Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Scientists question safety of airport full body scanners
As soon as the underpants bomber was caught, the US department of Homeland Security started a rapid deployment of full body scanning equipment. These new scanners can see under clothes, and are designed to check for bombs or other suspicious items. The technology is by no means new, and the Transportation Security Administrations has been using similar technology for years, but only on a very limited basis. Since the first of these machines made it to an airport, the TSA has been very vocal about telling the traveling public that they are 100% safe, and that we have nothing to worry about.
Except for the risk of too much exposure to ionizing radiation that is...
Scientists at the University of California, San Francisco are disputing the claims that the machines are safe - and have presented their own research on the effects of the radiation from a trip through a whole body scanner.
According to the researchers, the calculated amount of radiation was based upon an average over the whole body - but the number that actually gets deposited in your skin may be higher - though they don't know by how much.
Rapiscan, who build the majority of the machines being installed around the nation refused to comment on the findings, but the TSA repeated that travelers would need to go through the machines thousands of times just to reach the radiation levels you receive when you get a chest X-ray.
David Brenner, head of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research also aired his concerns - "There really is no other technology around where we're planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals. It's really unprecedented in the radiation world".
I'm not sure about you - but those findings don't sit too well with me. I'm obviously not against technologies that can prevent terrorism, but there are limits to what the traveling public should be subjected to. When the scanners were first tested, their purpose was for secondary scanning procedures, not for mass scans of every passenger.
| I will do anything to keep terrorists off my plane - irradiate away! | |
|---|---|
| I refuse to use them until they are proven to be safe | |
| I'll use them - but only once or twice a year when possible |
(Photo credit: Getty Images)
Filed under: North America, United States, Airports
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Joe from CA May 18th 2010 5:49PM
I'm an x-ray technologist, and I just feel like it is irresponsible for us to irradiate people like this. I understand the dose is low, but that doesn't matter. Radiation dose is cumulative, a little here and a little there leads to cancer in the end. As a regular traveler I worry about what I will have to go through to bypass these machines. I also worry as a medical professional about what information the public will be given about the risks associated with this type of screening. I feel as though this will do much more harm than good.
verdegrrl May 20th 2010 9:43PM
Thanks for your input Joe. What are the calibration procedures, and how often do they need to be performed if at all? How does one test for when a machine goes out of calibration, if it indeed can go out of calibration, develop a leak, etc?
I've also heard that powders and liquids of specific density similar to skin or under underwear may not show up. Someone was saying that at best there was perhaps only a 50% chance the undie-bomber's powdered materials would have caught the eye of a well trained and vigilant screener? Seems like a very inconvenient and not very effective method of screening, when air cargo is rarely if ever screened (I don't mean bags).
No RADS for me! May 19th 2010 6:52AM
Bad enough people died at the hands of Terrorists in America.... But should we all die because of CANCER because of these full body scans as well? My answer is a big fat NO. I'll drive before I get scanned!
RJ from CA May 19th 2010 11:09AM
Joe if your worried about your cumulative dose then take a bus or train.
Raffi12 May 19th 2010 1:14PM
Sure but you'll be exposed to more radiation over hours at high-altitude on the plane.
robbie May 18th 2010 8:18PM
Those pictures are a bit too detailed.
If someone is gonna see that much of me, they had better be a doctor, my better half, or paying me a substantial amount of funds.
Scott Carmichael May 18th 2010 8:42PM
My apologies for the graphic images - but these are real shots from the TSA, using the machines in place at US airports, and I feel the best way to understand what they'll see, is to show an actual screen.
OTTER May 19th 2010 9:00AM
Oh I'm sure that you are that hot that people will be lining up to see your pathetic body.
Jo Ann May 19th 2010 11:09AM
Robbie, I so agree with you 100%
Emilyy May 19th 2010 9:33AM
I will refuse to be viewed by this scanner, the invasion of privacy far far outweighs the potential safety benefit. Also, why does it have to be so vivid? Would it not suffice to have detected items appear on a CG mannequin? Now I understand why the muslim community was up in arms over the scanners, and I completely agree! Totally inappropriate image, but thank you for revealing what is really going on. Pun intended.
robbie May 19th 2010 12:40AM
Graphic images are the best way to get the point across here. My comment was not regarding them being published here, but the photos overall.
Unless there is a medical reason someone viewing my "swimsuit area" is not going to happen.
Jennifer May 19th 2010 12:07AM
Scott, don't apologize for showing what TSA refuses to show to the flying public. Everyone needs to see what TSOs are seeing everyday before whole body imaging becomes primary screening at every airport in the country.
Justruss Jun 4th 2010 4:07PM
This poll does not include a response indicating that the inspection technique is unnecessary, invasive, and insulting.
I refused the scan at RIC some months ago - before the use of the scanners was supposed to have begun. The TSA agent who directed me to the scanner did not advise me of the nature of the equipment to be used to scan me. As I am an expat, I had no idea the scanners were even in place.
As a consequence of my refusal, I was subjected to a humiliating body search. It is my opinion that the search I endured was inteneded to be a punitive response from the TSA to my refusal to be scanned.
In short, if you want to fly, I advise stepping into the scanner. It comes down to either allowing a bottom feeding TSA agent to either look at your junk or to touch it.
Ljbad4life May 19th 2010 2:24AM
okay, I feel that this is poor "journalism" on gadling's otherwise flawless record. I used to work for tsa and I actually was apart of the test program in 2008. I am not an advocate or apologist. here are the facts that should have been posted
1) there are two types of whole body imagers. one uses radiation (x-ray) and the other uses millimeter wave (sound) tech
2) TSA has purchased mostly the millimeter wave machines (according to tsa.gov blog) almost 100:15 (millimeter vs x-ray)
3) The exposure rating for the machine is ~.005 milirem. the rapiscan has a radiation exposure point the size of clothes pin (at any one time)
I personally quizzed one of the designers of the machine about the radiation (they would've never told me exactly how much radiation if I had not have asked). Everyone here is screaming about a passenger that might get scanned a couple times a year, how about an uninformed tso that spends 8 hrs only a foot away from the machine?
4) That image from the scanner looks nothing like that. infact there is a "privacy filter" used by the tsa so that the tsos never see the raw image like that. what we see is a "sketch" of the raw image. The only place I've seen the raw image was at a jail (screening visitors).
I won't get into if this can catch a threat discussion, but I did want to point out the inaccuracies in this story
Tony May 19th 2010 8:59AM
LJBAD4LIFE - and I guess that frequent flyers such as myself (250,000 miles/year domestically) are the guinea pigs that are supposed to accept your assessment and find out years from now if these scanners are really safe. I could care less about the privacy issues. I would like to see some verifiable facts from a third party though.
Jeri May 19th 2010 6:32AM
I just returned from vacation, traveling for the first time with my new bilateral knee replacements which set off all the alarms. I loved using this scanner as it was much faster than the traditional wanding. I wondered about the radiation exposure, but considering I only fly once a year, I wasn't too concerned. I smile when I think of the agent that has to look at all these naked people! However, if this is necessary to keep everyone safe, scan away!!
Thaddeus May 19th 2010 10:02AM
you selfish nincompoop I hope you whole body becomes bilateral
spud May 19th 2010 6:58AM
It is very important to realize that there are two completely different types of systems out there. One type uses low power Xrays, and may or may not be a health problem--further research is probably needed. But the second type of system does not use Xrays at all! It uses low power microwave energy, and has absolutely NO ionizing radiation, so it is perfectly safe.
Sam May 19th 2010 7:47AM
While it is non-ionizing radiation. By no means is it not a form of radiation. One of the many terms for it is Terahertz Radiation. Or "microwaves" or submillimeter radiation. Which does potentially pose a danger. There have been recent studies and indications that it can cause damage to DNA. Unfortunately there have yet to be any major conlusive studies. So again this really is an unproven "safe" device being pushed on to the public. By a company with a vested interest in sell these devices to ignorant government officials.... Eager to make themselves look good
marilyn May 19th 2010 7:54AM
my sister in law was told to stay away from microwaves due to her pacemaker, same thing???