Cancer Cluster Possibly Found Among TSA Workers 487
OverTheGeicoE writes "TSA employees at Logan International Airport believe they have identified a cancer cluster in their ranks, according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and released by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. They have requested dosimetry to counter 'TSA's improperly non-monitored radiation threat.' So far, at least, they have not received it. The documents also reveal a paper from Johns Hopkins that essentially questions whether it is even safe to stand near an operating scanner, let alone inside one. Also, the National Institute of Standards and Technology says that the Dept. of Homeland Security 'mischaracterized' their work by telling USA Today that NIST affirmed the safety of the scanners when in fact NIST does not do product safety testing and never tested a scanner for safety."
This isnt right (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, Duh. (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if you bought into the bullshit about the scanners being safe (despite little or no testing), doesn't it seem a little obvious that something was up when they wouldn't let TSA employees were those little radiation badges that change color to indicate when you've had too much exposure?
Re:I fly all the time (Score:2, Interesting)
The sad part is most TSA agents are normal people that need a job.
There are other jobs out there. Jobs that produce wealth instead of wastes everyone's time. They might not pay much, or anything at all, but there's always something else they can do.
Re:This isnt right (Score:2, Interesting)
"there is no realistic chance of an effective boycott on air travel."
I call "bullshit". Just don't fly. Tell your boss he can find some flunky to do the flying, 'cause you're not doing it. Tell the family that you'd love to attend the wedding/funeral/whatever, but you can't fly because you're protesting the TSA's conduct. Which family emergency MUST you fly for? Precious few. Your spouse, or your child, has been injured hundreds or thousands of miles from home, and you need to be there, is about the only one I can think of.
JUST DON'T FLY!! If enough people protest in a meaningful manner, the airlines will begin protesting, and the TSA will be curbed like the bitch dogs they are.
Model based science vs evidence based (Score:5, Interesting)
Some decades ago, X-ray machines were common. So common that you could go into a department store and get an X-ray to see how well your new shoes fit. Doctors routinely used continuous X-ray scanners (fluoroscopes) with dosages much higher and for much longer durations.
Once people started to suspect that X-rays could cause cancer, it was straightforward to find out. Not trivial, but straightforward. Follow a lot of people and look for a correlation between exposure and cancer. Lo and behold, there is an effect.
Once the effects were measured we could compare risks. One of the results was that the risk due to undiagnosed dental problems is far greater than the risk of cancer from an X-ray, so dental X-rays are a good trade-off.
Fast forward to modern times and we have scanners. There is no evidence to suggest that these devices are safe, or unsafe. The manufacturer has a *model* of what should happen with the dosages, and the consensus of opinion is that the devices are safe... except that the result is based on the model, not evidence. Pick different assumptions to get a different model and there may be a risk.
Some assumptions about the new technology are: a) The manufacturer is correctly reporting dosage, b) The radiation is blocked by the skin (or in reverse, the effects will concentrate in the skin), c) Exposures below a certain threshold pose no risk (versus, any exposure causes proportional risk)
To put this in perspective, it's instructional to look at the history of MRI machines. Despite the fact that there is no known mechanism for magnetic fields interacting with the body and causing problems (notwithstanding metal implants &c), the FDA cautiously required progressive testing of the machines before they were deployed for common use.
I approve of this sort of thing. It's one thing to believe that magnetic fields have no effect, but it's important to test things out before you try them on, for example, pregnant women.
In summary, there has been no testing of the TSA scanners whatsoever. Their entire claim to safety rests on their belief that they know how the radiation will affect living tissue, but they cannot back that up with evidence.
They are not scientists, and they have side-stepped the normal medical safety certification process that we take for granted.
Scientists make conclusions based on evidence, politicians make conclusions based on models.
Re:I fly all the time (Score:5, Interesting)
There are both x-ray backscatter and active millimeter-wave scanners in use for full-body security imaging. Even before the full-body scanners there were penetrating x-ray scanners in use for luggage, and the mere presence of those machines is worth some amount of dosage monitoring, radiation training, and periodic inspections. I'd demand the same from any machine that could kill (as does OSHA), even if it didn't use invisible death rays to do so -- if I worked inches from a big piece of industrial machinery I'd want to know the safety procedures, maintenance requirements and signs of eminent failure before I started working.
The millimeter-wave machines are probably safe, but it's a new technology and there is some evidence that there's a probabilistic risk of biological damage even without direct ionizing effects, so it's at least worth some study. It's probably not a big enough risk to avoid using it, particularly compared to the known ill effects of x-ray exposure, but given the cost of the machines we could probably divert some cash for a real safety study rather than just hoping.
The x-ray backscatter machines are actually sending out x-rays just like traditional x-ray imagining, but they are reading the reflected/scattered energy rather than the penetrating energy. But that doesn't change your x-ray absorption cross-section, and they rays that don't scatter off your skins are still absorbed someplace in your body or transmitted to the far side, just like in penetrative x-ray imaging.
So the cumulative risk from x-ray backscatter machines is real and verifiable with well-established science. Assuming the doses are as low as the TSA claims the risk is small, but it still exists. However, since there are virtually no controls or validation on either the intensity or the duration of dosage, other than the physical limitations of the machine and its use (i.e. the maximum power output of the x-ray tube, the amount of time you can convince someone to stand in the way of the beam, etc.), it's hard to say that we should trust the TSA on this.
It shouldn't be hard to run these machines safely, but the TSA has expressed in no interest in doing that. It would be trivial to provide cumulative dosage monitoring for the operators (which would indirectly protect travelers as well), and fairly easy/cheap to provide periodic validation of the proper operation of the system. We expect the corner gas station to keep their pumps verifiably calibrated, to monitor their storage tanks for signs of malfunction, to have mitigation procedures in place should there be some sort of failure, and to be strictly liable for most types of failures in their systems -- why isn't the TSA held to the same standard?
/ Also, risk vs. benefit is probably a worthwhile analysis, but even if there is a clear benefit there's no reason the TSA shouldn't have better safety procedures