New TSA scanners
11-04-2010 | 07:10 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
From: back in the right
"The other issue besides privacy that has surrounded backscatter X-raying has to do with radiation exposure. Most of us do not get X-rayed on a regular basis; and when we do get X-rayed in a hospital or doctor's office, we've got a lead vest thrown over our vital organs. But at airports, there's no lead vest. So are people who travel a lot going to be subjected to dangerous levels of radiation if they get backscattered too often? Most experts say no. According to the Health Physics Society (HPS), a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.005 millirems (mrem, a unit of absorbed radiation). American Science and Engineering, Inc., actually puts that number slightly higher, in the area of .009 mrem. According to U.S. regulatory agencies, 1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure. Using the HPS numbers, it would take 200 backscatter scans in a year to reach a negligible dose -- 1 mrem -- of radiation. You receive 1 mrem from three hours on an airplane, from two days in Denver or from three days in Atlanta. And it would take 5,000 scans in a year to reach the upper limit of safety. A traveler would have to get 100 backscatter scans per week, every week, for a year, in order to be in real danger from the radiation. Few frequent flyers fly that frequently."
And...what would OSHA say/do if complaints were filed for lack of data (ie...MSDS) posted on site?
Okay so, if a Denver based pilot flies 800 hours a year and goes through a machine four times a week.
365/2= 182mrems for Denver
800/3= 266mrems for flying
.009 x 4 x 52= 1.872 for a properly operating machine.
450 total mrems for pilots a year. We’re no jumping for joy to go through these machines why?
11-04-2010 | 08:12 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
From: Uncoveraged...
There’s not exactly a scientific consensus on what dosage everyone is receiving. While many agencies are saying they’re perfectly safe, others have raised concerns. Some sources say the dosage could be as much as 20 times what authorities are estimating, while others warn that the way the radiation is absorbed (just by the skin vs. going through the entire body,) has not been studied in great detail, and could be causing the skin to absorb a much higher dose that could lead to problems down the road. Of course the greatest problem is that if there are ill effects, we won’t know it for a decade or more.
One group I left off my list of people to file reports/complaints with is your senators and congressmen. Make sure all reports are detailed as to how you were touched, spoken too, treated, etc.
One group I left off my list of people to file reports/complaints with is your senators and congressmen. Make sure all reports are detailed as to how you were touched, spoken too, treated, etc.
11-04-2010 | 08:21 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Thanks to all for the good responses in this thread. I won't be going through any of these in the future, at all. I wonder if they will threaten to contact management if we give them a hard time during the feel up? I'm not shy, but I don't want some ridiculous TSA agent feeling up my goods... or going anywhere near my rusty sheriff's badge!
11-04-2010 | 09:01 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
I had no idea. I have not seen one of these machines, nor understand the radiation risk.
I will opt out. Depending on the situation, I may ask for the local police to witness the pat down.
Can TSA put you on a “no-fly” list for opting out? That could cause me to loose my job or at least lose of time and income till things get ironed out.
Seems to be allot at stake here.
I will opt out. Depending on the situation, I may ask for the local police to witness the pat down.
Can TSA put you on a “no-fly” list for opting out? That could cause me to loose my job or at least lose of time and income till things get ironed out.
Seems to be allot at stake here.
11-04-2010 | 09:17 AM
#35
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
From: E190 CA
Besides the risk of radiation, I have this creepy image of some “Highly trained Government employee” pedophile in a room taking screen shots with a cellphone camera for his kiddie porn collection. Personally, I will opt out by not taking my family flying. At some point this ridiculous level of screening everyday Americans is going to lead to fewer people willing to fly. Perhaps if it starts to hurt the revenue of the airlines, it will get addressed politicly.
11-04-2010 | 09:25 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Besides the risk of radiation, I have this creepy image of some “Highly trained Government employee” pedophile in a room taking screen shots with a cellphone camera for his kiddie porn collection. Personally, I will opt out by not taking my family flying. At some point this ridiculous level of screening everyday Americans is going to lead to fewer people willing to fly. Perhaps if it starts to hurt the revenue of the airlines, it will get addressed politicly.
11-04-2010 | 09:40 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,503
Likes: 0
Other scientists at Columbia University have made the following statements in support of the safety of body scanners:[37]
"A passenger would need to be scanned using a backscatter scanner, from both the front and the back, about 200,000 times to receive the amount of radiation equal to one typical CT scan," said Dr. Andrew J. Einstein, director of cardiac CT research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. "Another way to look at this is that if you were scanned with a backscatter scanner every day of your life, you would still only receive a tenth of the dose of a typical CT scan," he said. By comparison, the amount of radiation from a backscatter scanner is equivalent to about 10 minutes of natural background radiation in the United States, Einstein said. "I believe that the general public has nothing to worry about in terms of the radiation from airline scanning," he added. For moms-to-be, no evidence supports an increased risk of miscarriage or fetal abnormalities from these scanners, Einstein added. "A pregnant woman will receive much more radiation from cosmic rays she is exposed to while flying than from passing through a scanner in the airport," he said.
Furthermore, other scientists claim the health effects are backscatter are well understood whereas those from millimeter wave scanners are not:"From a radiation standpoint there has been no evidence that there is really any untoward effect from the use of this device [backscatter scanner], so I would not be concerned about it from a radiation dose standpoint -- the issues of personal privacy are a different thing," he said. The health effects of the more common millimeter wave scanner are largely unknown, and at least one expert believes a safety study is warranted. "I am very interested in performing a National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements study on the use of millimeter-wave security screening systems," said Thomas S. Tenforde, council president. However, no long-term studies have been done on the health effects of millimeter wave scanners.[37
11-04-2010 | 04:15 PM
#38
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Carl
11-04-2010 | 05:01 PM
#39
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Those signs are just notice to you that a search could happen. If that happens, you will almost always be asked for your consent to the search. You should ALWAYS say no to that request. If they have proper probable cause, they will search it anyway and probably wouldn't have asked you in the first place. If they don't have cause, they will definitely ask for your consent because without your consent, they know that anything found is inadmissible in court. If you give your consent, anything found is admissible in court.
Carl
Carl
11-04-2010 | 05:19 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,843
Likes: 1
From: FAA 'Flight Check'
Those signs are just notice to you that a search could happen. If that happens, you will almost always be asked for your consent to the search. You should ALWAYS say no to that request. If they have proper probable cause, they will search it anyway and probably wouldn't have asked you in the first place. If they don't have cause, they will definitely ask for your consent because without your consent, they know that anything found is inadmissible in court. If you give your consent, anything found is admissible in court.
Carl
Carl
USMCFLYR
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
