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: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.
This is what happens... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
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: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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
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:meanwhile, Europe bans the farking things. (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: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.
Install one ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.