New Documents Raise More Questions About Safety Of TSA Scanners
from the of-course-they-do... dept
Last year, we noted that the TSA appeared to be misleading the public in stating that its new more intrusive scanners were safe. This didn't mean that the machines weren't safe -- but that the TSA was, at the very least, massively exaggerating the claims that they had scientific support to say that the machines definitely were safe. Earlier this year, there were further worries, when reports came out showing that some of the machines were giving off much more radiation than they were supposed to.Now, EPIC, which is in an ongoing lawsuit to try to get these scanners banned, is claiming that via a FOIA request, they have new evidence that the TSA has been misleading people about the risks of the scanners. The documents show that Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano blatantly misrepresented a NIST study in a USA Today OpEd, to claim that the scanners were safe. NIST, however, quickly contacted DHS, saying that it was "concerned" about the piece misrepresenting what it had said:
- NIST does not do product testing
- NIST did not test AIT machines for safety
- NIST measured the dose of a single machine and compared it against the standard
Separately, another document shows that TSA employees in Boston raised serious concerns to officials, claiming that there was evidence of a "cancer cluster" among TSA agents in Boston. The union asked the TSA to provide agents with dosimeters that could be clipped onto uniforms in order to measure the radiation to make sure the machines were safe. Agents in Atlanta apparently also expressed concerns and asked for dosimeters. The TSA refused, noting that it was already running some tests, and the tests showed no radiation problems.
This document is receiving a lot of attention, but I don't find it quite as damning as most. People just claiming that they believe there's a heightened cancer risk is not really evidence or fact. It would be more interesting if there was actual data to support that, rather than just anecdotal evidence. Still, I think it's becoming increasingly clear that the TSA, at the very least, exaggerated the claims of how much scientific support there is that these machines are safe. That's the part that bugs me. They could easily allow for much more testing of the machines, but don't seem that interested in it, preferring instead to mislead the public, a la Napolitano interview.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
standard third party issue
A neutral party (such as NIST), is asked to test a single product, and then the company who takes the results tells everyone the product is safe/certified/etc.
Even if the single product results were 100% safe, they aren't representative of the product since NIST obviously cannot verify from a single test that every one of these scanners is the same as they one they tested OR, additionally, that it's even the same as far as "safety" is concerned.
So I wouldn't consider this negligence, this is a: major budget cuts (single test is much cheaper than safety certification), and b: general idiocy.
Why Napolitano would want to fight for the TSA anyway is the what I would like to know. It pretty much shows a general lack of willingness to improve or even look at an obviously screwed up process, aka a bad manager/bad employee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: standard third party issue
You also have to add into this, TSA needs to look like it's doing something against terrorism. As time goes by, they make themselves more and more redundant with a lot of bureaucratic mistakes that are unnecessary on the taxpayer's dime. I doubt they'll go away but I'm sure if there were an oversight community that looked at the internal affairs of each federal bureacracy (say... the GAO) for accuracies and inaccuracies, we wouldn't need as much worry about the large disconnect between the leaders (Napolitano, Pistole, Morton) and the agents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/06/man-from-nigeria-flies-to-lax-without-valid- boarding-pass-and-identification.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is no reason for this guy to be on the plane. He probably got there because Marcus and Dark Helmet were in line moaning to security about the machines and all that, making a fuss, and making is possible for this guy to get past the frustrated security people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's clear that we are going to have to punish all dissenters as terrorist sympathizers. Sometimes fascism is the only way to protect freedom.
Bombings are not hostilities!
Fascism is freedom!
Copyright is knowledge!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fascism is not hostilities!
Copyright is freedom!
Bombings are knowledge!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
My power is growing....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really when he said there was no radiation that I just gave him and incredulous look until he started to put new gloves on. 5 days in vegas had left me too mentally weak (its not that strong normally) to even understand the weight of his comment. But its nice to know that the TSA employees are either grossly misinformed or happy to lie to people with valid health concerns just so they don't heft to heft a coinpurse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is why I'm getting my tshirt from a silkscreener that proudly proclaims on the chest:
"I'm extremely gay for the TSA"
Is there some law against moaning softly while being checked for scrotum-bombs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When they finish, make sure to ask them if they can do it just a little bit longer. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now I am not a insecure guy to begin with and in the state I was in at the time I wouldnt have been embarrassed if he asked me to wear my cock like a wristwatch but this guy was not a happy camper. I made a few snide remarks as well and in retrospect I feel a little bad because I know this guy did not want to do this. But I definitely think that my lack of embarrassment in these situations means I should push the issue a bit. This guy didn't want to grope me to begin with and a few comments insinuating he is gay/i'm enjoying it certainly don't make him feel any better about what he is asked to do to make a living. Eventually maybe enough employees will complain/quit/strike that they can't fill these spots. Or they will fill them with guys who like touching balls which might get some conservative/religious/republican groups a little more involved in this issue.
Imagine some uptight senator getting patted down by a guy in a pink shirt with a rainbow belt, a lisp, purple gloves with a unicorn logo and frosted tips who lifts his balls and says something like "Im not sure you can carry that package on, we might have to store it in the rear."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I...I just can't mark this funny enough....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wrong.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/21/rep-sharon-cissna-tsa-patdown_n_8258 51.html
anyone who flies commercial aviation gets screened.
If you are special enough to afford your own plane, then you dont get screened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I'm pretty convinced that most uptight Senators are already living in the closet, so this would probably be a fantasy for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, the evidence is the TSA refusing to have the machines tested or provide dosimeters for their employees. The only reason not to do so, is if they already know that the machines aren't safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Last Trip
I just feel bad for the TSA employees. It is an unskilled job so they can be replaced, and I'm pretty sure they are prevented from striking by law (correct me if I'm wrong)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My Last Trip
I was thinking the same thing but it appears not:
http://www.google.com/search?q=tsa+strike&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:e n-US:official&client=firefox-a
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My Last Trip
we can seek union representation, but officially if we strike we are fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My Last Trip
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are the mice
You know how you get data? You nuke a bunch of mice and see what happens. The sad fact is, we are the mice. So there will be no data for many, many years when it will be to late for much of us, the mice.
Go back and search your other posts here, but I said it first, the medical community does not police themselves well with CAT scans after decades of use so there is no way in HELL the TSA is going to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/naked-scanners-afghanistan/?utm_source=feedb urner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+ 2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The TSA's ionizing radiation is safe, free range and green unlike other brands
When the desired radiation is intended to be absorbed within the skin, it is not the same as radiation exposure that goes through your body without being absorbed (like during the flight, otherwise if all radiation being equal, we'd wear lead clothing everywhere). It is just dishonest how they present the risks. And being "safe" does not mean there are risks, it just means the risks of the machine harming someone that's not the TSA are acceptable. Honestly I think it would be a simple conclusion that what I find an unacceptable risk for myself is a perfectly acceptable risk for a stranger to take. With that in mind, why should I trust them again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much is a dosimeter badge?
Find some willing TSA agents, give them badges, record the results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much is a dosimeter badge?
call for price is never a good sign
but a google:shopping search for dosimeter gives prices between 200$ and a few thousand, I have no idea what price point you start to get into reliable/good ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How much is a dosimeter badge?
maybe I should start a kickstarter...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How much is a dosimeter badge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How much is a dosimeter badge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much is a dosimeter badge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much is a dosimeter badge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just means.....
From here on out, I drive. (actually, already drove a 4487 mile trip last month)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and for an extra bonus you will get irradiated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cancer can take years
But the x-ray body scanners haven't been used long enough to result in cancers in TSA employees, have they? It would seem to me that if there is a problem with exposure, it would likely have come from the luggage scanners, which have been used for years and, if not properly shielded, might have exposed people sitting next to them day-after-day, year-after-year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSA scanners
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TSA scanners
There are services selling seats on private planes, so it is being done now.
As for terrorists on private planes, sure, they could do it, but they wouldn't be risking the lives of hundreds of people on the plane like they would with a commercial airliner. As for terrorists using private planes to blow up buildings rather than passengers, yes, it could be done, but it is one step removed from blowing up a plane full of people while trying to blow up a building.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scanning
A big waste of money from a big bureaucratic government.
They should stick to what works best...pat downs and profiling!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]