""They're not all being replaced," TSA spokesman David Castelveter said. "It's being done strategically. We are replacing some of the older equipment and taking them to smaller airports. That will be done over a period of time.""
In other words: "So, we have these machines that may be harmful and cause a PR disaster, so instead of doing the right thing (protecting people from harm, and all), let's move them to smaller airports, where it's much less likely to cause a stir."
Backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers. You get a much higher dose of radiation from the flight. The only real health concerns are for the workers who are exposed to them continuously.
X-ray, mm-wave, magic pixie scanners, I don't care what type they are, I'm still opting out because it's a blatant violation of the 4th amendment (when mandated, staffed, and managed by the gov).
I'll be celebrating when body scanners and other security theater is ended entirely. I'm not getting my hopes up.
> Backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers. You get a much higher dose of radiation from the flight.
Backscatter is set up so that the majority of the energy is deposited in your skin. The problem comes from the fact that most of the data we've collected is with X-rays that deposit their energy evenly throughout your body's volume. The heuristics based on that data erroneously suggest that skin is one of the least cancer prone tissues. However, we know on the basis of microbiology that this isn't the case. It's only because the skin constitues a small fraction of the absorption cross section of the entire body that biases the numbers this way.
This is a "spherical cow" assumption applied by self-interested bureaucrats. Such an oversight wouldn't be allowed in a PhD thesis defense. Why is it allowed when applied to the health and well being of hundreds of millions of people?
Yes, the dose is low, but the geometry of the delivery is radically different. For something that affects so many, more testing is warranted.
The only real health concerns are for the workers who are exposed to them continuously.
As others have pointed out, there is little basis for your assertion that "backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers." As my father (a physician) enjoys pointing out: we used to use X-rays to treat acne -- they were thought to not pose any health risk either! More generally, the history of technology is littered with arrogant overshoots where risks were dismissed until evidence became overwhelming; while one cannot conclude that backscatter is at a level to be dangerous, one can certainly not conclude that it "doesn't pose any health risk."
Or to flip it around, I opt out because I happen to know something that the TSA doesn't: I pose no risk to the aircraft, and scanning me in no way makes the aircraft safer. I can therefore assert with absolute certainty that my opting out poses less risk to the travelling public than being scanned poses a risk to me. (Plus, I think I might secretly enjoy TSA agents awkwardly and apologetically rubbing the backs of their hands on my crotch.)
I fly constantly for work, and I've watched the number of people opting out slowly drifting down till it feels like, well, just me.
If I'm getting my rights violated, I'm at least getting a reach around for it. Plus, even though I know it's terribly childish, being able to ask if they're happy that they grew up to make a living by touching my balls gives me a little bit of false empowerment in a crappy situation.
Ya, just can't get that satisfaction when walking through a scanner.
I'd say your claim of no health risk is premature. Backscatter X-ray focuses the ionizing radiation on the surface of your skin and immediately underlying tissue, so the effective local dose on your skin is much higher than other types of X-ray which are distributed evenly throughout your body. This is of particular concern to men, whose reproductive organs are located near the surface of the skin, as X-ray exposure to reproductive organs in parents is associated with leukemia in their children. For medical X-rays, measures are taken to limit exposure to reproductive organs.
Do you really expect your typical underpaid, undereducated, and overworked TSA employee to properly calibrate, maintain, or use a backscatter machines?
Even in hospitals, which have much stricter standards of safety and training have had accidents[1] where patients have been administered overdoses of radiation (some to lethal effect).
Just give the TSA another 10 or 20 years.. I would not be at all surprised to hear of major lawsuits from travelers who've been seriously injured by these machines, due to TSA incompetence in purchasing junky machines, maintaining/calibrating them poorly, or not training their employees to use them properly.
FYI in the US, the boarder is defined as a 100 mile wide swath of land around any actual boarder. Live within 100 miles of a cost line? Congratulations, the 4th Amendment boarder exception applies to you.
Even medical grade x-ray equipment that is seemingly well and regularly maintained operated by trained medical professionals in hospitals can go horrifically wrong.
These machines are none of those things. Why should I give them the benefit of the doubt?
> Backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers.
But we really don't know that, because no studies have been done using this equipment. In addition to concerns that the radiation, while lower in total than that absorbed during a flight, is absorbed over a much smaller volume of tissue, adequate validation that the machines can't break in dangerous ways hasn't been performed (and even the most basic detection mechanisms for failure such as having the operators wear dosimeters have been neglected or banned outright). It violates every principle of radiation safety.
I'm with you on the whole government intrusion thing. I haven't flown since 9/11 because all of the security BS. My career has probably taken a hit, but we all gotta take a stand somewhere.
The little bit I've seen came from a recent visit to a small regional airport in a swing state which I'll keep anonymous. This airport serves ~4000 passengers per day. The woman had a piece of paper where she kept tally of opt-outs. At mid-day there were ~40 opt outs (including mine). So 80/4000 = 2% opt-out rate I'd say is higher than I was expecting!
It doesn't pose a non-trivial health risk, but IIRC there's no decade of air travel where the number of deaths per flight from terrorists was higher than the number these x-rays are expected to cause.
> Backscatter doesn't pose any health risk to travelers.
This is possibly only true if there are no problems with the machines. If the machine is functioning properly, an X-ray beam will quickly scan you from head to toe. But if the scanner gets stuck (which happens from time to time), all of the dosage is concentrated in a single part of the body.
About radiation: Let's say that the article is correct and the radiation risk is very low -- 6 to 100 additional cancer cases per year among the millions that fly.
The question I have is this: Are the machines preventing 6 to 100 injuries or deaths from a terrorist attack every year?
If so, then perhaps the extra cancer cases are worth it. But if not -- if the scanners do not reduce the risk of terrorist attacks enough to offset the very small increase in cancer cases, then the machines are a waste.
1) this level of dose is thought safe if absorbed throughout the body;
2) there is no consensus on whether this level is safe if absorbed solely in the skin; it sounds like the question simply has not been studied.
I went through security at the Dayton airport last year. I refused the L3 "body scanner" (backscatter) machine. The TSA worker asked me why. I told him I thought it was an unnecessary risk. He laughed and basically told me that I was wrong, and that the machine poses no safety risk. But I still opted for the pat-down. Shortly thereafter, the TSA issued a recommendation that backscatter workers wear "radiation badges" to monitor their exposure. Never trust manufacturers of security products (like L3) on their word alone...
Maybe I'm just naive but it seems that if the TSA were significantly more transparent about how they deploy new screening procedures, US travelers would hate them a little less.
Why not just say safety testing results were inconclusive and in the best interests of passengers we'd prefer a more efficient alternative?
Meh, whatever. I'm still going to opt-out until I'm required by law to go through whatever contraption they have deployed.
Let's see: Michael Chertoff was head of the TSA, oversaw the decision about the safety of the scanners, and held a financial interest in the company that made the scanners.
I was rather encouraged by the headline, only to discover that instead of ripping out unnecessary security theater they're actually just wasting more money on new machines. Man do the companies making those things ever have good lobbyists! By screwing up they actually get even more business!
I agree. I think this change is motivated by two things. First, it's a planned obsolescence by the manufacturers finally admitting a small health issue and offering a solution. Second, it's a move by the TSA to combat opt-outs and other pushback by providing the same privacy violations but now with slightly less cancer risk.
I find the people complaining about X-Ray scanners in airports as if they're some unprecedented weakening of the 4th amendment to be a little bit silly. Where we're you guys in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, when things like stop and frisk destroyed the 4th amendment for inner city minorities?
What do you mean 70s, 80s, and 90s? Stop and frisk happens today in cities like New York, and it's a problem.
I'm not sure how one government agency abusing its power in one way makes it ok for another agency to abuse its power in another way. Your argument could easily be restated as: "in World War II, the government put Japanese people in internment camps, so it's silly to complain about stop and frisk as if it's an unprecedented weakening of the 4th amendment."
Is metal detector a different thing from full body scanner?
In Russia they have installed metal detectors (I believe) on entrance to suburban and subway train stations. Of course, with the huge amount of traffic the police officers simply cannot inspect every person who rings positive, so they just ignore the detector altogether.
"Backscatter X-ray is an advanced X-ray imaging technology. Traditional X-ray machines detect hard and soft materials by the variation in transmission through the target. In contrast, backscatter X-ray detects the radiation that reflects from the target. It has potential applications where less-destructive examination is required, and can be used if only one side of the target is available for examination." from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray
I never went through one of these and will never go through one. I rather get a pat-down.
I'm not that concerned about the health effects... This is a matter of principle. Everybody knows the security theater is just that... a theater. No need to participate in it any more than necessary.
9-11 by its very nature can never happen again. It could only work once, because the passengers still operated under the assumption that as long as they comply they will get out of this alive. After 9-11 this assumption is no longer valid and hence passengers will no longer comply.
This, btw, is exactly what brought the 4th plane down. Some of the passengers heard what happened over cell phone and then decided to do something about their own situation.
I passed through one of the largest airports in the U.S. recently, being early and prepared to opt-out, and was pleasantly surprised to see the line moving faster than I'd seen it in a long time. Perhaps it's not just public perception but the very long waits this was causing.
From the article, "The Transportation Security Administration has been quietly removing its X-ray body scanners from major airports over the last few weeks and replacing them with machines that radiation experts believe are safer."
"... but the TSA has not confirmed which ones" and "No study comparing the two machines' effectiveness has been released. The TSA says its own results are classified."
There should be plenty of time to test them now, to see if they are dangerous, and to see if they were correctly calibrated while they were deployed. Right?
[+] [-] sologoub|13 years ago|reply
In other words: "So, we have these machines that may be harmful and cause a PR disaster, so instead of doing the right thing (protecting people from harm, and all), let's move them to smaller airports, where it's much less likely to cause a stir."
This is so messed up!
[+] [-] moskie|13 years ago|reply
Yes, I know the ideal would be that all of our issues get resolved immediately. But how about we recognize that this could be a step towards that end?
[+] [-] ahelwer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mcantelon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] driverdan|13 years ago|reply
X-ray, mm-wave, magic pixie scanners, I don't care what type they are, I'm still opting out because it's a blatant violation of the 4th amendment (when mandated, staffed, and managed by the gov).
I'll be celebrating when body scanners and other security theater is ended entirely. I'm not getting my hopes up.
[+] [-] stcredzero|13 years ago|reply
Backscatter is set up so that the majority of the energy is deposited in your skin. The problem comes from the fact that most of the data we've collected is with X-rays that deposit their energy evenly throughout your body's volume. The heuristics based on that data erroneously suggest that skin is one of the least cancer prone tissues. However, we know on the basis of microbiology that this isn't the case. It's only because the skin constitues a small fraction of the absorption cross section of the entire body that biases the numbers this way.
This is a "spherical cow" assumption applied by self-interested bureaucrats. Such an oversight wouldn't be allowed in a PhD thesis defense. Why is it allowed when applied to the health and well being of hundreds of millions of people?
Yes, the dose is low, but the geometry of the delivery is radically different. For something that affects so many, more testing is warranted.
The only real health concerns are for the workers who are exposed to them continuously.
I agree that that's also a major issue.
[+] [-] bcantrill|13 years ago|reply
Or to flip it around, I opt out because I happen to know something that the TSA doesn't: I pose no risk to the aircraft, and scanning me in no way makes the aircraft safer. I can therefore assert with absolute certainty that my opting out poses less risk to the travelling public than being scanned poses a risk to me. (Plus, I think I might secretly enjoy TSA agents awkwardly and apologetically rubbing the backs of their hands on my crotch.)
[+] [-] goostavos|13 years ago|reply
I fly constantly for work, and I've watched the number of people opting out slowly drifting down till it feels like, well, just me.
If I'm getting my rights violated, I'm at least getting a reach around for it. Plus, even though I know it's terribly childish, being able to ask if they're happy that they grew up to make a living by touching my balls gives me a little bit of false empowerment in a crappy situation.
Ya, just can't get that satisfaction when walking through a scanner.
[+] [-] WiseWeasel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnosis|13 years ago|reply
Even in hospitals, which have much stricter standards of safety and training have had accidents[1] where patients have been administered overdoses of radiation (some to lethal effect).
Just give the TSA another 10 or 20 years.. I would not be at all surprised to hear of major lawsuits from travelers who've been seriously injured by these machines, due to TSA incompetence in purchasing junky machines, maintaining/calibrating them poorly, or not training their employees to use them properly.
[1] - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/health/29radiation.html?_r...
[+] [-] mhurron|13 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
The US Court of Appeals disagrees.
FYI in the US, the boarder is defined as a 100 mile wide swath of land around any actual boarder. Live within 100 miles of a cost line? Congratulations, the 4th Amendment boarder exception applies to you.
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-con...
[+] [-] jlgreco|13 years ago|reply
These machines are none of those things. Why should I give them the benefit of the doubt?
[+] [-] pndmnm|13 years ago|reply
But we really don't know that, because no studies have been done using this equipment. In addition to concerns that the radiation, while lower in total than that absorbed during a flight, is absorbed over a much smaller volume of tissue, adequate validation that the machines can't break in dangerous ways hasn't been performed (and even the most basic detection mechanisms for failure such as having the operators wear dosimeters have been neglected or banned outright). It violates every principle of radiation safety.
[+] [-] SageRaven|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hammock|13 years ago|reply
The little bit I've seen came from a recent visit to a small regional airport in a swing state which I'll keep anonymous. This airport serves ~4000 passengers per day. The woman had a piece of paper where she kept tally of opt-outs. At mid-day there were ~40 opt outs (including mine). So 80/4000 = 2% opt-out rate I'd say is higher than I was expecting!
[+] [-] Symmetry|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] splat|13 years ago|reply
This is possibly only true if there are no problems with the machines. If the machine is functioning properly, an X-ray beam will quickly scan you from head to toe. But if the scanner gets stuck (which happens from time to time), all of the dosage is concentrated in a single part of the body.
[+] [-] methodover|13 years ago|reply
The question I have is this: Are the machines preventing 6 to 100 injuries or deaths from a terrorist attack every year?
If so, then perhaps the extra cancer cases are worth it. But if not -- if the scanners do not reduce the risk of terrorist attacks enough to offset the very small increase in cancer cases, then the machines are a waste.
[+] [-] bradly|13 years ago|reply
Aren't you still being searched by hand when you opt out, though? It that much different?
[+] [-] gallamine|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ble|13 years ago|reply
1) this level of dose is thought safe if absorbed throughout the body; 2) there is no consensus on whether this level is safe if absorbed solely in the skin; it sounds like the question simply has not been studied.
[+] [-] JagMicker|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crcsmnky|13 years ago|reply
Why not just say safety testing results were inconclusive and in the best interests of passengers we'd prefer a more efficient alternative?
Meh, whatever. I'm still going to opt-out until I'm required by law to go through whatever contraption they have deployed.
[+] [-] jemfinch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jpdoctor|13 years ago|reply
Sounds legit, nice work Mike.
[+] [-] markbao|13 years ago|reply
Rapiscan (the scanner subsidiary of OSI) rebutted the claims: http://www.rapiscansystems.com/en/the-checkpoint/article/the...
[+] [-] fjorder|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdc|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cwb71|13 years ago|reply
Sounds like a great argument to keep opting out!
[+] [-] majorlazer|13 years ago|reply
Rapiscan? Could they have chosen a worse name for their company?
[+] [-] MattSayar|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] typicalrunt|13 years ago|reply
Just because we didn't stand up when it first happened, due to whatever reason, doesn't mean we can't be outraged.
[+] [-] arthurdenture|13 years ago|reply
I'm not sure how one government agency abusing its power in one way makes it ok for another agency to abuse its power in another way. Your argument could easily be restated as: "in World War II, the government put Japanese people in internment camps, so it's silly to complain about stop and frisk as if it's an unprecedented weakening of the 4th amendment."
[+] [-] danielweber|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zheng|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hack_edu|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] listic|13 years ago|reply
In Russia they have installed metal detectors (I believe) on entrance to suburban and subway train stations. Of course, with the huge amount of traffic the police officers simply cannot inspect every person who rings positive, so they just ignore the detector altogether.
[+] [-] sukuriant|13 years ago|reply
"Backscatter X-ray is an advanced X-ray imaging technology. Traditional X-ray machines detect hard and soft materials by the variation in transmission through the target. In contrast, backscatter X-ray detects the radiation that reflects from the target. It has potential applications where less-destructive examination is required, and can be used if only one side of the target is available for examination." from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray
[+] [-] linuxhansl|13 years ago|reply
I'm not that concerned about the health effects... This is a matter of principle. Everybody knows the security theater is just that... a theater. No need to participate in it any more than necessary.
9-11 by its very nature can never happen again. It could only work once, because the passengers still operated under the assumption that as long as they comply they will get out of this alive. After 9-11 this assumption is no longer valid and hence passengers will no longer comply.
This, btw, is exactly what brought the 4th plane down. Some of the passengers heard what happened over cell phone and then decided to do something about their own situation.
Edit: The usual spelling corrections.
[+] [-] pnathan|13 years ago|reply
> The radiation risk and privacy concerns had no bearing on the decision, Castelveter said.
/sigh
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] marquis|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lsiebert|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] autodidakto|13 years ago|reply
... who do these people work for?
[+] [-] Zigurd|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tipzntrix|13 years ago|reply