TSA Puts Off Safety Study of X-ray Body Scanners 233
zokuga writes "ProPublica reports that the TSA is backing off a previous promise to conduct a new independent study of X-ray body scanners used at airport security lanes around the country. Earlier this month, an investigation found that TSA had glossed over research about the risks from the X-rays."
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
We wouldn't want them to figure out that the scanners are hazardous until the contract to buy all those scanners has been fulfilled. You just know that some lucky contractor will make boatloads off of this.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Interesting)
We wouldn't want them to figure out that the scanners are hazardous until the contract to buy all those scanners has been fulfilled. You just know that some lucky contractor will make boatloads off of this.
Not to mention all those happy cancer clinics, eh? eh?
We've known for decades that every X-Ray you undergo incrementally increases your odds of a malignancy.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Funny)
People call me malignant all the time and I hardly ever get X-rayed.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Interesting)
Just like the scanners in the first place, who wants to bet that the lucky contractor also has financial ties to someone currently or formerly in a position of authority at the TSA or Dept. of Homeland Security?
Re:Of course (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yeah, and who does consulting for Rapiscan (the people who sell these things)? Michael Chertoff! Former DHS secretary who, while in office, said it would be just great if we bought a bunch of these things!
I think they are a little scared because even if the company sells these things, it might not protect them from some giant class-action suit.
Safety? (Score:2)
Re:Safety? (Score:5, Informative)
However her husband fared better: "Pierre Curie died in a street accident in Paris on 19 April 1906. Crossing the busy Rue Dauphine in the rain at the Quai de Conti, he slipped and fell under a heavy horse drawn cart. He died instantly when one of the wheels ran over his head, fracturing his skull."
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm sure your tongue was firmly in cheek: "Curie died in 1934 of aplastic anemia brought on by her years of exposure to radiation."
However her husband fared better: "Pierre Curie died in a street accident in Paris on 19 April 1906. Crossing the busy Rue Dauphine in the rain at the Quai de Conti, he slipped and fell under a heavy horse drawn cart. He died instantly when one of the wheels ran over his head, fracturing his skull."
As morbid as it sounds, his death was probably less painful.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm confused by your argument. Are you saying that radiation wasn't a problem back then because of the dangers of horse drawn carriages? But there are no more horse-drawn carriages (and therefore no threat of being killed in an accident with one). It still seems like we should avoid radiation. ?? Can anyone please explain what this man's argument is?
You're gonna die.
Get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
meanwhile, Europe bans the farking things. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:meanwhile, Europe bans the farking things. (Score:4, Funny)
meanwhile, Europe bans them. A lot smarter than these fools running the US, g*d damn them.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=europe-bans-x-ray-body-scanners [scientificamerican.com]
You must bring that up.
Can't you just quietly eat your hamburger made with a GMO wheat bun and hormone & antibiotic loaded meat?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who bets the TSA's efforts will kill more people from cancer than it saves form terrorism?
Heck, it already kills more people from traffic accidents. (People avoid the TSA by driving instead of flying, driving is less safe than flying, and it adds up.)
Besides, just about every attempted plane hijacking/bombing that's stopped, is stopped by the passengers onboard. The terrorists sneak past security, get ready to set off their bomb on the plane, and then--the passengers maul them.
Re: (Score:2)
Who would take the other side of that bet?
Re:meanwhile, Europe bans the farking things. (Score:4, Interesting)
If the objective were to save lives then the TSA would offer free blood pressure tests at the checkpoint.
Small risk (Score:5, Interesting)
Earlier this month, a ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation found that the TSA had glossed over research that the X-ray scanners could lead to a small number of cancer cases.
Because cancer is clearly not a big deal. From another perspective, I wonder what dosage TSA agents get when they stand around those devices all day. I'm not particularly fond of them, but I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone. And these scanners are probably increasing their chances significantly. I wonder if anyone is up for conducting a large-scale clinical trial to show the low-level employees that these devices are hazardous and that they too should be against them.
Re:Small risk (Score:5, Informative)
>> I wonder if anyone is up for conducting a large-scale clinical trial to show the low-level employees that these devices are hazardous and that they too should be against them.
You mean based on reports like this?
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/06/27/2012226/Cancer-Cluster-Possibly-Found-Among-TSA-Workers [slashdot.org]
Re:Small risk (Score:4)
Yeah, I find it very odd the staff aren't making much more of this. Anywhere else, there's strict regulations about being near radiation emitters. Does the TSA have a union? And if so, why aren't they bashing the door down on this issue?
Next, actual testing? Not a chance, they took the manufacturers own testing as proof it was all ok. Even CATSA does more testing in this regard than the US. They WANT to know the risks, and does it actually do what they're told it'll do instead of lining the guy's pocket who was in charge of purchasing them.
Truly amazing that the profiteering going on here to the detriment of citizens.
Re:Small risk (Score:4)
Truly American that the profiteering going on here to the detriment of citizens.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Truly American that the profiteering going on here to the detriment of citizens.
FTFY.
Cute, but didn't the UK use the totally untested Pandemrix H1N1 w/ special adjuvant vaccinne made by GSK (a UK) company? Of course germany was even more wacked by buying standard vaccinee for the govt officials and Pandemrix for everyone else. Apparently America doesn't have a monopoly on private profiteering to the detriment of citizens... Goverenments of the world unite ;^)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, the TSA is currently conducting a large-scale study of the cancer risk involved in standing next to x-ray scanners all day. We expect results in a few decades, maybe sooner.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the TSA is currently conducting a large-scale study of the cancer risk involved in standing next to x-ray scanners all day. We expect results in a few decades, maybe sooner.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what it would take. The machines likely do spill some radiation, but it's going to rather low. Not Madame-Curie-glows-in-the-Dark levels. This takes years of following people and is very, very difficult to do well. From what I've seen of TSA front line troops, it's not exactly a career move so people will be moving in and out of exposures and therefore risks, people move between airports and therefore scanners making it even harder. People move and don't follow up on ema
Re:Small risk (Score:5, Insightful)
Ain't it great?
- you get to pay for the useless clusterfuck that is the TSA.
- in 20 years you get to pay for the cancer settlement arranged with the TSA union.
- By then, I'm sure we'll have socialized medicine... so you get to pay for their care.
I'm a contractor, so I understand fully how the government gets paid to fuck-up, and then gets paid again to fix the fuck-up.
Re: (Score:2)
Because cancer is clearly not a big deal.
And yet, it's a larger threat than airliner terrorism.
Re: (Score:3)
For what it's worth, someone is still studying the truck drivers that go through ports at least, and those seem to be the hardest hit by back-scatter X-ray scanners. Some truckers can get their entire cargo and truck scanned (themselves included) up to ten times a day.
And those scanners seem to be lot more powerful than the ones at the airport because they don't just see through clothes, they see through steel and cargo containers. Also many truckers are independent, this means many have to pay for their ow
This is what happens... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Note that the CIA is not allowed to operate in the USA. Yes, I know that it does anyway. It is, nonetheless illegal.
Note also that the National Guard is neither trained nor equipped (nor sufficiently manned) to handle internal security.
That said, we have plenty of normal police plus the FBI to handle that sort of thing.
And THAT said, the Department of Homeland Security is nothing more than a coordination office between the
Re: (Score:3)
Right. That is what atari2600a said; we already have a department that is neither trained nor equipped to handle international security, so the DHS is redundant ;-)
Shocking (Score:5, Informative)
I'll have to find some sources, but didn't they refuse to allow the TSA employees to wear radiation exposure badges or something like that? (To determine if they were being over exposed)
They probably don't need to do any studies on if the scanners are safe or not, seems like they already know the answer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Shocking (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll have to find some sources, but didn't they refuse to allow the TSA employees to wear radiation exposure badges or something like that?
If airport personnel starts wearing radiation exposure badges the number of travelers will drop down to 1% (if not 0.1%) of what it was before.
TSA wants to banish the thought that anything dangerous might be occurring in those booths. Because of that no outward signs of such danger will be ever allowed. TSA drones will be gladly sacrificed.
Give me the security I traded my privacy for (Score:5, Insightful)
Weren't these scanners put in place for safety reasons? I.E. protecting people from harmful terrorists? Why do they want to protect us from harmful terrorists and not harmful cancers?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very disingenuous claim by the gun lobby. WHO is focussing on Children? YOU are.
In fact accidental drowning is responsible for about 1 death per 100,000 people in the US. Not just swimming pools, but all forms of drowning.
Whereas firearms are responsible for about 15 per 100,000.
The only way you can make the stat work to make swimming pools look more dangerous than guns is by ignoring all deaths but children's deaths. And then blaming the other side for the fact that you did it.
Here's a couple of
Re: (Score:2)
The only way you can make the stat work to make swimming pools look more dangerous than guns is by ignoring all deaths but children's deaths. And then blaming the other side for the fact that you did it
I've heard people say, it's worth if if it saves one child. It is an argument that is used and focused on. Even outside of political arguments, most parents are more afraid of their kids being shot than drowning because the former is more shocking. Children are both much more likely to drown and much less likely to be fatally shot that the general population. Comparisons however are not disingenuous because if the arguments are made about children, so the relevant statistics are those specifically about chi
Re: (Score:2)
I would have fewer objections if you were willing to start with the police and army.
I come from England. Our police are mostly unarmed and I hope it stays that way. And I don't think war is a good thing so I'm quite happy to see the military shrunk and/or disarmed.
Why should the majority give up their most effective defense against that minority?
Again from the perspective of England, it doesn't look like your ownership of firearms has helped you one bit. Quite the contrary in fact. It looks rather like a mental patient who thinks repeatedly banging his head against a wall is going to make him feel better.
Re: (Score:2)
so I'm quite happy to see the military shrunk and/or disarmed.
Which is ideal, but in the meantime the world is as it is.
it doesn't look like your ownership of firearms has helped you one bit.
Oh dear, firearm ownership is not the only thing that affects crime. It is only a single factor which deters it and obviously not a panacea. Look up Homicide statistics per state. It carries from over 20 per capita in D.C, to less than one in New Hampshire. Demographics and social attitudes towards violence have a larger effect.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course there are many factors that vary the rate. You should take a good, long, hard look at yourselves. The richest country in the world, yet other than a few banana republics, the one with the highest per cap gun deaths.
From inside the US, it's probably difficult to see why your country is different in that way. From the outside, where we haven't had your culture trained into us from birth, it's very easy to see. The two, huge, glaring reasons are:
1) You have huge social inequality.
2) You have a unique
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Purchasing requirements should have had limits. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why were the radiation levels not a purchasing requirement? I would expect any radiation unit to have the exposure level very clearly identified.
Either specify that all units supplied must be under a maximum exposure (at all points in their operating life) set by the TSA or the supplier is liable.
Or the supplier can specify an exposure level when delivering the unit and the TSA can decide to accept or decline the purpose.
In either case the design limit should be easily available. And publishable as a start.
If the design limit is not available, then on what criteria where the purchases authorized and who authorized the purchases without strict exposure limits. Because it would just be sheer stupidity to operate like that. (Of couse I expect a governemnt agencey to be operating within the stupidity realm).
Re:Purchasing requirements should have had limits. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this was not a program put in place to increase traveler safety.
This was a program put in place to shove money into the pockets of Michael Chertoff, the former head of the DHS. [gawker.com] It is doing remarkably well at that, and the TSA is appropriately doing its damnedest to cover for the fact that they owe their existence to a scumbag with a horrible conflict of interest who is continues to take this country for a ride.
I'd spit in this man's face if I met him in person.
Re:Purchasing requirements should have had limits. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why were the radiation levels not a purchasing requirement?
The point is that ANY ionizing radiation increases the risk of cancer, and therefore, statistically speaking, over a large population these scanners WILL kill people, its just a matter of how many lives are we willing to sacrifice for the facade of security.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine the incremental risk is negligible next to the radiation I've voluntarily exposed myself to over the years. But the benefit is pretty negligible too, because I don't mind a pat-down. So when I see the square x-ray boxes, I opt out--but I'll take a microwave scan (curved box)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Choose yer poison (Score:2)
Cancer risk, or terrorism... I mean, what's the harm in increasing - hypothetically, of course; they haven't proven it yet - a person's cancer risk when compared with the risk that, by not scanning everything and everyone, a terrorist will get on the plane and, absolutely, positively, undeniably cause that plane to crash into the building that causes the most deaths and financial damage?
Let's be reasonable, people... /snark
This might shock you, but... (Score:3)
These body scanners are on one end, having nothing is the other. I'd prefer something in the middle.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...There is such a thing as a middle ground. These body scanners are on one end, having nothing is the other. I'd prefer something in the middle.
Hire Israeli airport guards instead.
Re: (Score:3)
a terrorist will get on the plane and, absolutely, positively, undeniably cause that plane to crash into the building that causes the most deaths and financial damage?
Or light their underpants on fire.......
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely certain to crash the plane eh? Maybe you missed it when the last two people to get a bomb on a plane epic failed. Just getting a device past security is not enough you also need to have a device that works, which is harder that we thought
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, if you were chuck norris, you wouldn't need the pocketknife. You'd just stare down the plane.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the formula is different when you choose for a population than when you choose as a member of the population.
As a member of the flying public, your considerations are dominated by two very immediate things: the indignity of being scanned or the indignity of being patted down. And because you *must* submit to one or the other, these certainties are likely to be more meaningful to you than any remote improbability, like being on a plane that is hijacked or receiving a cancer-causing mutation from the sc
Re: (Score:2)
The other ingredient in a risk assessment is comparing the expectation value of deaths from terrorism with and without the scanners.
Is there any reason to believe that scanners reduce the risk of terrorism? Israeli aviation security expert Rafi Sela called them "useless".
Re: (Score:3)
And if you sum up the number of hours wasted in the lines (or with the recommended 3 hours ahead of time, instead of a more reasonable 5 minutes + however long it would take to walk from your car to the gate), in aggregate you're killing the time equivalent of many lifetimes. People don't have to die for your actions to add up to to tremendous losses....
I fly for business about every other week (Score:5, Informative)
And yet in all the months I've been running into these damn X-ray machines, I think I've only seen one other person opt out in favor of a pat down/groping session.
The rest of this country seems to be full of sheep.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Speak for yourself. I've opted for the pat down twice and have seen others do so. It will delay for about 3-5 extra minutes total, maybe less if they have the extra officer nearby. Despite all the hype about rubber gloves and cavity searches it's quite tame and reasonable. Unless you are in severe danger of missing your plane try it, you'll feel better about the small moral victory and the hassle is minimal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This would actually be a good poll question for /.
I opt out of the X-Ray machines at the airport:
1) Always
2) Never
3) When I am not in a hurry
4) When I am not wearing underwear
5) I live in a country where we don't use these useless, cancer causing, pseudo strip searching machines.
Friendly er, service... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's odd... I opt out and when I do the TSA employees are very, very helpful and friendly. I know that they have a strict script to stick to, but I also get the impression that they are not all that happy about the exposure risk, and are happy when others recognize the risks as well.
My niece flies a lot for work - like 2-4x a month. She always opts out, especially once she got pregnant. She said that many times the agents gave her shit for opting out, even when she told them she was pregnant. Funny thing about that, she's a model, I'd expect many agents would enjoy giving her a grope-job.
Re: (Score:2)
I opted out at PHX recently, they made a big deal out of making us stand to one side and calling out on their radios for agents to come and do a pat down. While we waited he insisted they were safe blah blah blah. My objection is more political/war profiteering than health risk so I just ignored him and didn't bother trying to engage in conversation.
Anyway after the pat down was done I realized that not only had we bypassed the silly x-ray machine but we had also bypassed the standard metal detector.
Yay sec
The science experiment is on the passengers (Score:5, Interesting)
And the theoretical safe levels would only apply if these machines are set up properly. There have been cases where xray machines have been mis-calibrated and put out much higher levels than were safe. And that was in a medical facility dedicated to safety.
Of course I am sure that the TSA calibration records and maintenance records are a matter of public record on these powerful sources of radiation, and that scientists have been allowed access to these machines to confirm the governments assurances... They aren't? And they haven't?
Science is not about taking someone in powers word for the truth, it is about confirming the truth independently. It is inconceivable to me that these machines were deployed without any independent testing and with complete secrecy about dosage, calibration and maintenance records. It stinks and it stinks bad.
Only time will tell how deadly these machines are. I will bet anyone a crisp clean hundred dollar bill that these machines are at a minimum 3 orders of magnitude more harmful than the government is admitting (6,000 deaths from cancer). I am hoping they are no more harmful than 4 orders of magnitude more harmful (60,000 deaths from cancer) but fear 6+ orders of magnitude more harm (600,000 additional deaths from cancer).
But is anyone else worried that even at the levels the government admitted to that they are willing to kill 6 Americans with cancer for security theater?
Re:The science experiment is on the passengers (Score:5, Informative)
Of course I am sure that the TSA calibration records and maintenance records are a matter of public record on these powerful sources of radiation, and that scientists have been allowed access to these machines to confirm the governments assurances... They aren't? And they haven't?
They don't need to be public record. They just have to be followed like every other x ray emitting device which are regulated by the states. You want to put an x ray machine in your office? Fine, put it in then call the state radiation physicist before you light it up. They come out and check it to make sure the public is safe (you're on your own).
Guess what doesn't happen since the airports are considered federal enclaves?
Re: (Score:2)
However... the x-ray machine in a private office is only ever aimed at customers of that office. As a customer, I could demand the calibration records, or refuse my business. Maybe they show them, maybe they don't (they probably do...and tell the story of the oddball for years)... but the point is.... these are aimed at the public. They stand in the way of using a publicly available transportation resource.
As such, I think that is a strong case for making the records public.
news flash (Score:3)
Questionable agency with questionable methods disapproves of mandate to test the questionable efficacy and questionable safety of their questionable equipment.
Seriously, is this a surprise? The public support for the intrusiveness of the tsa is dwindling rapidly, and a bombshell like "airport and transit station scanners linked with cancer" would set fire to that particularly nasty powderkeg.
Of course they want to ostritch headplant and hum to themselves rather than operate reputably! Their entire operation is a farce all the way down!
We're all black conscripts now (Score:2)
Back in the days of Tuskeege, the government thought it only get away with conducting deadly experiments on blacks. Later it figured it could get away with doing it to conscripted troops.
Now it has no problem doing it to us all.
Re: (Score:2)
Where can I buy a Dosimeter? (Score:3)
Repost cuz I can't stand being a coward:
Why is it that I can't just put one in my pocket and go through the machine to find out?
You know, For Science!
Re:Where can I buy a Dosimeter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly... I think someone needs to talk to some hospital workers. Any hospital could easily help with this, and could probably be convinced to do it for cost just for the fact that this really is a public service to test. Even if not, there are a lot of people in healthcare who need to wear them, so theres many options there.
My mother wore a dosimeter for years. She was an x-ray tech and was told on her first day of training "By choosing this job, you are taking 10 years off your life". Thats probably less true now. Hers was just a piece of film in a plastic case. Every once in a while they get collected and developed. Cumulative dose over time is measured and sometimes resulted in some extra mandatory vacation. um... w00t? :/
Sure its simple, you can make one, or buy them, but, having them processed by someone who is competent to do it, and can stand by their results is key for something like this. If someone at the local Hospital radiology department wanted to help, they could put this issue to rest... without much problem. Anybody can claim numbers on a device, anybody can say they developed their own film and calculated the dose.... but people who do it every day can give you results that are harder to ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you probably need to get both inside and outside measurements... if you could get a TSA worker by the machine to wear one in their pocket for a few weeks, that would be a very useful measurement.
Re: (Score:2)
Check out the Google app market for the Hotray Radiation counter or the web site:
www.hotray-info.de
Re:Where can I buy a Dosimeter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem is, that's a very unscientific way to measure the radiation dose and very inaccurate.
The main problem with determining dose to the body from ionizing radiation is that different tissues and organs of the body absorb radiation in different ways. Additionally, some tissues and organs are more sensitive to cellular damage that could potentially lead to cancer more than others. And finally, the absorption is also heavily dependent on the energy levels and spectra of the radiation itself. Some types of radiation are basically harmless and pass through the body without being absorbed. Other types are heavily absorbed and can lead to health impacts.
Accurate does measurement is challenging and even among experts in the field there are differing opinions how to weight the different measurements and come up with an accurate dose representation that translates into meaningful risk assessment.
As an engineer working in the medical imaging field over 20 years, I'm well versed in radiation safety and the effects of radiation on biological processes. These backscatter machines should have NEVER been put into public use. There is literally zero scientific evidence on their efficacy for intended use and safety for both the operator and subject being scanned. In medical imaging, the doctor makes an assessment of risk vs. benefit when deciding to take an X-ray on the patient. If the benefits outweigh the risks, then the X-ray is justified. The major problem with these scanners is that the risk is unknown due to lack of studies validating the safety of the scanners and the population is being unnecessarily exposed to ionizing radiation without a medical reason to do so. This is purely security theater at its finest. I would never voluntarily submit to being scanned by one of these machines, especially with my background knowledge in radiation. If the US government were to decide that use of these scanners is mandatory, then I would cease all travel to/from/within the US by air. As an American living abroad, the end result is alienation by my own government. I for one am glad that the EU will not allow their use, so I may safely travel by air throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
How much longer are you going to tolerate this in the US? You are marching swiftly towards a completely corporate.fascist.militarist state and nobody seems to notice.
Install one ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Turns Out (Score:2)
Mei Lei (Score:2)
Re:And we're surprised by this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really?
Where's the accountability?
There's accountability and accountability.
Perhaps they're backing down because of the cost - someone wants government spending to be less liberal (Ha!)
OR
Perhaps they're backing down because the cost of revealing the dangers, and thus potential lawsuits, scare them.
Re:And we're surprised by this? (Score:5, Informative)
What cost? Ionizing radiation is bad for you. There, no charge. When there's a benefit, then the risk may be justified, such as in medical applications, but security theater is not a good enough reason for exposing people to ionizing radiation.
Re:And we're surprised by this? (Score:5, Informative)
What cost? Ionizing radiation is bad for you. There, no charge. When there's a benefit, then the risk may be justified, such as in medical applications, but security theater is not a good enough reason for exposing people to ionizing radiation.
Preaching to the choir, AC.
I underwent Radiation Therapy for 6 weeks after having a malignant tumor removed. My doctors, ever since, have tried to minimize how frequently I have X-Rays taken, opting for MagRes or Ultrasound to check things. I feel I've been baked and now must be wary.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of charge, actually. It's ionizing. That means it moves charges around.
Re: (Score:3)
And there is no way I am going to give up power (and thus computers) because then I would be unable to read
Re:And we're surprised by this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Part of this is due to the fact aviation security threats (and operational risks like crashing) can affect people on the ground who never fly. Part is due to the way an aviation problem can make the entire US populace apoplectic for some strange reason. And part is the general authoritarian streak of our government. So I don't think it is unreasonable aviation security is partly subsidized, when most transportation related infrastructure and fuels in the US are massively subsidized as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Incidentally, I flew from Austin to DFW last week, and all the gates I saw were using millimeter wave scanners.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not entirely against all subsidies. There can be externalites that make subsidizing an activity valuable to society as a whole. For example we wouldn't want everyone to move to the cities because life was better and cheaper here, and have no one living in rural communites to help farm and ranch. But we also don
Re: (Score:2)
But this doesn't explain the millions if not billions spent on rural airports that service 2 flights a week
Billions? Millions maybe, if the entire runway is replaced, but billions?
You forget that those smaller airports also serve the communities in other ways than just flying a senator's buddies in to go hunting. Businesses make use of them for transport, air cargo, training of future pilots, search and rescue operations, etc.
There aren't many small airports that service only two flights a week. Certainly not any that have gotten millions of dollars in federal money.
Re: (Score:2)
Air carriers carried insurance for damage to people and property on the ground related to accidents at reasonable rate pre 9/11. A
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Accountability? In Government?
bwahahahahahahahaahaa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
the amount of ionizing radiation they are talking about being covered up " is extremely low, equivalent to the radiation a person would receive in a few minutes of flying"
You gladly put yourself into a hot tub that is heated by a 2 kW electric heater. However you will not be happy if someone takes a hot soldering iron that has only 40W of power and sticks it up your body where it doesn't belong.
Or, you are happy to go to a beach and spend a few hours there. But you won't like it if someone takes a lar
Re: (Score:3)
This demonstrates that talks about "total power" or "total radiation" are misleading.
Really poor analogies. What you are referring to is energy concentrated in a small part of the body as opposed to the whole body. The scanners distribute the energy over the whole body and any breakdown with the scanning mechanism will be immediately evident in the image. Also remember when dealing with total doses on the milli-rem level, it doesn't make much of difference whether the dose occurred during a microsecond or over a day. Starting around 25 rem or so, there is a substantial difference in getting
Re:well... (Score:4, Informative)
What you are referring to is energy concentrated in a small part of the body as opposed to the whole body. The scanners distribute the energy over the whole body
That's not what I read [naturalnews.com]. Most of the energy of the scanner is absorbed by the skin, and the analogy is very much correct. I'm not copying the entire content of that URL here, please go there and have a look - the letter with concerns is written not by a couple of nerds in a basement but by scientists (unless membership in the National Academy of Sciences means nothing.) Let me just cite one small paragraph:
any breakdown with the scanning mechanism will be immediately evident in the image.
That would be of little consolation to you. Let's imagine a real world scenario: the scanning stops - because, for example, someone shoved a blob of chewing gum into the gears. The machine starts working slower, slower and finally stops, with the X-ray beam focused on something totally unimportant, like your eyes or your brain (upper or lower :-) Let's say the interlocks failed and the beam is not shut off.
What would you expect from a team of inept users of this technology? Do you believe they have a clue how the machine works? Do you think they care to know? Maybe there is one geek in the whole TSA, and he is not operating the machines anyway.
The operator sees that the image is bad or incomplete. What do you think will happen? The operator WILL REPEAT THE SCAN - again and again and again, potentially burning raster tattoos into your skin with the X-ray beam. Only after several attempts he will give up. You will not be told what happened. You will be told to go to another machine or you will be molested by hand. You will not know what just occurred, and the TSA will get rid of you as fast as they can (or not, even if they themselves have no idea what they just did to you.) In any case, you will be getting radiation burns on your body within days, and good luck matching this to any specific machine in any specific airport. TSA will tell you that "safety of passengers is #1 concern of TSA and nothing like what happened to you could possibly happen to anyone, you included."