For eveyone who said the TSA scanners were safe...
- Thread starter GraceLuvsWDW
- Start date
eliza61
DIS Legend
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 21,023
Get no argument from me about safety. everyone definitely should have the safest work environment possible but from what I gather this article is saying the employees are suffering from cancer from these machines along with other illness. I'd like some proof.
I just wanted to point out though that the average radiographi technician makes ~50-55K. tad bit more than the TSA agent.
GraceLuvsWDW
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,352
"New Documents Raise More Questions About Safety Of TSA Scanners
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
Apparently, NIST told DHS to stop misrepresenting its work, and suggested that if DHS agreed, then it wouldn't call for USA Today to run a correction on the piece.
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."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ore-questions-about-safety-tsa-scanners.shtml
Is TIME magazine reputable?
http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/30/did-airport-scanners-give-boston-tsa-agents-cancer/
"Cancer in TSA Employees Rises as the TSA Ignores the Problem
Author: Claire Reitz
Published: June 29, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Share12
As if the Fourth Amendment and groping/naked body scans weren't big enough problems for the new TSA regulatory searches, new information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act shows a rise in cancer among TSA employees operating the body scanner machines and the TSA's attempt to cover up the scary reality of how unsafe these machines are. Some leading scientists are saying there has not been enough testing and data gathered to prove that the machines are safe. Mark Rotenberg from Electronic Privacy Information Center says the Department of Homeland Security has not been forthcoming about the true risks of radiation and has overstated the support of new the new program by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. In fact, information obtained by the FOIA shows that the head of the head of the Department of Homeland Security publicly mischaracterized saying that it had it confirmed the safety of the body scanners. The NIST actually warned TSA employees to avoid standing next to the scanners in order to keep exposure to harmful radiation “as low as reasonably achievable.”
A study at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine declared that the radiation zones around body scanners can exceed the “general public dose limit. The TSA falsely claimed that the study done at Johns Hopkins substantiated the safety of the body scanners. Dr. Michael Love at Johns Hopkins even said "They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays."
New evidence questioning the legitimate safety of these body scanners emerged as union representative for TSA employees reported a cancer cluster among employees that operated body scanner machines. They then asked for dosimeters to measure the potential harm from radiation, but the TSA denied this request, while TSA worker are suffering from cancer, strokes and heart disease.
Several professors from USC recently wrote a letter to Obama's Science Advisor warning of the fact that "There is still no rigorous, hard, data for the safety of x-ray airport passenger scanners.” In fact, safety tests on the machines were carried out by the manufacturers exclusively. They called for the body body scanners to be immediately suspended until independent tests can be done to validate their safety. EPIC has also called for independent testing.
For families traveling this summer, a study at Columbia University also warns pregnant women and children to avoid body scanners due to the possibility of cancer and birth defects from the ionizing radiation."
Read more: http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/cancer-in-tsa-employees-rises-as/#ixzz1QoJWNWGA
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
Apparently, NIST told DHS to stop misrepresenting its work, and suggested that if DHS agreed, then it wouldn't call for USA Today to run a correction on the piece.
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."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ore-questions-about-safety-tsa-scanners.shtml
Is TIME magazine reputable?
http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/30/did-airport-scanners-give-boston-tsa-agents-cancer/
"Cancer in TSA Employees Rises as the TSA Ignores the Problem
Author: Claire Reitz
Published: June 29, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Share12
As if the Fourth Amendment and groping/naked body scans weren't big enough problems for the new TSA regulatory searches, new information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act shows a rise in cancer among TSA employees operating the body scanner machines and the TSA's attempt to cover up the scary reality of how unsafe these machines are. Some leading scientists are saying there has not been enough testing and data gathered to prove that the machines are safe. Mark Rotenberg from Electronic Privacy Information Center says the Department of Homeland Security has not been forthcoming about the true risks of radiation and has overstated the support of new the new program by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. In fact, information obtained by the FOIA shows that the head of the head of the Department of Homeland Security publicly mischaracterized saying that it had it confirmed the safety of the body scanners. The NIST actually warned TSA employees to avoid standing next to the scanners in order to keep exposure to harmful radiation “as low as reasonably achievable.”
A study at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine declared that the radiation zones around body scanners can exceed the “general public dose limit. The TSA falsely claimed that the study done at Johns Hopkins substantiated the safety of the body scanners. Dr. Michael Love at Johns Hopkins even said "They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays."
New evidence questioning the legitimate safety of these body scanners emerged as union representative for TSA employees reported a cancer cluster among employees that operated body scanner machines. They then asked for dosimeters to measure the potential harm from radiation, but the TSA denied this request, while TSA worker are suffering from cancer, strokes and heart disease.
Several professors from USC recently wrote a letter to Obama's Science Advisor warning of the fact that "There is still no rigorous, hard, data for the safety of x-ray airport passenger scanners.” In fact, safety tests on the machines were carried out by the manufacturers exclusively. They called for the body body scanners to be immediately suspended until independent tests can be done to validate their safety. EPIC has also called for independent testing.
For families traveling this summer, a study at Columbia University also warns pregnant women and children to avoid body scanners due to the possibility of cancer and birth defects from the ionizing radiation."
Read more: http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/cancer-in-tsa-employees-rises-as/#ixzz1QoJWNWGA
GraceLuvsWDW
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,352
Sorry, here's the full TIME article:
TIME
Did Airport Scanners Give Boston TSA Agents Cancer?
By Frances Romero Thursday, June 30, 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Updated) Could radiation from full-body scanners be responsible for a "cancer cluster" among airport security workers? That's what Transportation Security Administration union representatives in Boston have claimed.
Now, the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has obtained documents from the Department of Homeland Security, which EPIC says provide evidence that the government failed to properly test the safety of full-body scanners at airports, and dismissed concerns from airport agents about excessive exposure to the machines' radiation.
The documents, which include emails, radiation test results and radiation studies, were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by EPIC and released on June 24. The advocacy group says they indicate that Homeland Security "publicly mischaracterized" safety findings by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), by suggesting that NIST had "affirmed the safety" of full body scanners.
But in an email obtained by EPIC, a NIST official stated that the agency had not tested the scanners for safety and does not in fact do product testing. Rather NIST had merely measured the radiation dose from a single machine against the standard of what is considered acceptable. It had not done the rigorous product testing required to determine safety over time.
Although TSA union reps at Boston's Logan Airport asked that the agency allow its screeners to wear radiation-monitoring devices, the TSA has yet to provide the dosimeters, EPIC said. Meanwhile, another document obtained by EPIC shows that NIST recommends that TSA screeners avoid standing next to the scanners whenever possible, and a Johns Hopkins University study finds that radiation zones around body scanners could potentially exceed the "General Public Dose Limit."
TSA representatives have acknowledged the concerns of agents at the Boston airport, saying that a request for the radiation-monitoring devices had been sent to TSA headquarters. But because the devices have yet to materialize and no other testing has taken place, agents say they still don't feel safe.
According to the TSA website:
TSA has implemented stringent safety protocols to ensure that technology used at airports to screen people and property is safe for all passengers, as well as the TSA workforce. In addition to regular maintenance, each individual machine that uses X-ray technology is regularly tested to ensure the radiation emitted falls within the national safety standards.
But some scientists are skeptical, claiming that the TSA relies on tests performed by the manufacturers of the scanners themselves. The debate over the safety (not to mention the privacy concerns) of full-body scanners at airports has been ongoing since before the machines began appearing in U.S. airports in mid- to late-2010 and has reached little consensus.
Experts disagree on the actual level of risk the scanners pose and to whom. Still, it is reasonable to suggest that TSA agents, pilots, flight attendants and frequent fliers, who are exposed to the machines on a daily basis, may have more of a reason than the general public to worry about the risk of cancer associated with scanner-radiation exposure.
In the case of the Boston "cluster," however, too little is yet known to suggest a link: neither EPIC nor the union reps have indicated what types of cancers the security agents in Boston have been diagnosed with. The scanners' radiation, which typically targets the skin and the muscles right beneath it, would most logically be tied to a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma.
But because people will get cancer regardless of exposure to body scanners, it's difficult to say how much their exposure to scanner radiation is a factor. On a population level, cancer affects four of every 10 Americans, says David Brenner, director of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research; the contribution of scanner radiation to that rate is difficult to pin down.
He adds that while it isn't impossible for the cancer cases in the Boston airport workers to be linked to radiation exposure on the job, the "latency period between radiation exposure and a radiation-induced cancer" is generally years, not months.
"That being said, I see no reason at all why the TSA staff working the airport X-ray machines are not provided with film badges to monitor the radiation dose," says Brenner. "If they were working with X-ray machines in a hospital setting, they would certainly be wearing film badges."
Update [2:20 p.m.]: The TSA spokesperson contacted Healthland to point out that the complaints from the Boston airport security workers date back to May 2010 and that the TSA has responded to them. The TSA provided this May 2010 document from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) that states in reference to the "cancer cluster" claimed by the Boston union that "15-25 cases of cancer over nine years among approximately 1100 employees are not an excess of cancer." NIOSH states that "it is unlikely that the cancers reported are associated with exposures from the TSA baggage screening machines at [Boston Logan International Airport]."
The TSA also provides links to other independent assessments of radiation risk related to body scanners on its website, the most recent of which is dated Nov. 2010.
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/...-give-boston-tsa-agents-cancer/#ixzz1QoKodMmr
TIME
Did Airport Scanners Give Boston TSA Agents Cancer?
By Frances Romero Thursday, June 30, 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Updated) Could radiation from full-body scanners be responsible for a "cancer cluster" among airport security workers? That's what Transportation Security Administration union representatives in Boston have claimed.
Now, the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has obtained documents from the Department of Homeland Security, which EPIC says provide evidence that the government failed to properly test the safety of full-body scanners at airports, and dismissed concerns from airport agents about excessive exposure to the machines' radiation.
The documents, which include emails, radiation test results and radiation studies, were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by EPIC and released on June 24. The advocacy group says they indicate that Homeland Security "publicly mischaracterized" safety findings by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), by suggesting that NIST had "affirmed the safety" of full body scanners.
But in an email obtained by EPIC, a NIST official stated that the agency had not tested the scanners for safety and does not in fact do product testing. Rather NIST had merely measured the radiation dose from a single machine against the standard of what is considered acceptable. It had not done the rigorous product testing required to determine safety over time.
Although TSA union reps at Boston's Logan Airport asked that the agency allow its screeners to wear radiation-monitoring devices, the TSA has yet to provide the dosimeters, EPIC said. Meanwhile, another document obtained by EPIC shows that NIST recommends that TSA screeners avoid standing next to the scanners whenever possible, and a Johns Hopkins University study finds that radiation zones around body scanners could potentially exceed the "General Public Dose Limit."
TSA representatives have acknowledged the concerns of agents at the Boston airport, saying that a request for the radiation-monitoring devices had been sent to TSA headquarters. But because the devices have yet to materialize and no other testing has taken place, agents say they still don't feel safe.
According to the TSA website:
TSA has implemented stringent safety protocols to ensure that technology used at airports to screen people and property is safe for all passengers, as well as the TSA workforce. In addition to regular maintenance, each individual machine that uses X-ray technology is regularly tested to ensure the radiation emitted falls within the national safety standards.
But some scientists are skeptical, claiming that the TSA relies on tests performed by the manufacturers of the scanners themselves. The debate over the safety (not to mention the privacy concerns) of full-body scanners at airports has been ongoing since before the machines began appearing in U.S. airports in mid- to late-2010 and has reached little consensus.
Experts disagree on the actual level of risk the scanners pose and to whom. Still, it is reasonable to suggest that TSA agents, pilots, flight attendants and frequent fliers, who are exposed to the machines on a daily basis, may have more of a reason than the general public to worry about the risk of cancer associated with scanner-radiation exposure.
In the case of the Boston "cluster," however, too little is yet known to suggest a link: neither EPIC nor the union reps have indicated what types of cancers the security agents in Boston have been diagnosed with. The scanners' radiation, which typically targets the skin and the muscles right beneath it, would most logically be tied to a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma.
But because people will get cancer regardless of exposure to body scanners, it's difficult to say how much their exposure to scanner radiation is a factor. On a population level, cancer affects four of every 10 Americans, says David Brenner, director of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research; the contribution of scanner radiation to that rate is difficult to pin down.
He adds that while it isn't impossible for the cancer cases in the Boston airport workers to be linked to radiation exposure on the job, the "latency period between radiation exposure and a radiation-induced cancer" is generally years, not months.
"That being said, I see no reason at all why the TSA staff working the airport X-ray machines are not provided with film badges to monitor the radiation dose," says Brenner. "If they were working with X-ray machines in a hospital setting, they would certainly be wearing film badges."
Update [2:20 p.m.]: The TSA spokesperson contacted Healthland to point out that the complaints from the Boston airport security workers date back to May 2010 and that the TSA has responded to them. The TSA provided this May 2010 document from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) that states in reference to the "cancer cluster" claimed by the Boston union that "15-25 cases of cancer over nine years among approximately 1100 employees are not an excess of cancer." NIOSH states that "it is unlikely that the cancers reported are associated with exposures from the TSA baggage screening machines at [Boston Logan International Airport]."
The TSA also provides links to other independent assessments of radiation risk related to body scanners on its website, the most recent of which is dated Nov. 2010.
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/...-give-boston-tsa-agents-cancer/#ixzz1QoKodMmr
GraceLuvsWDW
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,352
If the people from Columbia University, Johns Hopkins, and USC aren't reputable enough for you then I give up.
It is only my hope that this NEW information helps those traveling with their families make educated decisions with regard to submitting to the backscatter xray machines.
It is only my hope that this NEW information helps those traveling with their families make educated decisions with regard to submitting to the backscatter xray machines.
simzac
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 2,280
What decision have you made for your family, if I may ask?
/
GraceLuvsWDW
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,352
Well, I've flown 4 times since the machines were in use and I have not been asked to be scanned nor asked that my daughter be scanned. If I were asked to be scanned, I would opt out if it was a Rapiscan machine.
GraceLuvsWDW
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,352
If you do not believe them, who do you believe?
eliza61
DIS Legend
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 21,023
LOL. Here's a quote from another Columbia University report.
The risk of harmful radiation exposure from backscatter scans is very small, according to David Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University and a professor of radiation biophysics.But he said he is concerned about how widely the scanners will be used.
Brenner said the risk to an individual is "very small indeed" for a single scan. He said he is most concerned about frequent fliers, pilots and young people, because children are more sensitive to radiation.
Ole' Columbia must be hedging their bets. Who ever orders the report, that's the view you'll get.
So now what? Sort of reminds me of the debate around Autism. bunch of people say vaccines caused their kids to be autistic, bunch of scientist say nope, no direct link.
So like I said for me it's a matter of acceptable risk. I accept the fact that all radiation poses a risk of cancer. The risk from these machines for the way my family and I travel is far less than a mammogram and second hand smoke. Until I get proof that I'm being subjected to ridiculous levels of radiation when I go though I'm cool.
People from Columbia University, Johns Hopkins and USC haven't said the machines aren't safe for passengers. They basically suggest someone fund University studies of the device.
I suggest you "give up". Posting garbage does nothing to help families make educated decisions.
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!
As for the second article - no reputable journalist would be using that sort of language, it is (at best) an editorial, not a genuine article.
Even the bit from Johns Hopkins does NOTHING to support your point (which was that there is increased cancer in TSA employees).
You might want to try again.
Your TIME article is also useless for defending your point - and, in fact, re-iterates exactly what we've been saying.
So, I'll turn your question you:
maxiesmom
The Mean Squinty Eye Works
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 35,688
I'm honestly starting to think she is not reading everything she is posting. How else can you explain it????
The workers voted to unionize and voted for their union. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/business/24labor.html
I'm not going to debate over the wisdom of unions. My point is it's very possible the level of radiation offers no measurable risk to passengers but might pose a risk to employees who stand in front of the machines hours a day.
I think safe working conditions is an appropriate action for union action.
I'm not going to debate over the wisdom of unions. My point is it's very possible the level of radiation offers no measurable risk to passengers but might pose a risk to employees who stand in front of the machines hours a day.
I think safe working conditions is an appropriate action for union action.
goofy4tink
No tags...not needed! Transportation moderator
- Joined
- May 2, 2002
- Messages
- 54,711
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.
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.
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.
goofy4tink
No tags...not needed! Transportation moderator
- Joined
- May 2, 2002
- Messages
- 54,711
Well, after seeing the news this morning that they let a guy through with a ticket in a different name than his, I tend to agree. Can't they read??? Evidently his ticket and passport didn't match. Duh.
CPT Tripss
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Messages
- 5,366
So to summarize: For everyone who has said the TSA scanners were safe, we have yet to hear from a reputable source that they are not. We have a bunch of conjecture and panic, but no solid facts. Go on with your life.
Nor are there any tests of the machines in use that say they are safe.
Are you asserting that lower paid employees should get less protection? If not, I do not get your point.
-
Monsters, Inc. Exclusive New Disney x Loungefly Accessories
-
Disney World President Jeff Vahle Congratulates Universal on Epic Universe
-
New Limited-Time Seasonal Side at Polite Pig Disney Springs
-
NEW Vault Collection Brings Vintage Fun to Disneyland 70
-
Disneyland Paris: New Disney Music Festival Foodie Guide
-
Disney Shares First Look at New Villains Show at Hollywood Studios
-
See the New Zootopia 2 Teaser Trailer Disney Just Dropped!
Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!
Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE
