For eveyone who said the TSA scanners were safe...

[crashbb]

Is there some reason that this particular subject has to crop up every other month or so???? No one is going to win this argument. If you don't want to take that very small chance, then don't fly. I seldom see any TSA personel standing right next to that machine...they are usually off to the side, or way in front of it.
I get many of those same basal cell cancers.....doubt it's from scanners at the airport though. And I suspect that those TSA people that had these basal cells were old enough to fall into the catagory of those who would be expected to have them!!

Really people. You can find reports to validate either argument here. This is just going around and around.

See, you CAN'T find reports to validate the claims made in OP. It just isn't scientifically possible.

The machines were put into use in mid- to late-2010 (per one of the most recent posts by the OP), and there is no way that this is enough time to actually cause an increase in diagnosed cancers (much less carry out and publish a study to confirm said increase).

That is what I'm arguing against.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I'm not going to debate over the wisdom of unions.

Nor the fact that employers have no input on whether to "allow" employees form or join a union.

I get many of those same basal cell cancers.....doubt it's from scanners at the airport though. And I suspect that those TSA people that had these basal cells were old enough to fall into the catagory of those who would be expected to have them!!

On the first part - I'm sorry to hear that. I hope things are well with you. On the second part? ONE of the 25 TSA personnel in Boston diagnosed with cancer during the nine year study by the CDC has basal cell cancer. This so-called "cluster" developed between, apparently, 2001 and 2010. We just got a minimal number of scanners in late 2010. I keep asking to be scanned, but there were none in terminal C even as late as December 2010.

With 385 scanners distributed among 68 airports as of November 10, that's fewer than six per airport - and I can't find anything indicating they were distributed evenly. If they were, wouldn't it make sense Logan would have at least one in each of its 4.25 terminals? So, no, I can't see how a reasonable person would believe there's a 'cancer cluster' caused by scanner radiation - reasonable person in the legal sense, i.e. "what a reasonable person could be expected to..." - not intended to offend anyone!

 

[CPT Tripss]

There are some people who have issues with the TSA. There are posters on FT who don't think the TSA should even be allowed to check ID.

There aren't any scientific studies which show issues with the scanners.

What's missed in these threads is the $$$$ these toys cost to purchase, man and maintain. The amount of time it takes to scan each passenger.

Face it we feel safer if high tech "gadgets" are part of the process.

Great description of "Security Theater."

Nor the fact that employers have no input on whether to "allow" employees form or join a union.

On the first part - I'm sorry to hear that. I hope things are well with you. On the second part? ONE of the 25 TSA personnel in Boston diagnosed with cancer during the nine year study by the CDC has basal cell cancer. This so-called "cluster" developed between, apparently, 2001 and 2010. We just got a minimal number of scanners in late 2010. I keep asking to be scanned, but there were none in terminal C even as late as December 2010.

With 385 scanners distributed among 68 airports as of November 10, that's fewer than six per airport - and I can't find anything indicating they were distributed evenly. If they were, wouldn't it make sense Logan would have at least one in each of its 4.25 terminals? So, no, I can't see how a reasonable person would believe there's a 'cancer cluster' caused by scanner radiation - reasonable person in the legal sense, i.e. "what a reasonable person could be expected to..." - not intended to offend anyone!

The Federal government can determine whether to allow a union collective bargaining and also determine the scope of bargaining.

 

[CPT Tripss]

This is an interesting take of risk-benefit . . .

But there is still the risk of malfunctioning equipment and whether the measured dosage matches what passengers might actually get.

A physicist at the University of Arizona, Peter Rez, published a paper estimating the actual radiation dose a person might get by looking at the resolution of the images that the TSA and others have released. If the size of the pixels is about 4 millimeters or greater, then the machine would be in compliance. If it is less than that, then the amount of radiation would creep up above the ANSI standard. Rez said in an email that even if the radiation levels are higher than those cited by the TSA, they are quite small and the additional risk of cancer is so tiny as to be undetectable.

The real concern is malfunctioning equipment, which given the large number of people being scanned and the number of scanners is bound to happen sooner or later, he says in his study. For example, a machine that gets stuck in the "on" position could subject someone to higher doses of radiation.

In an interview with MSNBC he noted that the risk of being in a terrorist attack is so small that any additional cancer risk from the scanners - which is also very tiny - is hardly worth it.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/85432/20101124/johns-hopkins-not-happy-with-tsa.htm

 

[Lewisc]

Nor the fact that employers have no input on whether to "allow" employees form or join a union.

In this case the employer is the government. The government, might require congressional action, can prevent their employees from forming a union.

CPT Tripss--My point is the union, not posters on an internet board, is best suited to speak up for the safety of TSA workers.

I don't think a University physicist is qualified to comment on the risk of a terrorist attack.

 

[GraceLuvsWDW]

Thanks for helping us prove our points. Your first article is saying exactly what most of us our saying.

Please keep posting to prove our point!


You might want to try again.

I think everyone here is quick to assume what my point is so I'll clarify:

My point is to point out that there is new evidence that points to the TSA/DHS misrepresenting the safety of the machines. Everything I have posted corroborates this point. I make no assertions as to the safety or lack of safety, merely that if the machines are not performing as the TSA was reporting initially (which that assertion is confirmed in all of the articles I linked to) then there is reason to believe that the scanners are not as safe as once believed and reported on these boards. I find it interesting that this is such a point of debate and everyone is quick to take my postings and bold what supports their opinion and ignore those points that don't. I could go through them and bold the opposing opinions but it's clear as Goofy4Tink posted that there's no point in debating. If you'd like to create a thread on your opinion, go ahead. The point of this thread was to report new supporting data that the machines aren't as safe as initially reported (radiating at a level that was reported) and that this information might be notable for SOME poeple out there. Obviously not you-so you've made up your mind-that's your option obviously and I do not cast any judgment on you for it.

Live and let live-an adage SO NOT recognized by members on DISboards.

As I said previously, this was information for those that might be interested!!!!!
If, you're not interested in heeding this information, go on about your business!

 

[maxiesmom]

I suggest you go read post #2 again.

 

[goofy4tink]

Nor the fact that employers have no input on whether to "allow" employees form or join a union.

On the first part - I'm sorry to hear that. I hope things are well with you. On the second part? ONE of the 25 TSA personnel in Boston diagnosed with cancer during the nine year study by the CDC has basal cell cancer. This so-called "cluster" developed between, apparently, 2001 and 2010. We just got a minimal number of scanners in late 2010. I keep asking to be scanned, but there were none in terminal C even as late as December 2010.

With 385 scanners distributed among 68 airports as of November 10, that's fewer than six per airport - and I can't find anything indicating they were distributed evenly. If they were, wouldn't it make sense Logan would have at least one in each of its 4.25 terminals? So, no, I can't see how a reasonable person would believe there's a 'cancer cluster' caused by scanner radiation - reasonable person in the legal sense, i.e. "what a reasonable person could be expected to..." - not intended to offend anyone!

Things are fine...just getting tired of having pieces of my body lopped off every time I see the danged dermatologist!!! I'm going to look like swiss cheese soon. But, I'm fair skinned (don't tan but freckle quite nicely) and have reddish hair, with hazel eyes. Only way it could be worse is if I were my dd...really red hair and blue eyes!!! She doesn't even try to tan.