Anecdotally, flying yesterday when I went through security I declined the scanner and was simply waved through a regular metal detector. I also did not remove my belt or shoes. Kind of a pre 9/11 screen. 2 months ago at the same airport I got the full-on scrotum poke.
I was a bit jetlagged so I didn't raise my concern quick enough, which I fully admit is my fault.
They basically herded my fiancee and I through the machine without telling us what it was or that we had any option for a pat down. That's what bothers me the most I think. They seem to be ok with subjecting people to this without telling them or presenting them with the choice.
After careful consideration being molested by the state would have been my preferred method of security authentication, given the opportunity.
By eyeballing the graph, it looks as if about 8% of the x-rays emitted are soft. This is interesting, and it is troubling that the TSA was not more clear about this point. Kudos to the author for spotting this.
But some of his conclusions don't make much sense. "With that being said, because the scanners have both a radiation source AND a detector in the front AND back of the person in the scanner, it is actually possible for the hardware to conduct a classic, through-the-body X-ray...So the hardware has the capability to output quite high doses of radiation..."
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. I would expect any backscattering system to have a detector behind the subject for the purposes of calibration, if nothing else.
Overall, nothing he says (apart from the vague speculation above) cuts against the fundamental point of the report: the dose is exceedingly low and is highly unlikely to cause any significant damage.
I'd also like to point out that much like the TSA report, this blog post is "NOT authored by anyone with either a Ph.D. or a M.D., raising serious concerns of the extent of the expertise of the individual". (Not that this should matter, but the OP seems to think it does.)
The blog was written by a Ph.D. candidate at UC Davis with expertise in the biochemistry of DNA repair. I'd say that he has some expertise and he likely has a greater knowledge of the effects of ionizing radiation than a mid-level TSA official would.
Terrorist have already won. They ARE the government and the corporations. TSA scanners are a HUGE business for the ex-head of Homelad Security and his clique.But they had to invent the terrorist first, to make people accept being irradiated like that and pay for it while getting screwed.
Also may want to google "depopulation agenda" (Kissinger & all). Then it will make even more sense. It's not just about the money.
Do you not see the problem with the above? If you want to successfully argue against what the TSA is doing, you need to drop the conspiracy stuff. It's not a question of being right or wrong: it's making sure that valid complaints can't be brushed aside by snide remarks such as "Yeah, whatever, he's a conspiracy nut."
And just for the avoidance of doubt, when the first page of Google is littered with links discussing the Illuminati, that does, sadly, damage your credibility.
Thank you for your kind message. You are right from a certain perspective. I just post the information I find interesting enough to make people think. Some people will dismiss it. There is nothig I can do for them, despite the fact that more and more conspiracy theories are turning out to be facts in one form or another. I'm not attached to any of it, nor do I believe everything in the form it is presented, and I wish people can make up their own minds.
So, this sounds like you can make up whatever you want, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, then hand-wave any criticism away by claiming you are just presenting possibilities?
I'm not sure how you think that's not a dishonest thing to do.
Even if a study existed that found them 100% safe, here's the thing about science: the later discovery of a missing fact or understanding about some small unknown behavior can change EVERYTHING. But then you are left with people who simply flout the original study for political reasons or ignorance. Happens in every field.
This is also why modern nuclear power plant design seem so safe. And then something they didn't factor in shows up, or someone takes a sloppy shortcut in building or regulations that wasn't accounted for and suddenly there's no way to undue the damage (and no way to stop the failure).
If they won't let TSA agents wear dosimeters, well then you'd have to be a moronic zombie to become a TSA agent and work around these machines. And that's predictably who is left working there. But hey you can sue for lack of benefits when you are dying of cancer, only to be told on your deathbed that you fall within the range of people who get cancer anyway, couldn't be the machine.
I'd say "stop flying" but of course these machines are now in portable versions in vans and they can just drive down a street and expose everyone to it, opt-in or not (this really exists, it's not tinfoil hat paranoia http://google.com/search?q=backscatter+vans ).
Thirty years of use and demonstrable, well-documented lack of increased cancer rates in the users. That's why it's irresponsible to use them for political reasons. Or are you among those people who think they make you more secure?
I would be less worried about proving them safe ex ante than maintaining the safety of those around them. Regular monitoring for leakage and exposure would be a great start. The reason gate agents are not allowed to wear monitors is political. If there is any problem found I think it that workplace rule should be considered malicious.
Okay, so once in 1,000 years isn't enough. I'll buy that, especially where an accident's effect can last for up to a century.
So, how about once in 10,000 years? Once in 100,000 years? That's on the level of meteor strikes, and I can't think of any power plant that could withstand those.
I think that "never" is as impractical as "two years from now."
I'd call it safe if it only failed when it no longer mattered - if your power plant does not contain the nuclear waste in case of collision with the moon, it's a non issue, because there is nobody left alive to matter.
In addition to the radiation risk from the Rapescan machine (and the potential problems of overexposure raised by the OP), you also need to consider the extra radiation exposure you get from the flight itself. Some numbers here [1] and a calculator here [2].
Have never seen the devices in DE and CH, thank god IL doesn't use them either for all I can tell.
I would reject to fly in that case. No question. The whole security around planes is already stupid as it is now, no need to get more intimate with the security staff.
As a matter of fact I haven't seen a lot of back scatter scanners in European airports.
Actually only one, in Amsterdam and that was not operational.
My observations may be biased, of course. But I'm pretty certain that I haven't seen any in ZRH, VIE, DUS and PRG and LCY. And even Amsterdam security (which is a huge operation) didn't have one last time I passed it in March.
EDIT : To clarify, the only one I've seen in AMS was in the Summer of 2010. March 2011 I didn't see any
It's a matter of public record in the UK. Look at the web site of any major airport that uses the scanners.
I saw some writing by a guy who (claimed to have) refused the scan a while back, who was (he claimed) told by airport staff that because so few people refuse the scan, his details would automatically be sent to some government department (read: watch list). No idea how accurate his account was, but he certainly seemed quite upset about it, and it does have the ring of truth about it. After all, as many people have observed, "don't fly" is not a practical answer for a lot of circumstances, and in the UK at least, if you want to fly and you're selected, you're getting the virtual strip search and radiation dosage. There ought to be a law that anyone who thinks a 99.whatever% "acceptance" rate under those circumstances implies that almost everyone is happy with the scanners should be locked inside an active scanner with a few textbooks until they get the point one way or another...
On my AMS to SFO flight around two months ago the scanners were operational.
The funny thing is that in the US they have this complicated process "to protect the passengers pricacy" where the person viewing the pictures is located in a special room. The personal directly dealing with the passengers never sees the pictures but just receives an Ack or Nak for each passenger.
In Amsterdam the displays are located directly on the scanners for everyone to see. The makes the whole thing much faster and I think Europeans do not really care about this as much as Americans.
Where you forced through the scanner or did they offer you a choice?
As for UK airports. They seem to have a rather inflexible approach as DO AS WE SAY, OR ELSE! Haven't seen them in London City Airport, though.
I could also imagine that Amsterdam only channels US travelers through the scanners. In Zurich airport the US airlines essentially have half a terminal building reserved for their flight operations during the morning hours. I haven't seen scanners there, but flying mostly within the Schengen area I wouldn't necessarily know.
"A hospital consultant at Huddersfield Royal Infirmary in the UK was barred from boarding his flight at Manchester Airport earlier in the summer after he refused to use the scanner, claiming he could be exposed to X-rays."
I requested a pat-down two days ago coming in through Detroit while transferring and they said "sure!" and were pleasant about it. I was expecting a battle. Also, it's not that invasive a process. I think we hear horror stories about it but I think more people should opt for it.
This is not to say that the whole process isn't stupid and broken. Certainly I was separated from my belongings on the belt which I didn't like.
How invasive the pat-down is depends entirely on how invasive the administering agent wants it to be. Some agents are actually rational logical humans who have already figured out that the screenee is not a terrorist, and pat lightly and send them on their way. Some agents are in the job for the power trip and will roughly squeeze every body part they can reach. And of course there's a spectrum between the extremes. It's impossible to know ahead of time what agents you will run into, and unsuitable to generalize from one or a few personal experiences to TSA agents as a whole. It's a crapshoot.
And of course the system is designed to be impervious to feedback. We can count on one hand, possibly one fist, the number of agents who have been disciplined for aggressive behavior. The only chance is to somehow raise enough of a stink to catch media attention. Any complaints officially made to the agency summarily disappear down the TSA memory hole.
