Paper says x-ray backscatter machines can't work

mikea

mikea

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
16,975
Location
Lake County, IL
Display Name
Display name:
iWin
Even if exposure were to be increased significantly, normal anatomy would make a dangerous amount of plastic explosive with tapered edges difficult if not impossible to detect.

http://springerlink.com/content/g6620thk08679160
Click to expand...

Not that the TSA didn't know that when they bought the machines.

They could have saved a lot of money by just having M5 Industries build competitive impressive do-nothing scanner booths.
 
My doctor says there is no way in hell he would go through one of those machines. He said that even though the level of radiation is less than a typical x-ray, the effect of getting one's WHOLE BODY scanned is many times WORSE than an x-ray. He also said that that the federal agency that went to the FDA for approval only had them test the exposure over a very small segment of the body.

I don't have to deal with the scanners when in uniform, but if I am ever in civilian clothes, I will opt out of the scan and suffer the indignity of a "pat down".
 
Greg Bockelman said:
My doctor says there is no way in hell he would go through one of those machines. He said that even though the level of radiation is less than a typical x-ray, the effect of getting one's WHOLE BODY scanned is many times WORSE than an x-ray. He also said that that the federal agency that went to the FDA for approval only had them test the exposure over a very small segment of the body.

I don't have to deal with the scanners when in uniform, but if I am ever in civilian clothes, I will opt out of the scan and suffer the indignity of a "pat down".
Click to expand...
Yes. I also love how they tell the traveling public that the radiation dose is about the same as flying for 2 minutes.

While true, that's a completely misleading analogy. This radiation acts very differently to the kind you receive while flying. It all accumulates in the skin. The health effects are not remotely comparable. See this letter written by actual scientists for more detail:

http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

An excerpt:

The physics of these X-rays is very telling: the X-rays are Compton-Scattering off outer molecule bonding electrons and thus inelastic (likely breaking bonds).

Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies (28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.

The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X-rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high.
Click to expand...
 
Who cares as long as another ex-government official (Chertoff) is getting rich from the deal. :wink2:
 
Greg Bockelman said:
My doctor says there is no way in hell he would go through one of those machines. He said that even though the level of radiation is less than a typical x-ray, the effect of getting one's WHOLE BODY scanned is many times WORSE than an x-ray. He also said that that the federal agency that went to the FDA for approval only had them test the exposure over a very small segment of the body.

I don't have to deal with the scanners when in uniform, but if I am ever in civilian clothes, I will opt out of the scan and suffer the indignity of a "pat down".
Click to expand...
The current science of radiation exposure uses a probability model. It's been criticized quite a bit but it's the best we have.

It says a certain dose has a certain probability of causing cancer, so it doesn't matter whether one person gets the dose or 100 people get the dose the probability of one out of 100 would be the same.

A very simple calculation would take the dose they give the millions of people and come up with the number of people likely to get cancer as a result of that exposure.

I haven't seen the numbers for individuals or the number scanned but I'm guessing it would come out similar to the second-hand smoke numbers (also based on weird assumptions).

I don't expect the TSA to publish those numbers.

Joe
 
EppyGA said:
Who cares as long as another ex-government official (Chertoff) is getting rich from the deal. :wink2:
Click to expand...
Actually, George Soros and a few other democrats are making the fortune on these scanners.

I heard of a possible system that would be much more effective. Many explosives can be remotely detonated with the same technology that allows you to charge your cell phone by lying it on a flat surface. The new technology would consist of implementing that method inside an explosion containment chamber. Travelers step in the chamber and any explosives are detonated. This way we avoid the hassle of a trial and if there are any standby passengers, they now get a seat.
 
Last edited:
JOhnH said:
Actually, George Soros and a few other democrats are making the fortune on these scanners.

I heard of a possible system that would be much more effective. Many explosives can be remotely detonated with the same technology that allows you to charge your cell phone by lying it on a flat surface. The new technology would consist of implementing that method inside an explosion containment chamber. Travelers step in the chamber and any explosives are detonated. This way we avoid the hassle of a trial and if there are any standby passengers, they now get a seat.
Click to expand...
I like it.

Wouldn't that just be the microwave imaging system with the power turned up to 11?

Joe
 
Even if exposure were to be increased significantly, normal anatomy would make a dangerous amount of plastic explosive with tapered edges difficult if not impossible to detect.
Click to expand...

Anybody wanna bet that the lobbyists and sales droids made sure that the specifications for testing the machines used dummy targets that had anything but tapered edges?

The edges on the target were probably so sharp that had the undie bomber been packing that he would have been a gelding before he got out of the house.
 
But we have to do SOMETHING!!!!!!! Why not expensive xray machines? Who cares if they work AT LEAST WE'RE DOING SOMETHING!!!!!!


<sarcasm off>
 
The simple answer to the controversy would be to require that any member of Congress or his / her family members step into the scanner every time they fly. No serious evaluation of the safety of these devices will be done as long as Congress is exempt, whether actually or by custom, from submitting to the procedures.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
The simple answer to the controversy would be to require that any member of Congress or his / her family members step into the scanner every time they fly. No serious evaluation of the safety of these devices will be done as long as Congress is exempt, whether actually or by custom, from submitting to the procedures.

-Rich
Click to expand...

I agree. I must have missed when "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" was thrown out the window. ;)
 
RJM62 said:
The simple answer to the controversy would be to require that any member of Congress or his / her family members step into the scanner every time they fly. No serious evaluation of the safety of these devices will be done as long as Congress is exempt, whether actually or by custom, from submitting to the procedures.

-Rich
Click to expand...

How about we put them at every entrance to the House and Senate chambers instead. I mean, some lame-duck Congresscritter with nothing to lose could go in and shoot up the place.
 
Inasmuch as members of congress are most often exempted from a very large proportion of the very laws they pass, don't look for agreement to screening anytime soon.

Examples: no EEOC or OSHA in the hallowed halls of congress...
 
Every public office in the U.S. should be equipped with one of those contraptions. This would prove to the flying public that they are completely safe. If every government employee went through one every day, with no ill effects, how could people complain?

Wouldn't it be heartening to know that when a police officer pulls you over, he or she has been full body scanned that day, and is not a terrorist? Think how much safer you would feel driving your streets and freeways. :)

John
 
John Baker said:
ouldn't it be heartening to know that when a police officer pulls you over, he or she has been full body scanned that day, and is not a terrorist? Think how much safer you would feel driving your streets and freeways. :)

John
Click to expand...

Can't I just look at their photo id?
 
I suspect that the "same exposure as 2 minutes in an airplane" quote is based on total radiation exposure. Keep in mind that not all radiation can induce DNA damage including large deletions anywhere near as well as X-rays. You won't see me go into one of those things ever. I'd rather have the TSA drones do their sexual assault and anal probing. At least those don't cause irreparable genetic damage.
 
I have a better alternative that would save the taxpayers a ton of money. How about going on Ebay and buying up all the "X-ray Glasses" that they used to advertise in "Boys Life" when I was a kid? Heck, that kid in the grainy picture was getting quite an eyeful. That old cougar was a real piece of action, especially with the "granny panties."
 
intubatmd said:
I have a better alternative that would save the taxpayers a ton of money. How about going on Ebay and buying up all the "X-ray Glasses" that they used to advertise in "Boys Life" when I was a kid? Heck, that kid in the grainy picture was getting quite an eyeful. That old cougar was a real piece of action, especially with the "granny panties."
Click to expand...

All the babes in my high school must have been wearing lead dresses. Never saw a thing...
 
Areeda said:
The current science of radiation exposure uses a probability model.
Click to expand...

Here are some of the questions that a probability model actually COULD answer:
1) What is the probability of getting cancer from one of those scanners? My guess is that number is known, but I don't know what it is.
2) What is the probability of having a heart-attack and dying while waiting in the security line?
3) What is the probability that you will be killed by a terrorist?

--

My WAG is that #1 and #2, each, are greater than #3. So, TSA may very well kill more people than terrorists will.
 
Was this already mentioned?...during testing, the machines irradiated a 2 sq in patch of skin. It is those numbers which are used as the basis of the "the machines are harmless" argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top