TSA Claims Naked Scanners Are Safe, But Exaggerated How They Make Sure That's True
from the keeping-you-safe? dept
I've said in the past that of all the complaints with the TSA's naked scanners, the one that initially concerned me the least was the "safety" claims about the x-rays used in the scanners. However, the more I hear, the more questionable it is to believe the TSA's claims that the machines are safe. As a bunch of you sent in over the past few weeks (but which I just had a chance to read through completely), the TSA is being exceptionally misleading when it claims that the machines are harmless, because it includes a little caveat that most people miss which potentially changes everything.That is, it claims that the machines are perfectly safe "when they're working properly." But as AOL's senior public health reporter discovered, "the TSA offers no proof that anyone is checking to see if the machines are 'working properly.'" Well, it pretends to offer proof, in saying that a variety of groups, including the FDA, the US Army, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab and something called the Health Physics Society all work with the TSA to make sure the devices are safe. But, Schreiber contacted all the groups listed and found that it's not what you'd think. Those groups do not make sure that the machines are properly maintained and calibrated. Basically, it sounds like most of these groups tested or examined one or a small number of these machines -- often not the ones actually installed at the airport, to see if, conceptually, the machines are safe. But none of them have anything to do with making sure the machines are maintained and calibrated safely, such that passenger safety is not put at risk. In fact, one of the groups listed -- the Health Physics Society -- noted that the TSA actually refused to provide data that the TSA collects on radiation exposure from the scanners.
So despite the fact that scientists are quite concerned that ill-maintained scanners or mis-calibrated scanners can cause serious health problems for people, it does not appear that the TSA has any serious specific program to guard against this. So, the machines are safe, if they're working properly, but no one's making sure that they're really working properly -- other than the TSA, who doesn't give much details into what's actually being done to make sure that the machines are, in fact, calibrated and maintained properly.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: callibration, safety, scanners, tsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
C'mon just trust us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An hour's worth of background radiation in 15 seconds
Let's draw a parallel to a form of radiation I'm more familiar with - Infrared. How high would the temperature need to be for me to experience an hour's worth of 70 degree IR radiation in 15 seconds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An hour's worth of background radiation in 15 seconds
you do realise that you can make one of these by tweaking standard satellite dish LMBs:
http://hackaday.com/2010/12/03/make-your-own-tsa-naked-scanner/
bring out the tinfoil hats!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not flying
My next trip is to CES, and I'll be driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not flying
Wish I had that option, but I live in Alaska and have to travel to the "lower 48" for business a few times a year. Driving is not an option as it takes about 4 hours to fly to Seattle, and about 2 days to drive there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
if you want to fly, you have to do what they say, get over it.
hell if they dropped the tax brakes on aviation fuel you'd have to be a porn star to afford flying anyway!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think you may be right, I doubt most TSA agents like looking and touching the junk of the same sex.
"if you want to fly, you have to do what they say, get over it."
If I want to fly I must abide by the laws of the land.
Currently the supreme law of the land Prohibits the TSA from searching us without probable cause that can be supported by oath or affirmation.
Wanting to fly on an airplane does not make one a terrorist.
Randomly selecting people for "additional screening" is not probable cause either.
Follow the 4th amendment or repeal it, but do not bend it and twist it in the name of "security"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I've always wondered;
The idea of having same sex pat-downs comes from the idea that it won't be seen as sexual. However, if the person is gay, being felt up by a person of the same sex could be considered sexual contact. Does this mean that gay travelers can request a pat-down/groping from the opposite sex?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
the way i see it you don't _need_ to fly so why should you complain about having to jump through a few hoops when you want to?
the same applies for driving over here. hell the tests cost about �100!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How does the desire to travel by airplane get contrived to mean a search method that has been reserved for people being arrested is reasonable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Everything from the ill named Patriot Act to this illegal search method is turning the western world into the same type of police state nation we're supposedly trying to protect ourselves against.
So many choose to turn their heads and say "Go ahead, search me. I have nothing to hide."regardless of the unreasonable nature of the search. Those of you so willing to relenquish the rights and freedoms so many have fought and died for don't deserve to have them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Medical radiation failures
There was also a whole NYT article on the miscalibration of medical radiation equipment and the very painful and fatal wounds it inflicted on people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Medical radiation failures
I completely agree with you on that.
Take this a step further, do you trust the skills of the TSA agent to be able to identify when the scanner is malfunctioning?
Just the other day they could not find an elusive elder woman. Leaves little faith they can tell when their complex potentially lethal machine is malfunctioning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go back to bed america...
Bill Hicks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The American Choice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The American Choice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cumulative exposure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cumulative exposure
Each TSA agent should be required to go through the scanner once per hour.
We can justify this by claiming that TSA agents might be terrorists so they too need scanned!
If their junk does not fall off after a few years of employment, maybe then I might believe the scanners are safe.
But I will still believe they violate the Constitution.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons ...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Message from our sponsors
Youtube link for your enjoyment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPhLDYVyK5Y
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Message from our sponsors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the Risk for TSA Agents?
Yes some passenders might pass those these machine multiple times per week but the guy standing next to it gets hunderds a day. In any medical imaging (yes those have higher levels) the tech's leave the room to reduce their exposer. But they probably only do a fraction of the imaging that a TSA agent gets exposed to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is the Risk for TSA Agents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it really safe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it really safe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
x-ray, millimeter wave or both?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: x-ray, millimeter wave or both?
It would be nice to see what research and tests both these governing authorities have performed on human tissue to ensure they are safe for general use outside of a laboratory setting. Right now, there's only analogies and very few studies, none of which appear to have FCC, FDA charter. Or peer review, for that matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: x-ray, millimeter wave or both?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: x-ray, millimeter wave or both?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not for Me!
Next attack - shopping centers, schools, cruise ships, sports events, subways, tunnels, buses, airport security lines to name but a few.
We cannot possibly catch every attempt by screening, but we can humiliate millions of people and help bankrupt already hurting commercial aviation companies.
Fire 25,000 TSA clerks, dump the scanners and pat-downs, bring in dogs, and give the saved money to the FBI & CIA, who can actually catch terrorists (maybe).
I, for one, won't fly until this travesty is lifted.
Click on my name for important info!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not for Me!
I don't think that they are. But they weren't very dangerous to begin with, so that doesn't matter to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wusses and idiots.
Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wusses and idiots.
Good point, it is not just the radiation from that single scanner, is the cumulative effects of all those things have that maybe turning aviation on a health risk issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scanners are dangerous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS0UxXDNs4w
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scanners are dangerous
X-ray van
http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=7986
No escaping that I'm afraid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]