TSA to Retest "Scanners"

[CPT Tripss]

The Transportation Security Administration announced Friday that it would retest every full-body X-ray scanner that emits ionizing radiation — 247 machines at 38 airports — after maintenance records on some of the devices showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected.
...

The TSA "has repeatedly assured me that the machines that emit radiation do not pose a health risk," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said in a written statement Friday. "Nonetheless, if TSA contractors reporting on the radiation levels have done such a poor job, how can airline passengers and crew have confidence in the data used by the TSA to reassure the public?"

She said the records released Friday "included gross errors about radiation emissions. That is completely unacceptable when it comes to monitoring radiation."

U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz also was troubled by the information posted by the TSA. Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairs a House oversight subcommittee on national security and has sponsored legislation to limit the use of full-body scans. He has been pushing the TSA to release the maintenance records.

At best, Chaffetz said, the radiation reports generated by TSA contractors reveal haphazard oversight and record-keeping in the critical inspection system the agency relies upon to ensure millions of travelers aren't subjected to excessive doses of radiation.

"It is totally unacceptable to be bumbling such critical tasks," Chaffetz said. "These people are supposed to be protecting us against terrorists."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-11-tsa-scans_N.htm#

 

[WDWisTheBest]

Don't expect anything positive to come out of the investigation into the maintenance records. The TSA will probably continue to use the equipment it has purchased.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Don't expect anything positive to come out of the investigation into the maintenance records. The TSA will probably continue to use the equipment it has purchased.

I don't disagree that TSA will not change their shirt colors . . . but maybe, just maybe, a few more citizens will fall off the "it's all safe" bandwagon.

Also, the timing is interesting - Congressional hearing next week . . .

 

[bumbershoot]

after maintenance records on some of the devices showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected.

Well imagine that....

 

[DizDragonfly]

Geiger counter tucked into your carry on bag, anyone?

 

[bicker]

Don't expect anything positive to come out of the investigation into the maintenance records. The TSA will probably continue to use the equipment it has purchased.

That would be positive.

However, I think your optimism may be off-target: The government is often swayed by the irrationality of the raving mob, and thereby motivated to do the wrong thing just to earn political points for the next election.

 

[OrangeCountyCommuter]

Much ado about nothing.

I travel weekly 10x 0 is ... ZERO

Honestly I have gotten the new "dangerous" scanners about 3 times since they started putting them out. I doubt the "increased" radition is going to kill me

Of course I also feel pretty certain that the theater does nothing to protect me either...

 

[kaytieeldr]

So, ten times 1/100 of the radiation exposure each passenger gets by flying for two minutes is 1/10 the radiation to which each is exposed every two minutes in flight.

I'm still MUCH more likely to be irradiated in the sky than in the airport.

Oh. Two hundred forty seven scanners divided among 38 airports averages out to 6.5 per airport. Given the number airports combined with the number of gates at the typical airport, the chances of even encountering one are slim.

 

[eliza61]

- I don't know anyone who thinks radiation is safe for you. we all know that its best to avoid but I weigh the risk.
- I get annual mammograms because I'd rather risk the exposure then let undected breast cancer spoil my life.
-I get ct scans because I'd rather risk the small exposure than let stomach cancer ruin my day.
-I get yearly dental xrays because once again the exposure is worth the risk to me
- I enjoy traveling so the risk going through the scanners is worth it to me.
I know the difference between the risk of going through the scanners and hanging out at the Japenese nuclear facility.

I'm glad the tsa is retesting the scanners, if they faulty hey, I'm glad they are on top of it.

"positive" depends on your perspective. I guess if you don't like the scanners than no, I don't think there will be a positive outcome as I don't see them going any where soon.

 

[Jeff_G]

Much ado about nothing.

I travel weekly 10x 0 is ... ZERO

Honestly I have gotten the new "dangerous" scanners about 3 times since they started putting them out. I doubt the "increased" radition is going to kill me

Of course I also feel pretty certain that the theater does nothing to protect me either...

It is not 0, go read the Johns Hopkins report for yourself...

Individual effective dose per screening (frontal and rear scan) of a subject is 1.58 urem (0.0158 uSV) , less than the 10 urm (0.10 uSV) limit.

The average effective per screening (frontal and rear scan) of a subject is 1.48 urem (0.0148 uSV) , less than the 25 urem (0.25 uSv) per screening limit.

Based on 1.58 urem/screening for frontal and rear scans (per ANSI/HPS N43.17-2002, reference Section 8.3 of this report), individual dose is below NID if the individual is subjected to less than 632 screenings in a year

Areas exsist above the units and at the entry/exit locations where the 100 mrem per year
general public dose limit could potentially be exceeded. It is recommended that a survey
of each installation site be conducted to ensure that the dose to any member of the general
public is maintained below the 100 mrem (0. 1 rem) per year limit and to ensure that
doses are kept ALARA. For the area above the units, a beam stop may be considered to
ensure the general public dose limit is maintained.

http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/jh_apl_v2.pdf


Interesting what happens when you multiply these numbers by 10…

 

[bicker]

The latest...

Airport scanners are an "extremely low" source of radiation exposure that poses virtually no health risk, not even to frequent air travelers, U.S. researchers said on Monday. ...

Dr. Stephen Machnicki of Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, who was not involved in the study, said the radiation from one of these scanners is less than what someone would get just by taking a cross-country flight.

"Hopefully it will help them to overcome their fears of going through the scanners, Machnicki said.

[Dr. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a radiology professor at the University of California, San Francisco, whose study appears in the Archives of Internal Medicine,] has published several studies on cancer risks from overuse of medical imaging -- said the risk from airport scanners is trivial.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42312503/ns/health-health_care/

 

[CPT Tripss]

"When used properly, the doses from these machines are extremely low," Smith-Bindman said in a telephone interview.

pp

The OP was referring to the reports that the STYCs were generating too much radiation. The pp's experts assume that the machines are functioning "as advertised" and accepted the data that the manufacturer provided.

 

[MrsNick]

Until the TSA can provide convincing evidence that the scanners are not malfunctioning, my family will take the patdown.

In addition to the existing risk from malfunction, there is the added risk from human error. Who's to say that the person operating the device isn't inadvertently using too much radiation? Think it can't happen? I recently read an article that people who operate X Rays in a hospital were overexposing newborn infants to radiation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/health/28radiation.html

I think I might have less concern if I wasn't traveling with a young child. But radiation poses an even higher risk for children than adults. As long as DD is with me, we will play it safe.

**All of the above applies to the X ray scanners only. I have no problem with the metal detectors.

 

[eliza61]

Until the TSA can provide convincing evidence that the scanners are not malfunctioning, my family will take the patdown.

In addition to the existing risk from malfunction, there is the added risk from human error. Who's to say that the person operating the device isn't inadvertently using too much radiation? Think it can't happen? I recently read an article that people who operate X Rays in a hospital were overexposing newborn infants to radiation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/health/28radiation.html

I think I might have less concern if I wasn't traveling with a young child. But radiation poses an even higher risk for children than adults. As long as DD is with me, we will play it safe.

**All of the above applies to the X ray scanners only. I have no problem with the metal detectors.

And that's a totally cool and personal choice. You're right who's to say about the safety of any thing once humans get involved. There's not much in life that I think anyone can give a 100% percent guarantee. Last summer in Philly a duck tour boat crashed in the Delaware River killing a bunch of tourist, operator error I sure when those folks got on that boat, they were all planning on having a safe journey.

like I said before it's pretty much a personal choice, I simply hate the scare stories. TSA agents are not rapist, child molestors or any of the other garbage people have been calling them and at least in my opinion full body scanners are not giving out the radiation doses equivalent to Japans ***ushima nuclear plant.

 

[eliza61]

The latest... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42312503/ns/health-health_care/

pp

The OP was referring to the reports that the STYCs were generating too much radiation. The pp's experts assume that the machines are functioning "as advertised" and accepted the data that the manufacturer provided.

Translation: Only stories that show one side of the story are allowed.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Translation: Only stories that show one side of the story are allowed.

Hardly the case here. Bicker's cite was experts acceptance the one sided TSA provided data (not Bicker's fault) . . . OP was about data problems within TSA and TSA retesting protocol.

I'm not looking for a 100% guarentee - just want honest information upon which to make my personal decisions. We ain't getting that from the TSA . . .

 

[bicker]

I suspect some of the people who don't like the scanners for any number of reasons will disparage the agency regardless of what the agency does or how they do it. The objectors will hold to the idea that anything they don't like needs to be defended to their satisfaction, rather than to society's standards, and must be defended to them with absolute perfection and assurance, while they are not similarly obligated to defend their objections with any level of rigor.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Hmmmm . . . just what are "society's standards?"

On this particular topic, given the congrssiional hearings and state legistive actions to curb the TSA's existing practices I daresay that "jury is still out."

 

[eliza61]

Hardly the case here. Bicker's cite was experts acceptance the one sided TSA provided data (not Bicker's fault) . . . OP was about data problems within TSA and TSA retesting protocol.

I'm not looking for a 100% guarentee - just want honest information upon which to make my personal decisions. We ain't getting that from the TSA . . .

Wait, isn't the TSA the people who announced they are retesting the scanners. According to the article they are. Seems to me the ole tsa is being pretty unfront about the faulty data.

The congressman said that the bumbling is totally unacceptable, and they are right but nothing has been hidden. You've already made your decision as evident by the continuous stream of "tsa = evil empire" post, so what decision are you looking for?

 

[bicker]

There will always be folks seeking to exploit opportunities to second-guess the administration of society, seeking to achieve their own ends by fostering disorder if necessary. There has yet to be a society where people universally seek to put collective interests ahead of their own personal preferences. As such, we'll continually be buffeted by the swaying of public opinion, which increasingly has nothing to do with principles and standards, but rather has mostly to do with unfounded expectations, self-interest, and antipathy for anything that gets in the way of what someone personally wants.