flywithjohn

Yeah, people would be requesting the additional screening if she was the screener.

ImperialxRat

Sorry if this was already posted, but I didn't see it. It is long, but is a great read.

My Helical Tryst: Review of the TSA X-ray backscatter body scanner safety report: hide your kids, hide your wife

PapaMike

That was pretty informational. I wonder how much of that is accurate.

DashDriverYV

Good find. If I was a TSO, I would be very hesitant about the coninued operation of these machines.

chuck416

Wow...This article is very interesting. And disturbing. How many times has our government "assured us" that this product/procedure or practice was "perfectly safe". Let's see...
>X-ray technology to better fit you child's shoes (circa 1950s)
>nuclear test blast "observers" (circa 1940s-1970s)
>asbestos in many, many applications
>swine flu vaccine late 1970s
These are just off the top of my head. I've got two problems with the whole TSA experience. This article points out one of those issues. The other is the blatant rough shod treatment of the 4th amendment to our privacy. This is not the way law-abiding citizens should be treated. Thanks. Rant out.
Chuck

BigGuns

Probably pretty accurate. Similar claims are made in this TIME article. Strip Search: How Safe are Airports' New X-ray Scanners? - TIME I question the safety of the Backscatter X-ray, and told my wife and kids to opt-out (Backscatter but not Millimeterwave) . I think the millimeter wave technology is not only safer, but all round better.

cardiomd

Agreed. As a doctor, I shudder at the thought of the Xray backscatter machines. It is IONIZING radiation, capable of ejecting an electron from your DNA (creating an ion) that then can cause DNA bases to behave in very odd fashions -- crosslinking, etc., which your body can repair using special DNA repair enzymes correctly (good) or incorrectly (potentially bad). The bad repair results in a DNA mutation, which can lead to cell death (not too bad) or cancer (much, much worse.)

The risk of cancer is low, true. Humans are very bad at understanding low risks -- I look at an analogy here to the lottery. You would have to play the lottery for many lifetimes to expect to be a big winner, yet somebody wins the multistate lottery quite often. Similarly, the scanners, even if "totally safe for a lifetime of scans" may realistically cause cancer in a significant amount of people.

I take issue to the "equivalent to xxx minutes of plane flight." Another good analogy I like to use is a laser pointer. It is probably equivalent to a couple milliseconds of light of being outside on a bright day. Yet, would you let me shine it at your face with your eyes open? It depends on the tissues being affected. Similarly, the "soft" x-rays are primarily absorbed by the skin, and are scanned around the body AFAIK in a raster format.

Another analogy of this is that being outside is certainly safe on a bright day. However, would you let me take a magnifying glass and hold it four inches above your skin? Same energy, very different outcome. To make a blanket comparison of xray exposure is nonsensical. I don't know how the collimator in the x-ray is arranged, or how it is calibrated.

I can't really tell the risks, as I just don't have enough data. TSA is not saying. The scans, however, make me extremely nervous, and I always opt out, and strongly encourage my family and friends to also. Lately many of the "cancer boxes" seem to be powered off though (probably because of the busy weekend?)

Moreover, all of the people that take car transportation instead of flying increase their risk of death. I, for one, dislike the hassle of the new measures so much it may make me think twice about one or two short-haul trips.

cardiomd

While getting my rubdown I often politely ask the groper how he feels about standing near that unshielded radiation source scattering x-rays all over. He usually says something like "there's lead in it" or "they are safe." I tell them I'm a cardiologist that works daily with radiation, and I remain a bit unconvinced. The groping finishes pretty quickly.

flynwmn

A friend of mine who is a TSA supervisor informed me tonight that pilots in uniform are to be treated like Minors under 12.

Razorback flyer

Pretty interesting poll I found via the EPIC site. I don't know much about the company that conducted it, but they claim a error margin of +/- 2%. If the data is true, we might be experiencing a dropoff in traffic next year. Then you can bet the ATA will start squawking about it!

Zogby International

Zogby Interactive: 61% Oppose Full Body Scans and TSA Pat Downs; 48% Will Seek Alternative to Flying

Frequent Fliers: 59% Oppose Enhancements and 43% Will Seek Alternative to Flying


The implementation of full body scans and pat downs by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as part of security enhancements at our nation's airports will cause 48% of Americans and 42% of more frequent fliers to choose a different mode of transportation when possible, a recent Zogby International Poll finds.

Overall, 61% of the 2,032 likely voters polled from Nov. 19 to Nov. 22, oppose the use of full body scans and TSA pat downs. Republicans (69%) and Independents (65%) oppose in greater numbers than Democrats (50%).

Of those polled, 52% believe the enhanced security measures will not prevent terrorist activity, almost half (48%) say it is a violation of privacy rights, 33% say they should not have to go through enhanced security methods to get on an airplane, and 32% believe the full body scans and TSA pat downs to be sexual harassment. This is in line with frequent fliers (fly more than once every 3 months), as 53% say the enhanced measures will not prevent terrorist activity, 48% believe it's a violation of their privacy rights, 41% say they should not have to go through it to get on an airplane, and 35% believe it is sexual harassment.

While roughly the same amount believe the full body scans and TSA pat downs are necessary to keep the country safe and prevent terrorist activities on airplanes (34% of frequent fliers vs. 29% overall), frequent fliers are more likely to feel that the enhanced methods are not needed because metal detectors and bag screenings are working fine (33% to 26%). Just 16% of frequent fliers say no one has an absolute right to fly and if people don't like the security measures, then just don't fly compared to 20% of everyone polled.

The Zogby poll also finds when given a choice, likely voters will choose full body scan over the TSA pat downs (48% to 7%), but 42% would rather have neither. Frequent fliers feel about the same.

Pollster John Zogby: "It's clear the majority of Americans are not happy with TSA and the enhanced security measures recently enacted. The airlines should not be happy with 42% of frequent fliers seeking a different mode of transportation due to these enhancements. It seems the airlines and TSA need to come together to find a solution before the American flying public abandons both."



The interactive poll consisted of 2,032 likely voters and has a margin of error of +/-2.2%. A sampling of Zogby International's online panel, which is representative of the adult population of the U.S., was invited to participate. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender, and education to more accurately reflect the population.