Although the TSA claims the x-ray dose given to air travelers is safe, there are reasons for concern. For one, they refuse to disclose the x-ray flux. Also, the comparisons the TSA makes with other radiation sources are flawed because they compare to the absorbed x-ray dose and average it over the entire volume of a person. Anyone in radiation safety understands the important number is the dose absorbed in specific portions of the body. In this case, the x-ray radiation is absorbed in the skin (minus the very small scattered fraction), not your entire body volume, resulting in a much higher local dose than you would expect if you modeled the exposure as uniform through the volume.
Since the x-ray source strength is quite low (assuming the machine isn't multifunctioning), the health risks to occasional travelers are likely to be low. Maybe frequent travelers or airline employees should have greater concern, or those at risk of cataracts.
See:
Every one of them should at least be a little concerned about this and it would be great to see them oppose these machines for their own safety, if nothing else.
You sir, are a mad genius. But really, how long before a class action lawsuit thrown against the government for exposing many to this type of thing? On one hand, I hope it takes a long time for people to feel the ill effects, buton the other...
I would argue that it's one of many reasons they are wrong.
I'm equally as concerned about the privacy and civil rights violations. But it's still a problem that the machines pose a physical risk to passengers and TSA employees.
I'm sure it is.
> However, this is their job, and they are carrying out orders from their superiors.
I fundamentally oppose this reasoning as justification for doing something you think is wrong.
> So there's no reason to make snide remarks to the agents.
Saying this as you out opt isn't snide: "I'm a little concerned about the radiation myself but I can't imagine what it's like for you to stand near this machine all day. It must be worrying".
I would argue that many of these people are told that the machines are perfectly safe and don't even consider that they are being exposed while standing outside.
Nobody does evil all by themselves. If everyone thought like you do, there would be less room for evil in the world.
While, technically, they might use the Nuremberg defense, I think bringing that up is a little harsh. Some of the TSA workers probably do disagree, but some of them also have been working in this job since before the scanners were introduced, or before other less controversial practices were introduced. If you have a stable job and not too many other prospects, it is particularly difficult to leave, due to human inertia etc... I know how this can be as I'd like to find a new job right now too, because I really hate using CVS where I work now :)
In addition, if they are less educated, they might genuinely believe that what they are doing is helping prevent terrorism. I'm sure there is plenty of mild to heavy indoctrination done during training, and I doubt that many of the TSA agents at the gate are reading Bruce Schneier.
I think it would behoove HNers to have a little more compassion for these people, it is highly likely that they are less fortunate than most of HN.
Needless to say, I disagree with the TSA policies. And actually I think "snide" remarks about the possible health dangers, and educating other passengers similar to a story posted yesterday, is great. Unfortunately, I think comments about the safety of the machines are probably pretty infrequent, and that the agents probably get a lot more incoherent flak than that about all the inane procedures.
Now of course, people will respond to me citing authorities or papers claiming otherwise. However, that doesn't mean a thing. There is no issue in the world on which you can't cite someone or something seemingly relevant to support some point. However, if that point is a minority opinion, we usually trust the majority. We accept the majority opinion of doctors, engineers and other professionals in science-backed professions all the time. Straying from that principle in this specific case, because you want to believe that this case is different, is being inconsistent. Inconsistency breeds distrust, which is a reason not to behave inconsistently if you can help it. Therefore, don't just start believing stuff and spreading FUD about it because it suits you. There's nothing to complain about the radiation of these scanners, if you accept there is nothing sufficiently unsafe about microwaves, WiFi, GSM and regular flying.
Not necessarily true. Some of these machines use x-rays, which are far more dangerous than WiFi(ISM Band 2.4GHz) and GSM(<2GHz).
we are adding to the damage unnecessarily
And you're just spewing out the FDA report, which has already been debunked for making false comparisons (e.g. likening the kind of radiation one receives while flying with X-ray radiation of the backscatter machines).
>without having actually looked at the numbers
It doesn't sound like you're very well versed on this stuff either, yet you have no trouble running around defending what is likely the biggest rights violation the TSA has engaged in so far.
>If these machines aren't necessary
It's been stated by several security experts (including airport security personnel) that existing techniques can detect more threats then these silly backscatter machines. These machines are only in airports because a form TSA head works for the company that produces them now.
yet you have no trouble running around defending what is
likely the biggest rights violation the TSA has engaged in
And you're just spewing out the FDA report
(e.g. likening the kind of radiation one receives while
flying with X-ray radiation of the backscatter machines)
It's absolutely not counterproductive. At the end of the day, people don't give a shit about their rights being violated. Look at what american citizens have already given up. Sure, they'll bitch about it around the watercooler, might even make a facebook group but that's as far as it will ever go. I bet you could go as far as doing full on rectal examinations and so long as accepting that was faster than not people would still do it without protest because convenience trumps almost all.
Almost. If the people think there is a chance that these things cause cancer then it becomes a life and death situation that they will do something about. A poster elsewhere has had some success with this issue with TSA workers.
I'm certainly not going to advocate making things up to get our way but real experts have come out on this requesting a more thorough study. TSA wont release various figures about the radiation. X-ray damage is cumulative. Taken all these things together I really believe there is a chance these things aren't safe and if there's even a chance of it that should be enough to block their usage. The burden of proof lies with the people who want to bring these things in, not with people who need to fly but don't want the added cancer risk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/business/14digi.html?_r=1&...
Until they can prove that there is no danger with these machines
The fact is that experts in the field have said,
unambiguously that more research needs to be done on these
things
Most of the "answer" has come from the group selling
and/or using the machine
It's a wonder we are still allowed to use Nuclear Magnetic Resonance imaging, renamed Magnetic Resonance Imaging to get rid of the scary 'nuclear'. Now any notion of 'radiation' is again being ostracized. Everyone just repeats some thing they think they understood, without actually knowing anything of what is actually involved. If you feel X-rays are that scary, stop flying.
You've ignored every counter that was already provided to your "facts". That doesn't strike me as arguing in good faith.
>Primarily to get attention back to the actual issue: the usefulness of these machines in the first place.
Nonsense. If you care about people's rights, why would you want to bring the discussion to a place of utter irrelevance? The american people accepted The PATRIOT act for God's sake. Do you think they're going to give a shit about being scanned naked, so long as it's fast?
>Even if it's a factor 20, it still doesn't matter.
The damage is cumulative. How can it possibly not matter. Damage done by the X-ray doesn't "go away" right? So every little extra dosage you get is just making things worse for you. You can say it's less than taking a cross Atlantic flight but I have to take the flight. Trust me, if there were another way I wouldn't go near a plane.
I still fly. I get X-rays when I think I've broken something. I love bananas. These are all sources of radiation that I'm going to be exposed to for some benefit to me (sometimes the risk of not doing it is worse than the radiation risk) and am willing to take the risks. These scanners don't help me in any way. This is radiation I'm enduring for no benefit to me what so ever. Even if I did buy the party line about terrorists, dying in a car accident would be vastly more likely than being killed by a terrorist so I'd rather take my chances with them than with this machine.
I suppose it's to be expected, since it isn't exactly shielded in the way you'd expect it to be, but if this thing is just spewing radiation all over the place, I can't imagine what's going to become of the people that actually work near it all day long.
My privacy is one thing, and I do a good deal to avoid the Backscatters, but this is potentially an actual life and death situation that people may not have even considered, or worse, that is drowned out by all the discussion about our freedoms.