Scientists Question Safety of New Airport Scanners 357
An anonymous reader sends this quote from a story at NPR about the accelerated deployment of new scanning machines at airports:
"Fifty-two of these state-of-the-art machines are already scanning passengers at 23 US airports. By the end of 2011, there will be 1,000 machines and two out of every three passengers will be asked to step into one of the new machines for a six-second head-to-toe scan before boarding. About half of these machines will be so-called X-ray back-scatter scanners. They use low-energy X-rays to peer beneath passengers' clothing. That has some scientists worried. ... The San Francisco group thinks both the machine's manufacturer, Rapiscan, and government officials have miscalculated the dose that the X-ray scanners deliver to the skin — where nearly all the radiation is concentrated. The stated dose — about .02 microsieverts, a medical unit of radiation — is averaged over the whole body, members of the UCSF group said in interviews. But they maintain that if the dose is calculated as what gets deposited in the skin, the number would be higher, though how much higher is unclear."
Issue not with the passengers (Score:5, Interesting)
All this extra effort at the checkpoints is to keep up what most people here already know what it is. The illusion of absolute safety in a system where it can never be guaranteed 100%.
i could be wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
but i read somewhere that the simple act of flying is equivalent to getting an x-ray because you're so high in the atmosphere
i also read that living in denver for a year is equivalent to getting an xray (as compared to living in say miami: at sea level, rather than a mile up)
not that i'm justifying these scanners, but if you're worried about extra unnecessary irradiation, then don't fly (or live in the mountains)
its too much of a hassle anyways, even without the scanners, flying sucks
Re:hang on slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Technically you have a choice, but given the monkeys that work for security today, they probably don't know that. They will insist vehemently that you HAVE to be scanned, just as they held-up this guy for carrying a lot of cash (not an illegal act): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0SXuclz47Y [youtube.com]
People in authority often make-up laws ("You must comply") right on the spot even when the actual law says otherwise.
Re:But no one cares about cosmic ray exposure... (Score:3, Interesting)
Quit exaggerating. The background radiation level doubles every 6,000 feet, so an entire 24-hour day at 30,000 feet is like a month on the ground. A four hour flight is roughly the equivalent of 5 days on the ground.
Also, remember that radiation exposure is considered cumulative. There is no safe level of radiation exposure. The more you are exposed to, the greater your risk of death, period. Thus, it is utterly irrelevant whether the backscatter machine only adds... say a tenth as much radiation as the rest of the flight. That's still 10% more than you would have gotten otherwise. (And yes, I pulled that number out of thin air solely for example purposes.)
Besides, if you need to get somewhere quickly, the radiation absorbed while flying is an unavoidable risk. The radiation from backscatter machines isn't. It's like the worry about CT scans. Do they increase cancer risk? Yes. Are they sometimes medically necessary? Also yes. So the risk outweighs the damage when they are medically necessary, but nobody in their right minds would argue that everyone admitted to the hospital should get a full-body CT scan just in case one of them has something wrong. (I know we're talking about several orders of magnitude difference in dosage here, but the principle is still the same.)
Re:hang on slashdot (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm more than aware that "don't fly" is, at best, a poor option, but if you've got some extra time there's always sea travel, which is actually often a lot of fun.
I would love to take a sea voyage. Only problem is that it's time consuming and not real feasible unless I want to quit my job :(
So it looks like my choices are to submit to the Orwellian security theater or abandon my desires to travel around the world and limit myself to exploring the United States and Canada. *sigh*, the fucking terrorists won....
Re:The main danger is (Score:3, Interesting)
No, the use of the plane itself as a weapon was well understood and ignored, just as the risk from bombs is currently well understood and ignored.
If you really think that taking your shoes off, partial luggage searches, etc, are anything similar to security measures, I suggest that you give your passwords to someone else for safe-keeping.
If you want to be safe and comfortable:
- Nobody should ever be awake on a plane.
- All passengers should be drugged
- Any passenger found awake should be immediately killed
- No luggage. No carry-ons. This includes clothing. This will not be more than a minor inconvenience. FedEx has been dreaming of this day and will be ready to pick up the slack.
If you want to be uncomfortable for a day or so and maintain a shred of dignity:
- Don't be a paranoid jackass.
X-ray penetration depth (Score:1, Interesting)
Saw this today. What sort of abnormality did this detect and how far did the x-ray penetrate?
(AP) LAGOS, Nigeria -- Nigeria's drug enforcement agency says it has arrested a politician who allegedly swallowed 2 kilograms (nearly 4.5 pounds) of cocaine to fund his election campaign.
The National Drug Law Enforcement Agency said Monday it arrested 52-year-old Eme Zuru Ayortor at Lagos' Murtala Mohammed International Airport. [b]The agency says the pharmacist-turned-politician was trying to board a flight to Germany when a scanning machine detected an abnormality in his stomach.[/b]
Agents say they found 100 individually wrapped packages of cocaine inside his body. The agency says the politician claimed his failed 2007 run for the Edo state House of Assembly ruined him financially and smuggling drugs was the only way he could fund his 2011 election bid. He has yet to be charged.
Re:Nobody cares (Score:1, Interesting)
This space is more complex than simple comparison of figures. Exposure (localized vs full body) type of radiation and exposure intensity over time have a huge impact on outcomes. The sivert measurement is intended to normalize biological effects but details are still relevent.
Its true especially for international travelers radiation exposure difference at altitude is much higher than x-ray scanners. Comparisons are helpful to understand each individuals realitive exposure risks but my question is why roll dice when there is absoultely no reason to? Other imaging technologies are available with the same costs and properties minus the radiation exposure.
There is a LOT of unsettled research surrounding the linear hypothesis of radiation exposure. If correct it means while your individual risk of developing cancer (ie winning the lottery) as a direct result is quite small if you put millions or billions of people thru the scanners SOME of those people will win the lottery and die as a direct result of moving thru the scanners. We will never know who they were since about 20% of the worlds population will die from cancer during their lifetimes no statisticaly significant signals will ever be detected but real people are still being killed as a result.
Deaths from chernobyl have been calculated in the thousands from cancer due to this very same line of thinking.
The way I look at it as an individual you have nothing to worry about. As a policy maker your actions are likely to be causing real deaths. This is why the researchers care quite a bit about this and are sounding alarm bells.
Re:Nobody cares (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed; if these exposures are safe - even for frequent flyers, then why have we been repeatedly warned over the last thirty+ years about cumulative exposure to xrays in dentist and doctors offices?
SB