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

[GraceLuvsWDW]

TSA 'ignored warnings' on cancer cluster

Posted on Jun 28th 2011 by Kate Taylor

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) says it's got evidence that the Department of Homeland Security has failed to properly evaluate the level of risk from airport body scanners.

In a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the DHS, EPIC says it's obtained documents concerning the scanners' radiation risks, including agency emails, radiation studies, memoranda of agreement concerning radiation testing programs and the results of some radiation tests.

EPIC says that TSA staff have been concerned that a large number of workers have been falling victim to cancer, strokes and heart disease. But the documents show that the TSA's response was simply to tell them: "Because TSA systems comply with federal regulations, the increased risk of developing radiation-induced cancer in later life is extremely small, no greater than other risks people routinely accept in their daily lives".

"One document set reveals that even after TSA employees identified cancer clusters possibly linked to radiation exposure, the agency failed to issue employees dosimeters - safety devices that could assess the level of radiation exposure," says EPIC.

"Another document indicates that the DHS mischaracterized the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, stating that NIST 'affirmed the safety' of full body scanners."

In fact, says EPIC, the documents show that NIST disputed this assertion and pointed out that the it had not actually tested the devices. Indeed, one NIST study actaully warns airport screeners to avoid standing next to full body scanners.

Further, says EPIC, the documents include a Johns Hopkins University study which revealed that radiation zones around body scanners could exceed the General Public Dose Limit.

EPIc has been fighting the use of body scanners in airports since July 2009, when it filed its suit calling for the program to be suspended.

http://www.tgdaily.com/hardware-features/56899-tsa-ignored-warnings-on-cancer-cluster
http://epic.org/privacy/backscatter/radiation_cluster_dosimeter.pdf

Just passing on the latest information so everyone can make an informed decision on their family's behalf.

 

[crashbb]

The full body scanners in airports have not been in use for long enough to possibly be the cause of a cancer cluster.

 

[Lewisc]

The articles cited by the OP talk about potential dangers to TSA employees who are standing in the vicinity of the machines for hours every day.

This information is of no value to families, or any other passengers, who fly a few times a year.

I agree with the pp. The scanners haven't been used long enough to have caused any cancer cluster.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Let see now...you quoted a email requesting a *reader/tester*........no information as to what caused any cancer..and you quoted a Blog.......but at least they admit they are a blog/writers......no prove of correct information.

Nothing here has changed...just the saME PEOPLE DREAMING UP THINGS to try and support a unsupportable position.


IMO........AKK

 

[OrangeCountyCommuter]

Can you please only post references from reliable media souces?

Folks this EPIc group is fringe at best LOL!

Protecting your family should not include the use of the National Enquirer or it's internet equivalents IMHO!

 

[crashbb]

The articles cited by the OP talk about potential dangers to TSA employees who are standing in the vicinity of the machines for hours every day.

This information is of no value to families, or any other passengers, who fly a few times a year.

I agree with the pp. The scanners haven't been used long enough to have caused any cancer cluster.

Even if we are talking about "TSA employees who are standing in the vicinity of the machines for hours every day", there is NO possible way that any study could conclude that there was an increase in cancer rates due to the machines. Heck, there isn't even time for there to be an increase in cancer rates (the increase in cancer rates following the atomic bombs in Japan wasn't even this quick).

Further, they are attributing cancer, strokes, and heart disease all to the same machines - these diseases have very different etiologies and causes (well, strokes and heart disease share some commonalities), and it is unlikely that the same source would increase all three diseases.

I cannot think of a single Bradford-Hill criteria that this "study" has met.

Things like this just distract from the argument against the used of these scanners - they are so blatantly wrong and biased, that it is easy to assume all arguments from that "side" are equally inane.

 

[kaytieeldr]

According to USA Today, it's unlikely those cancers are due to any of the machines. This http://www.usatoday.com/news/pdf/NIOSHTSABoston.pdf report is extremely detailed and personal, so I opted not to paste it here. It identifies the current and former employees and their cancers. Anyway, some cancers have fairly obvious other causes: lung cancer in two smokers, melanoma...

Probably good to (a) have all the facts and (b) remember we're not spending upwards of forty hours a week in the airport security zones, before we go into panic-frenzy mode

eta: Lewisc, crashbb, Tonka's Skipper, OrangeCountyCommuter - do you all agree USA Today is reasonably reliable?

 

[GraceLuvsWDW]

That's only 1 source. There's also:

http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-...s-fear-that-body-scanners-are-causing-cancer/

http://wusa9.com/news/article/156513/373/TSA-Workers-Fear-Radiation-Dangers-From-Scanners

http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2...canner-radiation-problem-worse-than-reported/

This just broke a day ago. We'll see how many pick it up. I did not say the scanners caused cancer. I merely wanted others to know they weren't tested/studied as many claimed they were. Which the TSA is now admitting.

• The final testing report produced from this fabricated testing scenario has been so heavily redacted that "there is no way to repeat any of these measurements," say the professors. In other words, the testing violates the very first tenant of scientific experimentation which is that all experiments must be repeatable in order to be verified as accurate.

As the professors state in their letter:

The document is heavily redacted with red stamps over the words and figures. In every case the electric current used which correlates one to one with X-ray dose has been specifically redacted. Thus there is no way to repeat any of these measurements. While the report purports to present the results of objective testing, in fact the JHU APL personnel, who are unnamed anywhere in the document either as experimenters or as authors, were not provided with a machine by Rapiscan. Instead they were invited to the manufacturing site to observe a mock-up of components (spare parts) that were said to be similar to those that are parts of the Rapiscan system. The tests were performed by the manufacturer using the manufacturer's questionable test procedures.

The scanners have been in use since 2009-2 years of high radiation can be enough to cause a cancer (or other health problems) cluster if the exposure is that great.

 

[crashbb]

That's only 1 source. There's also:

http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-...s-fear-that-body-scanners-are-causing-cancer/

http://wusa9.com/news/article/156513/373/TSA-Workers-Fear-Radiation-Dangers-From-Scanners

http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2...canner-radiation-problem-worse-than-reported/

Have you actually read that site? Along with the article you posted, they also have articles demeaning the "lamestream" media and promoting "The Men's Movement".

In any case, none of those are actually discussing/examining the research (or even providing it) - they are just posting verbiage. Not at all helpful.

The scanners have been in use since 2009-2 years of high radiation can be enough to cause a cancer (or other health problems) cluster if the exposure is that great.

Only if the exposure was greater than any other known incident, since it would be the earliest recorded. Even if it were true, there is no way a valid study could also be done in the same time period (since that would take away from the time for the cancer to develop.

See my comments in red.

 

[kaytieeldr]

This just broke a day ago.

That's genuinely fascinating... especially given that the report I linked above came from this http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-12-06-tsa-xray-inspection-records_N.htm USA Today article - dated December 7, 2010. That's one heck of a long day And the cancers date back to 2005.

Oh, that report? It's from the CDC. Pretty reputable. No hidden agenda But interesting reading. Check it out!

 

[GraceLuvsWDW]

It's already been stated that the Rapiscan Backscatter machine is emitting 4 times the allowable maximum dosage given 2 scans in one trip. If a TSA agent is nearby and receiving a portion of that over a 40 hour workweek it is very easy to discern that his cancer risk would be far greater.

The major public health effect of concern at low doses of ionising radiation is cancer. There is clear evidence of cancer induction at effective dose above ~200 mSv. Below an effective dose of ~100 mSv radiogenic cancer mortality risk estimates for all cancers is highly uncertain. It is not possible to determine reliably whether a radiogenic risk is present in an X-ray screened population because of the high spontaneous incidence of cancer and the multifactorial nature of disease causation
http://www.justchromatography.com/general/backscatter-x-ray-p2

A worker would ony need to be subjected to the equivilent of 346 scans in one week to reach the level of 200 mSv over the course of a year. That's a scan every 8 minutes. XRay techs wear leaded vests but TSA agents do not. Still, would you want to subject your family on a trip to WDW to a scan "four times higher than the allowed maximum 0.1 µSv per scan (with the assumption of two scans per passenger)"?

 

[GraceLuvsWDW]

That's genuinely fascinating... especially given that the report I linked above came from this http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-12-06-tsa-xray-inspection-records_N.htm USA Today article - dated December 7, 2010. That's one heck of a long day And the cancers date back to 2005.

Oh, that report? It's from the CDC. Pretty reputable. No hidden agenda But interesting reading. Check it out!

The exploratory documents released (including the email pdf above) which reveal the TSA misstatements just came out yesterday. Your acticle did not address the new details coming forth in the lawsuit.

 

[kaytieeldr]

"My" article was written and published over six months ago. I can't see any reason why it would (or could possibly) address new 'details' or a lawsuit which likely wasn't even being considered back then - given that it hasn't been filed yet.

As for the e-mail .PDF, I admit I don't know when it was linked to the USA Today article. But given that it was (a) created over a year ago, and (b) linked in an article written and published over six months ago, and (C) reported by the CDC, an organization with no ulterior motive - I think it's safe to say it was released in 2010.

 

[kaytieeldr]

It's already been stated that the Rapiscan Backscatter machine is emitting 4 times the allowable maximum dosage given 2 scans in one trip

Stated? Or proven?

If a TSA agent

Gotta love that word "if". It makes anything seem reasonable. There's a great old expression that describes this, but I gotta check with the Mods first .

The major public health effect of concern at low doses of ionising radiation is cancer.

Good. So the Boston TSA personnel diagnosed with heart disease and stroke were stricken via other sources.

Still, would you want to subject your family on a trip to WDW to a scan "four times higher than the allowed maximum 0.1 µSv

I don't know. What's a µSv?

per scan (with the assumption of two scans per passenger)"?

What's the source of that assumption? Why do you - or more likely the blogger - automatically assume two scans?
In fact, why are you trusting the words of bloggers and fringe organizations you don't know? I'm not saying you don't have valid points, but do your own actual research. Don't parrot other peoples' words.

 

[CPT Tripss]

snip

Folks this EPIc group is fringe at best LOL!

snip

No, it isn't a fringe group at all. It's a reputable advocacy group. Just because they take on big business and governments in court (and win) doesn't make them fringe.

In 1994, EPIC was founded in Washington, DC with support from the Fund for Constitutional Government and assistance from key experts in law, technology, and public policy. EPIC quickly emerged as one of the leading civil liberties organizations in the United States. Over the years, EPIC has become the preeminent privacy organization, and routinely provides advice to governments and citizen groups all around the world.

http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/52-2225921/electronic-privacy-information-center.aspx

Go see who/what they are . . . http://epic.org/epic/2010_EPIC_Brochure.pdf

ETA: I sort of feel sorry for the Airport Security Screeners that have to spend a shift around the machines that emit ionizing radiation with no dosimeter or protection.

 

[crashbb]

It's already been stated that the Rapiscan Backscatter machine is emitting 4 times the allowable maximum dosage given 2 scans in one trip. If a TSA agent is nearby and receiving a portion of that over a 40 hour workweek it is very easy to discern that his cancer risk would be far greater.

The major public health effect of concern at low doses of ionising radiation is cancer. There is clear evidence of cancer induction at effective dose above ~200 mSv. Below an effective dose of ~100 mSv radiogenic cancer mortality risk estimates for all cancers is highly uncertain. It is not possible to determine reliably whether a radiogenic risk is present in an X-ray screened population because of the high spontaneous incidence of cancer and the multifactorial nature of disease causation
http://www.justchromatography.com/general/backscatter-x-ray-p2

A worker would ony need to be subjected to the equivilent of 346 scans in one week to reach the level of 200 mSv over the course of a year. That's a scan every 8 minutes. XRay techs wear leaded vests but TSA agents do not. Still, would you want to subject your family on a trip to WDW to a scan "four times higher than the allowed maximum 0.1 µSv per scan (with the assumption of two scans per passenger)"?

If you are going to directly quote a source (your entire second paragraph is directly lifted from a website), you need to tell us so. Not just provide a link, but explicitly state that you are plagiarizing.

About the bolded bit - it may be "very easy to discern", but IMPOSSIBLE to prove, at this time.

Look, I'm not saying that there is absolutely no risk due to radiation, what I am saying is that what you posted does not do anything to "prove" that there is a problem. And, as I stated before, posting such ridiculous "research", takes away from possible valid research.

 

[OrangeCountyCommuter]

I tihnk I have a solution for this debate.

it's one I just suggested another poster use on me.

The Ignore feature.

 

[eliza61]

So here's pretty much my stance on the scanners issue.

Yes, I am totally aware that radiation can cause cancer, so in the end it all boils down to acceptable "risk".

Will I continue to get my yearly mamograms. Yes.
Will I move next to the down nuclear power plant in Japan. No
Has there been enough time to do a reputable study on the effect of back scanner xray machines. No there has not been and I've got doctors in my immediate family who are questioning the "heart disease and stroke" claims as these usually are symptomatic of long term problems. (I'm not saying its wrong only that it's questionable)
I've been through the scanners a few times, never twice at one time and never at 4X's the recommended amount.

So all in all, with the information that is currently available to me. Yes, my family and I will still fly and will still go through the scanners.

I do appreciate the information though, it does help me make an informed decision and even with the information in the article, the risk is still more than acceptable for me. I do wish the article had provided links to these "obtained documents"

 

[Lewisc]

The machines haven't been used long enough to have caused "cancer clusters". The "research" cited in this thread is dubious.

That said I've always said the potential health risks are to the TSA employees standing near the machines hours a day, and maybe airline employees who need to be screened one or more times a day. This is an issue for the TSA union.

The available evidence shows no determinable risk to the typical DIS member who goes through the scanners a handful of times every year.

I couldn't believe how slow the machines are.

 

[CPT Tripss]

The machines haven't been used long enough to have caused "cancer clusters". The "research" cited in this thread is dubious.

That said I've always said the potential health risks are to the TSA employees standing near the machines hours a day, and maybe airline employees who need to be screened one or more times a day. This is an issue for the TSA union.
The available evidence shows no determinable risk to the typical DIS member who goes through the scanners a handful of times every year.

I couldn't believe how slow the machines are.

There is no TSA union, yet. The "wisdom" of whether to allow them to unionize is subject to an entirely separate discussion. That said, I totally disagree with your position. Regulation of the scanners is necessary to protect the public as well as airport employees screened.

There are safety standards and government regulations that apply to medical equipment that uses ionizing radiation. Similarly, there are government standards and regulations that apply to the operators of that equipment. These standards are there for public safety, public health and workplace safety. Those standards have nothing to do with unions.

The standards ought to apply to the scanners used on the public at airports and the operators of such equipment at ought to be held to the same education and certification requirements as radiographic technicians.