TSA Security theater is fake but the X-ray risks are real.

mikea

mikea

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
16,975
Location
Lake County, IL
Display Name
Display name:
iWin
“I am concerned … with expanding this type of product for the traveling public,” said another panelist, Stanley Savic, the vice president for safety at a large electronics company. “I think that would take this thing to an entirely different level of public health risk.”

The machine’s inventor, Steven W. Smith, assured the panelists that it was highly unlikely that the device would see widespread use in the near future. At the time, only 20 machines were in operation in the entire country.

“The places I think you are not going to see these in the next five years is lower-security facilities, particularly power plants, embassies, courthouses, airports and governments,” Smith said. “I would be extremely surprised in the next five to 10 years if the Secure 1000 is sold to any of these.”

Research suggests that anywhere from six to 100 U.S. airline passengers each year could get cancer from the machines. Still, the TSA has repeatedly defined the scanners as “safe,” glossing over the accepted scientific view that even low doses of ionizing radiation — the kind beamed directly at the body by the X-ray scanners — increase the risk of cancer.

“Even though it’s a very small risk, when you expose that number of people, there’s a potential for some of them to get cancer,” said Kathleen Kaufman, the former radiation management director in Los Angeles County, who brought the prison X-rays to the FDA panel’s attention.

...

“It’s a really, really small amount relative to the security benefit you’re going to get,” Kane said. “Keeping multiple technologies in play is very worthwhile for the U.S. in getting that cost-effective solution — and being able to increase the capabilities of technology because you keep everyone trying to get the better mousetrap.”

Determined to fill a critical hole in its ability to detect explosives, the TSA plans to have one or the other operating at nearly every security lane in America by 2014. The TSA has designated the scanners for “primary” screening: Officers will direct every passenger, including children, to go through either a metal detector or a body scanner, and the passenger’s only alternative will be to request a physical pat-down.

http://www.mnn.com/health/healthy-s...ncerns-as-it-rolled-out-airport-x-ray-scanner
Click to expand...

And as is the usual, it won't be until 2023 that Congress finally has hearings on the 1000s of dead passengers and bans the use, while the TSA says "We had no way of knowing. The best evidence said..."
 
Last edited:
ScottM said:
Science isn't real. Ask any climate change denier.
Click to expand...
This kind of thing is exactly why the Climategate conspiracy was the biggest blow to science in general.

Before, the science was known to be self-correcting in seeking the truth. Sure, some scientists were bought, some were frauds. But the mechanism of open publication, peer review, reproducibility, and the scientific method made it possible to find the answers. It worked in case of cold fusion perfectly, just to give one example.

But the warmists effectively demonstrated the enormous scale of the fraud that has become possible. Peer review? No problem: they exiled _everyone_ who disagreed and stacked _every_ editorial board with their sock puppets. Reproducibility? Nuh-huh. Jones went and destroyed the raw data so his "analysis" could not be challenged, ever.

The scandal removed all credibility from "scientists". Now you may present any kind of hard evidence, and memberst of the public feel free to tune it out. Remember the "cellphone cancer"? Only complete idiots believed in it, who could not calculate the nominal energy of equivalent photon for cellphone microwaves. But that was before. The anti-vaccine movement is now. And behold, now the TSA backscatter scanner that is going to fry the testicles of the unsispecting.

I put a great blame on the global warming "advocates".
 
zaitcev said:
But the warmists effectively demonstrated the enormous scale of the fraud that has become possible.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the phrase "enormous scale of the fraud" trip your BS alarm even a little?

Peer review? No problem: they exiled _everyone_ who disagreed and stacked _every_ editorial board with their sock puppets.
Click to expand...

What's stopping the oil companies from publishing their own scientific journals? It's not like they can't afford paper, ink, and Web servers.

Reproducibility? Nuh-huh. Jones went and destroyed the raw data so his "analysis" could not be challenged, ever.
Click to expand...

The solution to individuals destroying raw data is to repeat the experiments.

The scandal removed all credibility from "scientists".
Click to expand...

The "scandal" was invented by people who already had their minds made up.

Now you may present any kind of hard evidence, and memberst of the public feel free to tune it out.
Click to expand...

That's the fault of well-funded political propagandists, not scientists.
 
Let's not get side tracked, the climate debate has gotten beat to death.

You get more radiation flying in the plane than you do from the scanner. If someone is worried about the cancer risk......don't get on the plane. (Then you also don't need to be scanned.... win win)
 
zaitcev said:
... Jones went and destroyed the raw data so his "analysis" could not be challenged, ever...
Click to expand...
Yeah! Unless they re-collected it from the original sources that CRU collected it from (e.g. national meteorological services), or look at the data that NASA has collected, or look at the CRU data after some processing had taken place, or look at the CRU data beyond the affected era.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=graphic-science-radiation-exposure

...
Natural background (U.S.) per year: 3.1
...
Airport scanner (backscatter method): 0.0001
...
Dental x-ray: 0.005

Domestic airline flight (five hours): 0.017

Smoking one pack of cigarettes per day for a year: 0.36

Mammogram: 0.4
...
​

-harry
Click to expand...

I notice they specified "ionizing radiation," but I'm wondering if all wavelengths within that category are similar in their degree of hazard. Do you have any information on that?
 
zaitcev said:
This kind of thing is exactly why the Climategate conspiracy was the biggest blow to science in general.
Click to expand...
That would be the conspiracy that was manufactured and that investigations have shown that none fo the charges were accurate?

zaitcev said:
Jones went and destroyed the raw data so his "analysis" could not be challenged, ever.
Click to expand...
No data was destroyed.
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2009/10/14/3

If you understand anything about archiving and especially digital archives there is nothing there to suggest malfeasance at all.

You really need to take the tin foil hat off and step away from the Art Bell tapes.
 
That table of background radiation vs. these scanners is meaningless. Those are very different kinds of radiation. Or are you saying that since you also get more radiation from the sun than you do from the scanners, the scanners aren't dangerous? Apples and oranges.

TripleZ said:
You get more radiation flying in the plane than you do from the scanner. If someone is worried about the cancer risk......don't get on the plane. (Then you also don't need to be scanned.... win win)
Click to expand...
You are wrong. No ifs and buts, you are simply misinformed. Even worse, you have bought into TSA's lies.

The kind of radiation you get by flying is very different than the kind these scanners emit. So yes, you get a higher total dose by flying. That is not relevant to the discussion, though, because that higher dose is made out of different particles and it is directed at the entire body. In the case of the scanners, however, the dose is absorbed mostly by the skin, and the radiation that is absorbed is much more dangerous.

Please inform yourself for your own good. Here's a good starting point:

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

Don't take my word for it. Read that article written by internationally recognized experts in this field. Here's an excerpt:

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...

Unfortunately, things won't change unless the general public informs themselves.
 
Last edited:
zaitcev said:
This kind of thing is exactly why the Climategate conspiracy was the biggest blow to science in general.

Before, the science was known to be self-correcting in seeking the truth. Sure, some scientists were bought, some were frauds. But the mechanism of open publication, peer review, reproducibility, and the scientific method made it possible to find the answers. It worked in case of cold fusion perfectly, just to give one example.
Click to expand...
Still work being done in "cold fusion" as of last year; some presentations at the national ACS meeting.

zaitcev said:
But the warmists effectively demonstrated the enormous scale of the fraud that has become possible. Peer review? No problem: they exiled _everyone_ who disagreed and stacked _every_ editorial board with their sock puppets. Reproducibility? Nuh-huh. Jones went and destroyed the raw data so his "analysis" could not be challenged, ever.
Click to expand...
That was quite a task too. I mean we had to infiltrate the American Chemical Society, Royal Society, American Physical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and so forth. Also had to subvert the editorial staff of Nature and Science as well as Elsevier Publications. We never could have done it without the help of the Illuminati.

zaitcev said:
The scandal removed all credibility from "scientists". Now you may present any kind of hard evidence, and memberst of the public feel free to tune it out. Remember the "cellphone cancer"? Only complete idiots believed in it, who could not calculate the nominal energy of equivalent photon for cellphone microwaves. But that was before. The anti-vaccine movement is now. And behold, now the TSA backscatter scanner that is going to fry the testicles of the unsispecting.

I put a great blame on the global warming "advocates".
Click to expand...
The "anti-vaccine" movement was going as long as I can remember...and even longer (ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1123944/?tool=pmcentrez ). Of course, the citation was probably cleaned by the "warmists" toadies :rolleyes:
 
I am as opposed to the intimidation attempts as much as anything else. I have to fly airlines some, and it's a pain in the butt most of the time. When I fly out of DC area, I leave out of Reagan because the TSA staff there are more polite than Dulles. Or other airports for that matter. Might have something to do with all of the congressmen, staffers, and such.

I simply tell them I am not going through their machine. When frisked, I tell them that it will be professional, (having been frisked professionally many times in other situations, all with no presumption of guilt.)
 
sba55 said:
That table of background radiation vs. these scanners is meaningless. Those are very different kinds of radiation.
Click to expand...

The backscatter scanner uses 50kVp x-rays, a type of radiation we know quite a bit about. It is in the same energy range as medical x-rays used for example to image a hand or wrist (~55kVp). The concept of skin dose is well studied and understood as it plays a big role in anything from treatment using gamma-rays to taking mammograms.

We are made up in part from radioactive elements, breathe radioactive air and live on radioactive ground whilst being lit up with fast particles and energy quants from space. With the exception of repeated medical imaging examinations (e.g. multiple CT scans during the treatment for cancer) or high-risk employment like senior airline pilot or worker in a nuclear waste reprocessing plant, none of the doses we are exposed to get us into a range where an elevated cancer risk is even measurable.
 
bgdriveway said:
I leave out of Reagan because the TSA staff there are more polite than Dulles. Or other airports for that matter. Might have something to do with all of the congressmen, staffers, and such.
Click to expand...

Go into the leftmost lane. Magnetometer only ;) .
 
weilke said:
The backscatter scanner uses 50kVp x-rays, a type of radiation we know quite a bit about. It is in the same energy range as medical x-rays used for example to image a hand or wrist (~55kVp). The concept of skin dose is well studied and understood as it plays a big role in anything from treatment using gamma-rays to taking mammograms.

We are made up in part from radioactive elements, breathe radioactive air and live on radioactive ground whilst being lit up with fast particles and energy quants from space. With the exception of repeated medical imaging examinations (e.g. multiple CT scans during the treatment for cancer) or high-risk employment like senior airline pilot or worker in a nuclear waste reprocessing plant, none of the doses we are exposed to get us into a range where an elevated cancer risk is even measurable.
Click to expand...
Sure....right. That's why they stand right next to me, un- protected when I get an x-ray.

I guess we didn't need the protective plexiglas around the scintillation proximity assay experiments we ran. We also could have just dumped the waste from these experiments right into the regular waste chemical containers instead of the low-level radioactive waste containers.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Sure....right. That's why they stand right next to me, un- protected when I get an x-ray.
Click to expand...

If this was a portable film done in an ICU for example, they would stand next to you without shielding. At low energies, 5-6ft will drop the dose low enough to remain well below established limits. The techs do this every day all day and often with overtime. Different exposure levels compared with someone like a patient or airline passenger who only gets exposed occasionally.

I guess we didn't need the protective plexiglas around the scintillation proximity assay experiments we ran. We also could have just dumped the waste from these experiments right into the regular waste chemical containers instead of the low-level radioactive waste containers.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not.

Depending on the isotopes, there are a number of types of low-level products that you can dispose through the public sewer or regular commercial waste. You probably had longer lived stuff in your assays that dont fall under those exemptions.

Releasing isotopes is a bit different animal from temporary x-ray or gamma exposures.
 
weilke said:
If this was a portable film done in an ICU for example, they would stand next to you without shielding. At low energies, 5-6ft will drop the dose low enough to remain well below established limits. The techs do this every day all day and often with overtime. Different exposure levels compared with someone like a patient or airline passenger who only gets exposed occasionally.
Click to expand...
I accompanied someone to get a chest x-ray recently. The techs stood about 10 feet away, where the controls were, but they weren't shielded by anything and neither was I.
 
Everskyward said:
I accompanied someone to get a chest x-ray recently. The techs stood about 10 feet away, where the controls were, but they weren't shielded by anything and neither was I.
Click to expand...

You will live ;) .

It drops off by inverse square, taking one step back reduces your dose considerably. When it comes to scatter and secondary radiation from conventional x-rays, once you are 6ft out you dont get much.

The typical layout of an x-ray room has the control console either behind a lead-lined wall or equipped with a leaded PMMA shield that the tech can step behind.
 
weilke said:
If this was a portable film done in an ICU for example, they would stand next to you without shielding. At low energies, 5-6ft will drop the dose low enough to remain well below established limits. The techs do this every day all day and often with overtime. Different exposure levels compared with someone like a patient or airline passenger who only gets exposed occasionally.



Maybe, maybe not.

Depending on the isotopes, there are a number of types of low-level products that you can dispose through the public sewer or regular commercial waste. You probably had longer lived stuff in your assays that dont fall under those exemptions.

Releasing isotopes is a bit different animal from temporary x-ray or gamma exposures.
Click to expand...
Tritium for the most part- you just get an electron off of it. We used some 35S, but only a little bit- again, beta emission. NOTHING radioactive was allowed through the public sewers or commercial waste, or through the other waste streams we had.

You yourself posted that the effects of low level radiation were controversial. The TSA should have used the millimeter wavelength scanners- those wavelengths are beyond infrared and almost certainly affect tissue about as much as...cell phones!

All of this aside, one shouldn't be subject to search simply because they choose to travel by commercial air.
 
"Spearing had warned Munson that every time he revealed a cop in a heroic light he was planting another tangling vine in the ever-growing garden of a police state."

From the book 'OF GOOD AND EVIL' by Ernest K Gann, first published in 1963

John
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
Tritium for the most part- you just get an electron off of it.
Click to expand...

Most of your radiation didn't even make it out of the container your samples were in. Low energy betas go about 5mm in air and next to nothing in solid matter or fluid. Unless you snort the stuff, it's hard to get even a dose off tritium.

. NOTHING radioactive was allowed through the public sewers or commercial waste, or through the other waste streams we had.
Click to expand...

A lot of that is simply a paperwork issue. If you want to release isotopes, you have to deal with either the NRC or or their designee agency in the state. If you just put everything into the regulated container, the contractor that picks it up deals with the paperwork before dumping it into his regular commercial trash container ;) .


You yourself posted that the effects of low level radiation were controversial.
Click to expand...

They are mostly political, the science is not that hard.

The TSA should have used the millimeter wavelength scanners- those wavelengths are beyond infrared and almost certainly affect tissue about as much as...cell phones!
Click to expand...

Which if you believe other folks who make a living from being an 'expert' on TV cause anything from hairy palms to brain cancer.

All of this aside, one shouldn't be subject to search simply because they choose to travel by commercial air.
Click to expand...

Different discussion.
 
John Baker said:
"Spearing had warned Munson that every time he revealed a cop in a heroic light he was planting another tangling vine in the ever-growing garden of a police state."

From the book of 'OF GOOD AND EVIL' by Ernest K Gann, first published in 1963

John
Click to expand...


We are in a police state. I had to drive to New Jersey to meet with a client. I was pulled over by the NJ State Police at a mandatory checkpoint, and detained. It was for NJ state vehicle inspections, so when they saw my PA tags, and license they let me go. I thought, hey we live in East Germany now. Where is my Trabant? Are my papers in order?

It is scary that we have ALLOWED government to do this to us.
 
Anthony said:
We are in a police state. I had to drive to New Jersey to meet with a client. I was pulled over by the NJ State Police at a mandatory checkpoint, and detained. It was for NJ state vehicle inspections, so when they saw my PA tags, and license they let me go. I thought, hey we live in East Germany now. Where is my Trabant? Are my papers in order?

It is scary that we have ALLOWED government to do this to us.
Click to expand...

You are exactly right, we not only allow it, we vote for it. Our government is us, we the people. We deserve everything we have. The checkpoints, The Patriot Act, ever increasing taxes, out of control government spending, a declining educational standards, a passport to enter our own country, and finally, we have to press 1 if we want to speak English.

John
 
weilke said:
Most of your radiation didn't even make it out of the container your samples were in. Low energy betas go about 5mm in air and next to nothing in solid matter or fluid. Unless you snort the stuff, it's hard to get even a dose off tritium.
Click to expand...
No S***, Sherlock. We still treated it with respect, which is my point. The tritium was in various peptides that could be absorbed if handled improperly. Having no wish to incorporate radioactive amino acids into ourselves or anyone else, we treated the material properly and disposed of it properly too.

weilke said:
A lot of that is simply a paperwork issue. If you want to release isotopes, you have to deal with either the NRC or or their designee agency in the state. If you just put everything into the regulated container, the contractor that picks it up deals with the paperwork before dumping it into his regular commercial trash container ;) .
Click to expand...
No. IIRC, it was transported to a proper site, down in South Carolina someplace IIRC.




weilke said:
They are mostly political, the science is not that hard.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. The science is controversial. I'm familiar with the hormesis theory as well as the linear no-threshold model.

The problem with these models is there are lots of things that cause cancer. It's possible that a cell damaged by radiation or chemically could be damaged again and fail to undergo apoptosis and turn cancerous.

Due to the uncertainties in the models, I merely take the prudent course of not exposing my self to toxic compounds or radiation more than I need to.

How much x-radiation do you consider unsafe in the energy ranged by the TSA.



weilke said:
Which if you believe other folks who make a living from being an 'expert' on TV cause anything from hairy palms to brain cancer.
Click to expand...
Who said I believe it? TeraHertz radiation seems to have a wavelength too long to interact with chemical bonds (IR and shorter wavelengths), and too short to have molecular dipole interactions (as microwaves do) and so would seem to be a better means of this sort of screening



weilke said:
Different discussion.
Click to expand...
Nope. Falls under the rights of the people. The TSA could have used a different technology but chose not to do so.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
No. IIRC, it was transported to a proper site, down in South Carolina someplace IIRC.
Click to expand...

So it went into the commercial trash in south carolina then. The contractor checked it for residual activity after the weeklong transfer from your facility, found none, determined that based on the isotopes you were reporting there were no bad actors in the batch and put it in his regular commercial waste bin. Just because you put something into the monitored waste bin doesn't mean it gets glassed in and put into a salt-mine.

Wrong again. The science is controversial. I'm familiar with the hormesis theory as well as the linear no-threshold model.
Click to expand...
Threshold no-threshold is a religious decision. Do you believe in angels or not.

Below 100 mSv deep dose, there is really very little hard science.

The problem with these models is there are lots of things that cause cancer. It's possible that a cell damaged by radiation or chemically could be damaged again and fail to undergo apoptosis and turn cancerous.
Click to expand...
Every day, cells do that in your body, radiation, no radiation, high fructose corn syrup, smoked bacon to link a particular event or agent is near impossible.

How much x-radiation do you consider unsafe in the energy ranged by the TSA.
Click to expand...
Shallow dose limit for occupational exposure is 500 mSv.
TSA backscatter scanner: 0.0000146 mSv

Who said I believe it? TeraHertz radiation seems to have a wavelength too long to interact with chemical bonds (IR and shorter wavelengths), and too short to have molecular dipole interactions (as microwaves do) and so would seem to be a better means of this sort of screening
Click to expand...
That's all just science mumbo-jumbo ;) . I do know that microwaves can cook my food, how do we know whether microwave exposure has a threshold below which it is safe or whether we have to assume a no threshold model ?


Nope. Falls under the rights of the people. The TSA could have used a different technology but chose not to do so.
Click to expand...
The discussion about the legal and civil liberties aspects of the scanners is a very different one from the science of whether 'the x-ray risks are real'. In the legal arena, it's a lot easier to make absolute determinations.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the x-ray risks from these things are worth caring about. At all.
 
weilke said:
I do know that microwaves can cook my food, how do we know whether microwave exposure has a threshold below which it is safe or whether we have to assume a no threshold model ?
Click to expand...
You answer this question by understanding the science mumbo-jumbo. As radiation from your microwave oven simply rotates molecules, doses where you aren't heating tissue are benign.

weilke said:
That's all just science mumbo-jumbo ;)
Click to expand...
And that pretty much sums up your arguments here.
 
Last edited:
OK, get out your tinfoil jock straps! Or better yet lead lined!
 
John Baker said:
It is not the x-ray, it's the principal of it.

John
Click to expand...
It's the principal, AND the x-rays. Absolutely. The article I linked to was written by foremost experts in the field, there's no doubt in the medical community that these are dangerous (and potentially much more dangerous than that even because they aren't operated by people who have any sort of training - unlike in a hospital setting), and the only people saying "I don't care" are people who either don't care for their health OR don't understand what they are talking about.

Ignorance makes me sad :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top