hawaii, wearing a backpack. If you didn't know, their airports are mostly open-air. Of course, Hawaii is pretty warm and it was humid, so I was sweaty on my shoulders where the straps were.
I once went to the SLC airport with slightly damp braided hair. I went through the scanner. A TSA agent pulled me aside for a patdown. She did it quickly, sighed with relief, and said, "Oh, it's just your hair. It showed up on the scanner as a weapon."
That was the official reason. Though, backscatter x-ray machines were decommissioned in the US shortly after the EU banned their use due to public health reasons.
So they are using microwaves. Do you know what GHz they are using and wha benchmark is a safe level?
"...A millimeter wave scanner is a whole-body imaging device used for detecting objects concealed underneath a person’s clothing using a form of electromagnetic radiation. ..."
I have to get back to work so I just skimmed over this quickly, but I didn't see anything that supports the claim in the title. Anyone who has read the whole thing mind pointing it out?
ETA: I did see the part that everyone is quoting, but the title makes this sound like this will apply to everyone all the time and I don't think this document backs up that claim.
Page 4:
"While passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of physical screening, TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening for some passengers as warranted by security considerations in order to safeguard transportation security"
> Individuals undergoing screening using AIT generally will have the option to decline an
AIT screening in favor of physical screening. Given the implementation of ATR and the
mitigation of privacy issues associated with the individual image generated by previous versions
of AIT not using ATR, and the need to respond to potential security threats, TSA will
nonetheless mandate AIT screening for some passengers as warranted by security considerations
in order to safeguard transportation security.
Thanks aestetix and crymer11, I actually saw that part but the title makes it sound like TSA can force everyone to do AIT screening. The text doesn't support that, though.
> "... TSA will nonetheless mandate AIT screening for some passengers ..."
Okay, so some passengers ...
> " ... as warranted by security considerations ..."
... assuming they have a reason to, basically.
Don't get me wrong. I loathe the TSA, think that the imaging stuff is bullshit and a violation, and I "opt out" every time I fly. The title, though, makes it sound as if everyone will be subjected to the screening everytime they fly. I don't think this document supports that claim.
"TSA is updating the AIT PIA to reflect a change to the
operating protocol regarding the ability of individuals to opt opt-out of AIT screening in favor of
physical screening. While passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of physical
screening, TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening for some passengers."
"TSA is updating the AIT PIA to reflect a change to the operating protocol regarding the
ability of individuals to opt out of AIT screening in favor of physical screening. While
passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of physical screening, TSA may direct
mandatory AIT screening for some passengers as warranted by security considerations in order
to safeguard transportation security."
TSA is updating the AIT PIA to reflect a change to the operating protocol regarding the
ability of individuals to opt out of AIT screening in favor of physical screening. While
passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of physical screening, TSA may direct
mandatory AIT screening for some passengers as warranted by security considerations in order
to safeguard transportation security.
While passengers may generally decline AIT
screening in favor of physical screening,
TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening for
some passengers. TSA does not store
any personally identifiable information
from AIT screening.
They said they don't generate or store images period, which is at best misleading. It might not generate or store a commonly used image format, but it's still an imaging machine. The machine generates images or it's pure security theater. Either way they are attempting to deceive people and they shouldn't be trusted. (doubly so since previous claims that they don't store images is a proven lie)
Not an exhaustive search, but there doesn't seem to be a definitive source that explains that all machines have been replaced, however the TSA has laid out the timetable for June 1, 2013, and that all machines were to be removed by Rapidscan at their own expense.
Not storing the images was the promise at the beginning. Thanks Obama for these scanners, by the way. IT was bad enough that Bush made the TSA, Obama made it worse.
I now feel somewhat smug over refusing to fly whatsoever since hearing about the body scanners. The security theater is indeed a serious issue, but if the body scanners are physically harmless (not certain about that), then I am not sure why I should be concerned. Perhaps those who are disfigured, have to carry around a colostomy bag, etc. have a good reason to not be seen naked for some bogus security theater, but I suspect that that matches relatively few people.
Don't get me wrong, I still think the body scanners are terrible and that the security theater is a problem. However, my reason for not flying is a moral one, namely that some people are being paid to look at the naked bodies of thousands of people throughout the day. Perhaps if the TSA could provably (1) match the sex of the scanner-operator with the person-to-be-scanned, (2) match homosexual operators with the opposite sex, and (3) prevent all images from being recorded, then I would consider flying again.
However, I can't trivially prove the second and third before entering the scanner, thus I see the body scanners as a reason for me to avoid flying altogether.
Love how their manual suggests the results are stick figures and how they fail to note smartphones could take a photo of the ATR monitor for posterity.
when discussing the safety of these technologies, please share citations! as i write this comment, i don't see a single reference to a published research paper in this discussion (unless i missed it).
Your comments in this thread are personally abrasive in a way that breaks the HN guidelines. We've asked you before to stop doing that. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
Sorry, but I believe there needs to be a social cost associated with groundless antiscientific FUD. I don't think it's an exaggeration to equate fear of THz imaging physics with fear of vaccines, yet you cheerfully (and rightly) permit anti-antivax posts to descend to a deeper level of mockery and derision than I've employed here.
In general, I believe that advocacy of the precautionary principle belongs on other sites, and I'm very surprised that you and the rest of the YC staff don't agree.
You can't exempt yourself from ordinary civility and harangue others on HN, regardless of how righteous your cause is. Why? Because that makes for lousy conversation. Here we want good conversation.
You can't exempt yourself from ordinary civility and harangue others
Where, precisely, did I do that? The most abrasive thing I said -- arguably the only abrasive thing I said -- was "Superstition won't help your child." Out of curiosity, if I had said that in response to someone posting an antivaccination viewpoint, would you have called me on the carpet for it?
You're submitting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks.
I suppose the system may impose a rate limit after a certain number of downvoted posts. If so, I've never encountered it before, even in threads where I've taken many more downvotes than I have in this one. That makes me wonder if you replied to me and then manually flagged my account to stall the conversation.
I disagree with your naive and condescending reply. To assume we have thorough understanding on long term effects of any new technology is grossly irresponsible.
But then again, who cares when its other people, amiright?
EDIT: I'm not some ignorant bumpkin. I've worked with physicists to do data taking for a detector at the LHC. I have a solid fundamental understanding of physics.
Is it wrong to be cautious when hundreds of millions of people could be effected by a new technology with little to no oversight, no resources for them in the event its discovered there are health effects, and little to no benefit for the actual process?
For fuck sake, Jon Stewart had to literally badger congressional representatives on camera to provide funding to first responders who are dying from cancer and other aliments from responding to the WTC on 9/11. I'm supposed to have faith the US government is going to make things right if body scanners are causing health issues? Fuck. no.
Here is a nice quote from the relevant wikipedia page:
"However, other radiation authorities, including the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nuclear Energy Agency recommend against using ionizing radiation on certain populations like pregnant women and children"
So it just depends on who you think has authority. Presumably the people from the institute did in fact read a physics book at some point in their career.
It's not your child. You get to decide for your children and he gets to decide for his. If we all had to go and study physics in order to decide whether or not a certain risk is worth taking or not the whole circus would grind to a halt. We'd all be making maximally informed decisions - once we finished studying. And even then, after studying that physics book he might conclude it still isn't safe.
"However, other radiation authorities, including the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nuclear Energy Agency recommend against using ionizing radiation on certain populations like pregnant women and children"
Terahertz scanners don't expose the subject to ionizing radiation. Airplanes, on the other hand...
You get to decide for your children and he gets to decide for his.
He's entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.
I can't tell looking from the outside in what kind of scanner I'm about to go into, it's not as if they are labeled on the outside.
Though on big and modern airports you will likely only see millimeter waves scanners.
Agreed that flying high in an airplane will give you an extra dose regardless, but that still does not mean that people do not get to make their own choices in things like these, if only for their mental comfort, no matter how misguided by the laws of physics that may be.
For an encore: people get to choose to be religious, even if there is no physics proof that a god exists and so on. People will base their decisions on all kinds of reasoning, some rational, others not so rational. Trying to reduce everything to a physics problem isn't going to get you very far.
WTF I get modded down for posting a link describing DNA resonance at THz frequencies? Radiation does not have to be ionizing to cause DNA replication issues.
It's best not to take moderation too personally around here.
It's pretty easy to damage DNA molecules in vitro, just as it's easy to kill cancer cells when they're not attached to people. In living tissue, the more alarming RF exposure studies all seem to be very difficult to reproduce. In any case, on a milliwatts-per-square-meter basis, the exposure levels used in airport security theater are very low compared to what tends to be used in studies.
Note that I'm not defending the use of these scanners, only their mechanism of action.
Several countries now use these scanners. The particular issue (and change) here is about whether people have the right to opt out of passing through them and be screened by an alternative method. In the U.S., that was the case until just now.
According to European law, it should also the case throughout the European Union.
Policies in the U.K. were also changed last year to allow passengers to opt out, which wasn't permitted before.
The descriptions of passenger screening on the TSA website haven't changed to reflect policy change. Maybe they expect it to be used extremely rarely?
I'd like to write to my Congressional representatives about this, although it's a bit difficult for me to imagine that Sen. Feinstein will be on my side of the issue.
Legally speaking, it's optional to go through those. I exercise my right to opt out every time I fly, and the variation in response among airports is quite spectacular. CGN has posters telling you how to opt out, and a dedicated optout lane (Terminal 2 at least). DUS wants to see ID and tries to intimidate you into conforming.
Some gates don't have metal detectors anymore it seems that they are being phased out slowly but surely. And in some cases even if you have the option to opt out you might not even know that you are in a body scanner line as some lines might start where the scanner isn't visible yet.
The problem in my opinion is that body scanners are considerably less effective than metal detectors.
A personal experience from going through on in Germany is that it flagged the passport and boarding pass that i had in my breast pocket which lead to the guy patting my chest like he was a 15 year old getting to 2nd base.
The scanner however had no objection to my key chain which I have had a leatherman micra on which technically has a knife (its only 4cm long and is legal to carry even on air travel or at least it was never flagged for me).
EDIT: I have TSA Pre via DHS/CBP Global Entry, as does my wife. There should be no reason for us to go through a body scanner if the TSA and DHS believe their background check and fingerprinting are effective.