How X-Ray Scanners Became Mandatory In US Airports 264
OverTheGeicoE writes "ProPublica has a story on how x-ray scanners became the controversial yet mandatory security fixtures we in the US must now endure. The story title, 'U.S. Government Glossed Over Cancer Concerns As It Rolled Out Airport X-Ray Scanners,' summarizes a substantial part of the article, but not all of it. The story also describes how government attitudes about the scanners went from overwhelmingly negative in the early 1990s to the naive optimism we see today. How did this change occur? The government weakened its regulatory structure for radiation safety in electronic devices, and left defining safety standards to an ANSI committee dominated by scanner producers and users (prison and customs officials). Even after 9/11 there was still great mistrust of x-ray scanners, but nine years of lobbying from scanner manufacturers, panic over failed terrorist attacks, and pressure from legislators advancing businesses in their own districts eventually forced the devices into the airports. The article estimates that 6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused by the x-ray scanners."
It was a lobby, and some panic... what a surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason why there are scanners: not because there is an actual need, or statistics that say so, or science or anything objective.
It was a result of panic and greed.
Just like the rest of that War on Terror.
That's a good tradeoff (Score:5, Insightful)
So, 100 people a year could get a death sentence from a system that has yet to save a single life? That makes as much sense as anything else this government does.
Tourism (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess I just won't ever go on holiday to the US again then. Problem solved!
On a more serious note, as an existing radiation worker in the health industry, I personally object to being exposed to this which I see as completely unnecessary on health grounds
The TL;DR version. (Score:5, Insightful)
6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, more people will die from exposure to the scanners than would have died from the supposed terrorist attacks they 'protect' us from. And why? Money of course, that is what runs this country (into the ground).
Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! (Score:4, Insightful)
ok. 100 people a year. 10 years. I sincerely doubt the "terrorists" could kill 1000 people in 10 years on US soil.
...Except when they killed almost 3000 in one day...
Yep .. they sure did kill 3000 in one day. However the preventative measures to stop them doing this again seems to be killing more that 300 people a year through increased road traffic (and hence car crashes) and (as reported in this article - although this is not news) another 100 or so a year from cancer.
Terrorism is not something you can eradicate (especially if your foreign policy is to continually piss people off), so combatting it is always going to be a trade off/balance between how much hurt you can accept from the terrorists vs how much hurt you will inflict on your own people in the name of "protecting" them.
In this case I find it strange that the solution to stopping the terrorists from killing off US citizens is to institute policies that effectively cause the US government to kill off even more citizens than the terrorists have.
Re:I wish they would do the obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
I was told by a Muslim that the actual ruling in the Koran is that you should not "allow alcohol to rule you". His interpretation was that he should not get drunk, and was quite happy to drink a single beer.
Re:The TL;DR version. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that's not correct: It was raw, unmitigated corruption.
Or did you think it was an accident that then-DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, in charge of DHS when they made the decision to use the scanners, just happened to have a financial interest in the company that makes the scanners?
Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... (Score:3, Insightful)
The US is not filled with terrorists at every corner, just waiting for us to relax airport security so they have a chance to blow up as many Americans as possible. You've fallen into the fear.
Ignoring the fact that there are still ways to get a bomb past security despite these scanners, here's a list of places where you could kill more people, with less security, by blowing up a bomb there instead of on a plane:
Pro Sports Event
Mall
Large classroom auditorium
Popular (i.e. rivalry) High School Sports Event
Concerts
Conventions
etc...
Why have there been no terrorist attacks in these places? Oh yeah, because the number of terrorists in America willing and able to blow themselves up in one of these locations is so incredibly small that we are actively killing more Americans using this technology than they could ever hope to achieve.
Re:Airport security is a farce (Score:4, Insightful)
why bother bringing the plane down when there are large lines of people waiting in line to go through the security checkpoint that are all vulnerable to attack
Because terrorists want western society to become a police state, or dictatorship, or whatever isn't free. Their goal is to incite fear of freedom, and to make society beg their government to make them less free (in exchange, of course, for something like security).
Re:I wish they would do the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
You do understand that since the TSA is searching for the rogue bottle of water or shampoo that is 3.1 oz instead of 3 oz they are letting guns, knives, and who knows what else through the checkpoints. You do understand there are multiple paths to get nefarious things on an airplane. You do realize that the passengers on the plane no longer believe that compliance is the proper response and will deal with threats onboard such as the shoe and underwear bombers.
The TSA ensuring your "safety" is an illusion. If you believe it, then good for you - Santa still comes down the chimney and eats the cookies you left out. The TSA is security theater -- it looks like they are busy doing useful things, but in the end it is all an act.
Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, but if we didn't have scanners and it was fairly trivial to get through security, they number would skyrocket.
That's your fear talking. These scanners have only been in place a few years. It's not like there were frequent attacks before that. So what are they preventing? All of this hysteria is caused by our reaction to a singular event over a decade ago; an event these scanners would not have prevented.
Re:I wish they would do the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
About four years ago I went on a business trip. My then-wife had given me a small medallion with a chinese symbol on it. I could SEE when the cunt checked me in at the counter she noticed this medallion with a "funny foreign symbol on it" and lo and behold I was selected for a pat-down at security.
And as far as I know the cargo area of my plane was wide open to whoever the fuck wanted to get in there. That's my beef. This security theater shit is old. I did not have to take off my shoes in China or South Korea when boarding a plane (something I did 7 times in 10 days on a trip just a couple years back). It's all a sham.
We've been talked out of our privacy, our rights, and our dignity and now the elite of the world giggle and profit as we are made to parade naked in front of them like fucking zoo animals. Fuck them in the ear.
Re:6 to 100 cancers per year will be caused... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, but if we didn't have scanners and it was fairly trivial to get through security, the number would skyrocket.
That's provably false.
No terrorist sees the security at airports and says, "Oh well, I'll just give up, go home and play xbox."
Instead he looks for another target that is less well defended and hits that instead.
So why haven't the number of attacks on other targets - like movie theaters and shopping malls or even just sabotage on unguarded train tracks - skyrocketed? The number of such attacks in the last decade is so small that you can count them on one hand with fingers to spare.
Re:Point gun at foot. SHOOT! (Score:5, Insightful)
ok. 100 people a year. 10 years. I sincerely doubt the "terrorists" could kill 1000 people in 10 years on US soil.
...Except when they killed almost 3000 in one day...
So what?
And before you say I'm being flip or callous, remember this: more than that die every month from lack of medical care. Or this: more than 3000 died on 9/11 from cancer and heart/lung disease. There's no national day of mourning for the 9/11 victims of disease. Or the 9/10 victims. Or the 9/12 victims. And so on.
The only thing that makes the 3000 terror victims special was that they were concentrated in just a few places where large scale acts of vandalism took place. The others had the common decency not to bother the general population by passing away in houses, hospitals, nursing homes and on the street.
Go ahead, take a look at the National Vital Health Statistics and see what kills Americans. Pick any number you can imagine dying every year from terrorism and see what trivial thing beats it. 3000 a year? Peptic ulcers. 5000? Anemia. 20,000? Parkinson's. 45,000? Motor vehicle accidents. 75,000? Alzheimer's.
So in the 11 years since 9/11, including 2001, what's the average deaths by terrorism? Under 300, right? (And that's low because of my terror-repellent rock). That's about the same number as deaths among Eskimo and Native American women in "transport accidents."
My point? We're spending way too much time, causing way to much inconvenience, sacrificing too many liberties, and frankly being way to scared of one thing, when there are far better ways to spend our time, money, national soul, and global reputation on. We've ruined the country all in the cause of innumeracy.
Re:Airport security is a farce (Score:4, Insightful)
Because terrorists want western society to become a police state, or dictatorship, or whatever isn't free. Their goal is to incite fear of freedom,
Bullshit. Al-qaeda et al, don't care what kind of government you have at home. You're all infidels, you're going to hell regardless. They want to influence your policy in the Middle East. Either simply to make you butt out and let them install fundamentalist governments; or to provoke you into such violent overreactions that you are thrown out by your former allies. That's what they want, they don't give a fuck about you and your civil rights either way. Just getting your army out of their way is their aim.
Sure, after that they'd like to convert the whole world to Islam, by the sword if necessary, but that's for the next generation.
Re:That's a good tradeoff (Score:3, Insightful)
They are also required to be enclosed in lead lined rooms, with leaded glass, and use lead lined doors and door frames. This is to protect the radiologic technologist, the radiologist, and patients in surrounding corridors and rooms. When anyone must be present in a room when the HE photon gun is activated, they are required to wear full body leaded gowns, and neck collars to protect the thyroid. Patients are also provided shields to cover the torso or thyroid when that region is not being scanned. This is particularly important for women, as female zygotes 100% present from birth, unlike male zygotes which are fully regenerated about every 15 days. Hospital workers are required to be licensed by the state health board in order to operate the machinery, as it is up to the operator to ensure that overexposure does not occur. Many boards require yearly continuing education to maintain the license as well.
In the airport the machines are in open air rooms, with the majority of the TSA staff standing with in 10 meters of the system. There is no shielding for the TSA employees or other airport workers near by. Compare that to the baggage scanner that is completely enclosed in lead, and has leaded curtains at both the entry and exit of the machine. I'm fairly certain that none of the TSA FBS operators are licensed by state health boards.