Are the New Scanners Really Safe?

[CPT Tripss]

U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, a scientist and the Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, Friday wrote the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), reiterating his concerns about the use of body imaging technology, notably about potential health effects and the effectiveness of the screening to detect the full range of explosive threats known or anticipated to be used by potential terrorists.

Earlier this year, the Congressional Biomedical Caucus - of which Holt is a co-chair – hosted a briefing by Dr. David Brenner of Columbia University on the potential health effects of “back scatter” x-ray devices. According to Dr. Brenner, the devices currently in use and proposed for wider deployment deliver to the scalp “20 times the average dose that is typically quoted by TSA and throughout the industry.” Dr. Brenner has pointed out that the majority of the radiation from X-ray backscatter machines strikes the top of the head, which is where 85 percent of the 800,000 cases of basal cell carcinoma diagnosed in the United States each year develop.

There is more, a lot more, at http://holt.house.gov/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=651&Itemid=18

Rep. Holt is a Ph.D. physicist, from 1989 until he launched his 1998 congressional campaign, Holt was Assistant Director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, so no "tin cat" stuff.

 

[goofy4tink]

It really is time for a completely unbiased group to do a study on this. That is about the only way this concern is going to go away. I have no issue with the 'image' that is seen of me..have at it. But, the radiation is a concern. Perhaps not for me. But for those who fly more often.

 

[Lewisc]

I'd be interested/concerned if I was an airline/airport employee who is subject to scanning one or more times a day. I'd be interested/concerned if I was a TSA employee stationed near the machines. Maybe the shielding isn't enough. It certainly makes sense to continue to check the safety of the scanners.

Most of the "tin hat" people have already made up their minds. If 99 studies show they're safe those people will only maintain the only valid study is the one that shows they're not safe.

Some people don't even think the TSA should be allowed to check ID. The fact that the TSA may need to implement a procedure to check the validity of a BP isn't a reason to stop checking ID, just a reason to improve the system.

 

[WDWisTheBest]

It really is time for a completely unbiased group to do a study on this. That is about the only way this concern is going to go away. I have no issue with the 'image' that is seen of me..have at it. But, the radiation is a concern. Perhaps not for me. But for those who fly more often.

I believe that the radiation issue has not been completely resolved or explained to the satisfaction of most travelers.

 

[CPT Tripss]

I'd be interested/concerned if I was an airline/airport employee who is subject to scanning one or more times a day. I'd be interested/concerned if I was a TSA employee stationed near the machines. Maybe the shielding isn't enough. It certainly makes sense to continue to check the safety of the scanners.

Most of the "tin hat" people have already made up their minds. If 99 studies show they're safe those people will only maintain the only valid study is the one that shows they're not safe.

Some people don't even think the TSA should be allowed to check ID. The fact that the TSA may need to implement a procedure to check the validity of a BP isn't a reason to stop checking ID, just a reason to improve the system.

Doesn't sound like you read either the press release or the letter . . . who has a made up mind?

 

[goofy4tink]

Well, I read both the press release as well as the letter. I have to say that I would be interested in those same answers. These are the type questions that need to be addressed.
But I'm probably just less militant than most of you. I guess I got rid of my anti-gov't feelings back in the 60's. Now...just a middle-aged old lady, with fond memories of being anti-pretty much everything.

 

[Lewisc]

I read both before I posted. The system used by Israel wouldn't work in the US for a variety of reasons. Much too expensive. The kind of questioning and profiling that's done would be a big issue. Rep Holt knows (or should) know this.

The press release is worded to look reasonable without really saying anything.

The fact that a few professors wrote letters expressing issues doesn't prove anything.

I have nothing against real research. I think the people at most risk are the employees being exposed on a daily basis, not a family flying to Disney once or twice a year.

 

[OrangeCountyCommuter]

I fly a LOT, like twice a week.

Since the "deployment" of these new devices I have had to go through one ONCE! So far the "increased radiation" is probably going to kill me.... I figure at this rate by the time I am 90!

 

[quagmire0]

Just because it was '20x' what the TSA predicted doesn't necessarily mean it is 20x more dangerous. What I'd like to see is some actual data, in a graphical format comparing radiation exposure from the back scatter machines compared to everything from dental x-rays to microwaves to TV's and computers. That would kind of put it in better perspective.

 

[goofy4tink]

Just because it was '20x' what the TSA predicted doesn't necessarily mean it is 20x more dangerous. What I'd like to see is some actual data, in a graphical format comparing radiation exposure from the back scatter machines compared to everything from dental x-rays to microwaves to TV's and computers. That would kind of put it in better perspective.

Please, don't bother us with 'reason' and 'logic'. It is not nearly as much fun when you do that....

 

[Lewisc]

please, don't bother us with 'reason' and 'logic'. It is not nearly as much fun when you do that....

+1

 

[CPT Tripss]

Just because it was '20x' what the TSA predicted doesn't necessarily mean it is 20x more dangerous. What I'd like to see is some actual data, in a graphical format comparing radiation exposure from the back scatter machines compared to everything from dental x-rays to microwaves to TV's and computers. That would kind of put it in better perspective.

Your 2x the dose comment may be accurate. I don't know. It is however more dangerous - maybe twice as dangerous, maybe 100X. But I do know that comparing exposure levels of ionizing and non ionizing radiation is comparing apples to monkeys.

What I also know is that if scientists did not use accurate data to assess safety then their assessment isn't valid.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Just because it was '20x' what the TSA predicted doesn't necessarily mean it is 20x more dangerous. What I'd like to see is some actual data, in a graphical format comparing radiation exposure from the back scatter machines compared to everything from dental x-rays to microwaves to TV's and computers. That would kind of put it in better perspective.

And cell phones! Let's not forget the ubiquitous cell phones, the devices from which most people can't seem to be parted for more than a few seconds at a time!

Your 2x the dose comment may be accurate. I don't know. It is however more dangerous - maybe twice as dangerous, maybe 100X. But I do know that comparing exposure levels of ionizing and non ionizing radiation is comparing apples to monkeys.

Actually, comparing exposure levels of ionizing and non ionizing radiation is comparing Gala apples to Delicious apples. An example of 'apples to monkeys' would be if one were comparing exposure levels of ionizing radiation to a loaf of bread.

No, there's no room for argument here. I coined the phrase, I get to define it.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I believe that the radiation issue has not been completely resolved or explained to the satisfaction of most travelers.

Which is why probably the most reasonable statement made on any of these similarly-topicked threads recently is

It really is time for a completely unbiased group to do a study on this.