Whole Body Scanners Opt Out Stories [merged]
Sep 24, 2010, 4:22 pm
#301
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,790
Radio Girl, thanks for your explanation about the differences between the backscatter and millimeter wave imaging scanners.
I looked on the TSA website and they show a picture of the L3 ProVision scanner and it is listed as a MMW scanner. On the L3 website for this machine, they give no specific data except to say the ”signals are 10,000 times lower than other commonly used radio frequency devices”, they don’t mention what these other devices are, could be microwave ovens.
I don’t know how much radio wave energy a cell phone or a cell phone tower puts out, but I remember reading somewhere that the older analog cell phones used a more powerful and lower frequency radio wave, and that one of the was the reasons for the extendable antennas was to get the signal away from the persons head, where today’s digital cell phones are using a much higher frequency and use less power to transmit the signal and do not have these extendable antenna anymore and are much safer than the older analog cell phones.
With your background as a radio engineer, and ignoring all the other privacy issues associated with theses machines that we all object to, just on the safety aspect alone, would you have any reason to be concerned about being scanned by a MMW scanner.
Mr. Elliott
I looked on the TSA website and they show a picture of the L3 ProVision scanner and it is listed as a MMW scanner. On the L3 website for this machine, they give no specific data except to say the ”signals are 10,000 times lower than other commonly used radio frequency devices”, they don’t mention what these other devices are, could be microwave ovens.
I don’t know how much radio wave energy a cell phone or a cell phone tower puts out, but I remember reading somewhere that the older analog cell phones used a more powerful and lower frequency radio wave, and that one of the was the reasons for the extendable antennas was to get the signal away from the persons head, where today’s digital cell phones are using a much higher frequency and use less power to transmit the signal and do not have these extendable antenna anymore and are much safer than the older analog cell phones.
With your background as a radio engineer, and ignoring all the other privacy issues associated with theses machines that we all object to, just on the safety aspect alone, would you have any reason to be concerned about being scanned by a MMW scanner.
Mr. Elliott
In a lot of words... (
) I've know people* who've worked on developing this sort of scanner (the project didn't go anywhere, so they are not the people behind any of the commercial systems today) and have seen the numbers of the level of power that's necessary. About 1/10000 of a cell phone power is a pretty reasonable number. (Just because TSA lies about lots of things doesn't mean that everything they say is always a lie!) The older analog cell phones used 800 or 900 MHz. Newer digital phones still use those frequencies, as well as 1800/1900/2000 MHz (depends on country and company). By comparison, WiFi devices are 2400 MHz or 5800 MHz. The extendable antennas on the older phones were, I believe, just because radio engineers are used to having an antenna stick out, but as the electronics became smaller and the phones became smaller, someone had the idea of putting the antenna inside. The difference in power between the analog phones and digital phones is not really a big deal. All cell phones and WiFi devices are WAY below the standards defined as "safe" for radio frequency exposure.
The MMW nude-o-scopes operate at even higher frequencies (23,000 MHz or 98,000 MHz). There are no common consumer radio systems in those frequency bands, so TSA compares them to cell phones.
--I'm late for something but really want to continue this. Be back later. (I've also written heaps about this before if you want to search earlier threads.
)*I need to be careful not to get my innocent research colleagues in trouble by not giving too much identifying information; hope you understand...
Last edited by RadioGirl; Sep 24, 2010 at 4:28 pm Reason: misplaced bold
Sep 25, 2010, 5:33 am
#302
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC
Programs: Amtrak Select Plus, Marriott Platinum, Marriott Lifetime Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 3,123
Had my first opt-out experience at DCA. They were courteous enough, but it took forever to find a screener to do it. Also found it to be a bit invasive.
This nonsense is making me seriously consider switching from DL Shuttle to Acela Express.
This nonsense is making me seriously consider switching from DL Shuttle to Acela Express.
Sep 25, 2010, 7:44 am
#303
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 135
To me, if a screener intensely inspected any of my credit cards, I would have cause for alarm, I would verbally accuse the screener that they were trying to memorize my name, credit card number, expiration date and security code because with this information, anyone can have a field day shopping on the internet.
Mr. Elliott
"Sir, is there a problem?"
"No, but you seem to have an interest in the numbers on that card so I thought I would share a few more with you."
Sep 25, 2010, 7:58 am
#304
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 135
As I packed up, I was glad to see three additional passengers opting out for full pat downs. Basically, I opt out for three reasons: privacy, radiation, and to protest the whole security theater concept. I would love to see more travelers opt out to slow down the system and protest the invasion of privacy and trampling of rights.
I'm telling you, if I have to get groped in public, I'm stripping down to my drawers, and telling everyone passing by, "Feel safer now?"
Sep 25, 2010, 8:40 am
#305
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: California. USA
Posts: 1,404
Seeing other people opt out might actually give the sheeple some concern that you know something they don't about the nude-o-scope. Power to the people!
I'm telling you, if I have to get groped in public, I'm stripping down to my drawers, and telling everyone passing by, "Feel safer now?"
I'm telling you, if I have to get groped in public, I'm stripping down to my drawers, and telling everyone passing by, "Feel safer now?"
He would drop the drawers to.He has nothing to hide. And he has been touched very intense in his groins. At that time his was in a screnning room already in his underwere. And the TSA still did it. And he has told me never again.
Sep 25, 2010, 10:45 am
#306
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still a Hilton Diamond & Club Cholula™ R.I.P. Super Plats
Posts: 25,415
Radio Girl, thanks for your explanation about the differences between the backscatter and millimeter wave imaging scanners.
I looked on the TSA website and they show a picture of the L3 ProVision scanner and it is listed as a MMW scanner. On the L3 website for this machine, they give no specific data except to say the ”signals are 10,000 times lower than other commonly used radio frequency devices”, they don’t mention what these other devices are, could be microwave ovens.
I don’t know how much radio wave energy a cell phone or a cell phone tower puts out, but I remember reading somewhere that the older analog cell phones used a more powerful and lower frequency radio wave, and that one of the was the reasons for the extendable antennas was to get the signal away from the persons head, where today’s digital cell phones are using a much higher frequency and use less power to transmit the signal and do not have these extendable antenna anymore and are much safer than the older analog cell phones.
With your background as a radio engineer, and ignoring all the other privacy issues associated with theses machines that we all object to, just on the safety aspect alone, would you have any reason to be concerned about being scanned by a MMW scanner.
Mr. Elliott
I looked on the TSA website and they show a picture of the L3 ProVision scanner and it is listed as a MMW scanner. On the L3 website for this machine, they give no specific data except to say the ”signals are 10,000 times lower than other commonly used radio frequency devices”, they don’t mention what these other devices are, could be microwave ovens.
I don’t know how much radio wave energy a cell phone or a cell phone tower puts out, but I remember reading somewhere that the older analog cell phones used a more powerful and lower frequency radio wave, and that one of the was the reasons for the extendable antennas was to get the signal away from the persons head, where today’s digital cell phones are using a much higher frequency and use less power to transmit the signal and do not have these extendable antenna anymore and are much safer than the older analog cell phones.
With your background as a radio engineer, and ignoring all the other privacy issues associated with theses machines that we all object to, just on the safety aspect alone, would you have any reason to be concerned about being scanned by a MMW scanner.
Mr. Elliott
RadioGirl: I understand your background, but here's the bottom line: I don't want to be irradiated or microwaved ever, by anybody, unless it's medically necessary, period, end of story. Our government has no business pulling this crap on us. Whether anyone thinks it's "safe" or not is of no consequence.
Last edited by MikeMpls; Sep 25, 2010 at 10:53 am
Sep 25, 2010, 5:36 pm
#307
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,790
... also Raytheon's pain ray (Active Denial System), deployed the U.S. military in Afghanistan but never used, and installed in a jail by the L.A. County Sheriff's Dept. to deter unruly inmates.
RadioGirl: I understand your background, but here's the bottom line: I don't want to be irradiated or microwaved ever, by anybody, unless it's medically necessary, period, end of story. Our government has no business pulling this crap on us. Whether anyone thinks it's "safe" or not is of no consequence.
RadioGirl: I understand your background, but here's the bottom line: I don't want to be irradiated or microwaved ever, by anybody, unless it's medically necessary, period, end of story. Our government has no business pulling this crap on us. Whether anyone thinks it's "safe" or not is of no consequence.
In addition, it is reasonable to object on (1) the basis of privacy, on (2) the basis that it is ineffective against some kinds of smuggling (and therefore not the magic bullet to find "everything" that TSA claims), on (3) the basis that it is a waste of taxpayers' money that could far better be spent elsewhere, on (4) the basis that it opens up the passenger to increased risk of theft of valuables, on (5) the basis that it slows down the line, and on (6) the basis that it is likely to lead to more intrusive hands-on searches of people with medical devices under their clothes. With that list, there is far more than enough reason to object to these machines, and I do.
But what is not helpful is to exaggerate the health risk just to have one more item on the list. Yes, the MMW scanner, microwave ovens, and the Raytheon pain ray all use radio frequency energy (so do cell phones, WiFi, keyless entry fobs, door-opening sensors, GPS and thousands of other things around you daily). That does not mean they're all the same thing or have the same risks. A desk lamp, a clock radio, and the electric chair at Texas State Penitentiary all use electricity. Are you willing to oppose indoor lighting on the basis that it's "nearly the same" as an electric chair? Pianos, trumpets, and jackhammers all emit sound. Standing too close to a jackhammer can deafen you, so does that mean listening to a piano is dangerous? Flashlights and industrial lasers that can cut through metal both emit light. One is safe; the other is very very dangerous. In all of these examples, the essential difference is the power of the emission. A microwave oven uses 10,000 times more power than a WiFi access point, in the same frequency band. No one gets "microwaved" by going into Starbucks when the WiFi is on.
An article on the Raytheon weapon says that there is a standard of 0.01 Watts per square cm (W/cm2) but that the Raytheon weapon would have to be "much higher power" and that 2 W/cm2 could cause eye damage. My estimate of the MMW nude-o-scope is that the power density on the person being scanned is about 0.00001 W/cm2. So we have the nude-o-scope at 1/1000 of the standard and the Raytheon weapon "much higher" than the standard. Again - equating the two is like equating the electric chair with a battery.
I deplore the TSA for exaggerating the risk of shoes to the point of x-raying infants' booties. I hate the TSA for exaggerating the potential for liquid explosives, to the point of confiscating water, food, and vital medicines. I despise the TSA for pretending that they can train people to read minds. In every case, TSA has exaggerated some risk to justify some new policy. If we exaggerate the safety risk of MMW just because we hate the TSA, we play the same game.
When TSA tries to explain liquid explosives, several people here with real knowledge of chemistry can see through the lies, and it makes everything TSA says on the subject open to ridicule. If any of my professional colleagues read this board and the comparison of the MMW scanner to the Raytheon pain ray, they would have the same reaction - they would write us off as a group of tinfoil hat types and discount the other (accurate) arguments against the nude-o-scope.
So, I am not defending the TSA or the mmw scanner (read my first two paragraphs again if in doubt) but I believe we must be accurate in our criticism if we are to be taken seriously.
/soapbox
Sep 25, 2010, 6:51 pm
#310
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Southwest Florida
Programs: AA lifetime Gold , DL Gold, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 572
Let me start by saying I agree completely with your last two sentences - there are many reasons to oppose the nude-o-scope, starting with the fact that it's an absolutely unreasonable intrusion for people who simply want to get on an airplane. That alone should be enough reason to object to them.
In addition, it is reasonable to object on (1) the basis of privacy, on (2) the basis that it is ineffective against some kinds of smuggling (and therefore not the magic bullet to find "everything" that TSA claims), on (3) the basis that it is a waste of taxpayers' money that could far better be spent elsewhere, on (4) the basis that it opens up the passenger to increased risk of theft of valuables, on (5) the basis that it slows down the line, and on (6) the basis that it is likely to lead to more intrusive hands-on searches of people with medical devices under their clothes. With that list, there is far more than enough reason to object to these machines, and I do.
But what is not helpful is to exaggerate the health risk just to have one more item on the list. Yes, the MMW scanner, microwave ovens, and the Raytheon pain ray all use radio frequency energy (so do cell phones, WiFi, keyless entry fobs, door-opening sensors, GPS and thousands of other things around you daily). That does not mean they're all the same thing or have the same risks. A desk lamp, a clock radio, and the electric chair at Texas State Penitentiary all use electricity. Are you willing to oppose indoor lighting on the basis that it's "nearly the same" as an electric chair? Pianos, trumpets, and jackhammers all emit sound. Standing too close to a jackhammer can deafen you, so does that mean listening to a piano is dangerous? Flashlights and industrial lasers that can cut through metal both emit light. One is safe; the other is very very dangerous. In all of these examples, the essential difference is the power of the emission. A microwave oven uses 10,000 times more power than a WiFi access point, in the same frequency band. No one gets "microwaved" by going into Starbucks when the WiFi is on.
An article on the Raytheon weapon says that there is a standard of 0.01 Watts per square cm (W/cm2) but that the Raytheon weapon would have to be "much higher power" and that 2 W/cm2 could cause eye damage. My estimate of the MMW nude-o-scope is that the power density on the person being scanned is about 0.00001 W/cm2. So we have the nude-o-scope at 1/1000 of the standard and the Raytheon weapon "much higher" than the standard. Again - equating the two is like equating the electric chair with a battery.
I deplore the TSA for exaggerating the risk of shoes to the point of x-raying infants' booties. I hate the TSA for exaggerating the potential for liquid explosives, to the point of confiscating water, food, and vital medicines. I despise the TSA for pretending that they can train people to read minds. In every case, TSA has exaggerated some risk to justify some new policy. If we exaggerate the safety risk of MMW just because we hate the TSA, we play the same game.
When TSA tries to explain liquid explosives, several people here with real knowledge of chemistry can see through the lies, and it makes everything TSA says on the subject open to ridicule. If any of my professional colleagues read this board and the comparison of the MMW scanner to the Raytheon pain ray, they would have the same reaction - they would write us off as a group of tinfoil hat types and discount the other (accurate) arguments against the nude-o-scope.
So, I am not defending the TSA or the mmw scanner (read my first two paragraphs again if in doubt) but I believe we must be accurate in our criticism if we are to be taken seriously.
/soapbox
In addition, it is reasonable to object on (1) the basis of privacy, on (2) the basis that it is ineffective against some kinds of smuggling (and therefore not the magic bullet to find "everything" that TSA claims), on (3) the basis that it is a waste of taxpayers' money that could far better be spent elsewhere, on (4) the basis that it opens up the passenger to increased risk of theft of valuables, on (5) the basis that it slows down the line, and on (6) the basis that it is likely to lead to more intrusive hands-on searches of people with medical devices under their clothes. With that list, there is far more than enough reason to object to these machines, and I do.
But what is not helpful is to exaggerate the health risk just to have one more item on the list. Yes, the MMW scanner, microwave ovens, and the Raytheon pain ray all use radio frequency energy (so do cell phones, WiFi, keyless entry fobs, door-opening sensors, GPS and thousands of other things around you daily). That does not mean they're all the same thing or have the same risks. A desk lamp, a clock radio, and the electric chair at Texas State Penitentiary all use electricity. Are you willing to oppose indoor lighting on the basis that it's "nearly the same" as an electric chair? Pianos, trumpets, and jackhammers all emit sound. Standing too close to a jackhammer can deafen you, so does that mean listening to a piano is dangerous? Flashlights and industrial lasers that can cut through metal both emit light. One is safe; the other is very very dangerous. In all of these examples, the essential difference is the power of the emission. A microwave oven uses 10,000 times more power than a WiFi access point, in the same frequency band. No one gets "microwaved" by going into Starbucks when the WiFi is on.
An article on the Raytheon weapon says that there is a standard of 0.01 Watts per square cm (W/cm2) but that the Raytheon weapon would have to be "much higher power" and that 2 W/cm2 could cause eye damage. My estimate of the MMW nude-o-scope is that the power density on the person being scanned is about 0.00001 W/cm2. So we have the nude-o-scope at 1/1000 of the standard and the Raytheon weapon "much higher" than the standard. Again - equating the two is like equating the electric chair with a battery.
I deplore the TSA for exaggerating the risk of shoes to the point of x-raying infants' booties. I hate the TSA for exaggerating the potential for liquid explosives, to the point of confiscating water, food, and vital medicines. I despise the TSA for pretending that they can train people to read minds. In every case, TSA has exaggerated some risk to justify some new policy. If we exaggerate the safety risk of MMW just because we hate the TSA, we play the same game.
When TSA tries to explain liquid explosives, several people here with real knowledge of chemistry can see through the lies, and it makes everything TSA says on the subject open to ridicule. If any of my professional colleagues read this board and the comparison of the MMW scanner to the Raytheon pain ray, they would have the same reaction - they would write us off as a group of tinfoil hat types and discount the other (accurate) arguments against the nude-o-scope.
So, I am not defending the TSA or the mmw scanner (read my first two paragraphs again if in doubt) but I believe we must be accurate in our criticism if we are to be taken seriously.
/soapbox
Thanks again for your technical input to the MMW issue here and from what I have read on the internet, that these machines are safe.
Aside from the privacy issue, which I understand the government is correcting by changing the software so none of a persons private parts are shown, we have a choice, of what is the lesser of the 2 evils, MMW screening, or be sexually assaulted by some TSA personnel who couldn’t pass the hiring test to be a Wal-Mart janitor, (Sample questions, 1- Whose buried in Grants Tomb, 2- What color was the gray horse that George Washington rode to his first inauguration).
Trivia, who originally asked these questions
Mr. Elliott
Sep 25, 2010, 6:55 pm
#311
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 1,653
Sep 25, 2010, 6:56 pm
#312
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,111
Radio Girl,
Thanks again for your technical input to the MMW issue here and from what I have read on the internet, that these machines are safe.
Aside from the privacy issue, which I understand the government is correcting by changing the software so none of a persons private parts are shown, we have a choice, of what is the lesser of the 2 evils, MMW screening, or be sexually assaulted by some TSA personnel who couldn’t pass the hiring test to be a Wal-Mart janitor, (Sample questions, 1- Whose buried in Grants Tomb, 2- What color was the gray horse that George Washington rode to his first inauguration).
Trivia, who originally asked these questions
Mr. Elliott
Thanks again for your technical input to the MMW issue here and from what I have read on the internet, that these machines are safe.
Aside from the privacy issue, which I understand the government is correcting by changing the software so none of a persons private parts are shown, we have a choice, of what is the lesser of the 2 evils, MMW screening, or be sexually assaulted by some TSA personnel who couldn’t pass the hiring test to be a Wal-Mart janitor, (Sample questions, 1- Whose buried in Grants Tomb, 2- What color was the gray horse that George Washington rode to his first inauguration).
Trivia, who originally asked these questions
Mr. Elliott
Sep 25, 2010, 7:39 pm
#313
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Bruce
Sep 25, 2010, 10:52 pm
#314
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 1,653
That's what I suspected. 15 minutes seems like a unbelievably long time for a pat down and swab.
Sep 26, 2010, 7:11 am
#315
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (perenially), GVA (not in a long time)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 6,790
Aside from the privacy issue, which I understand the government is correcting by changing the software so none of a persons private parts are shown, we have a choice, of what is the lesser of the 2 evils, MMW screening, or be sexually assaulted by some TSA personnel who couldn’t pass the hiring test to be a Wal-Mart janitor,...
Will have to pass on the trivia quiz for now.
But I think many TSA personnel would be unsure who "Grant" and "Washington" were.