If we get rid of the TSA and its strip search machines, there would be less standing in line -- that means people would absorb less radiation while standing in line waiting to be cleared to go airside. ;)

Then it was a total waste of time, effort and money.

One thing that bothers me about the report is that all the members of Task Group 217 are from the University of California. Doesn't say, IME, too much for independent thinking/input being allowed.

Further, no dates were given for when the study was done, although there is some indication that it was done in 2012.

One wonders why the TSA suddenly gave permission for their operating machines to be tested. Is that because they knew the machines were going to be taken out of service?


That says to me that there is a risk of skin cancer from the machines.

Finally, this report completely ignores past radiation exposure to the population via medical treatments/diagnoses. The word "cumulative" was used only twice in the report and neither referred to past exposure to radiation.

Assuming the device they were provided to test was a standard device and that all TSA-maintained devices were maintained to the same standard -- things we are not allowed to know. Any given device could have been blasting pax with any amount of radiation and we wouldn't know because we aren't allowed to know what standards are used or what protocols are employed. Employees weren't even allowed to wear dosimeters.

So... no... the report tells us exactly nothing.

I could not locate a link to the original peer-reviewed publication in order to analyze the actual measurements made and their methodology, but I have to say that using two active airport scanners is not particularly impressive.

Also, as Ink pointed out, radiation is not necessarily ionizing, so comparing total radiation is meaningless. And as Petaluma points out, the increase in population skin cancer can be important, considering they are providing no benefit whatsoever, and therefore should have no risk whatsoever at the very least (not just low risk).

Mostly, this still does not remove the fact that the scanners are ineffective (false negatives) and lead to too many false positives (particularly in persons with private issues or medical devices that are no concern of the TSA at all).

Unfortunately, it is too little too late. TSA has a huge credibility problem (amongst others). Such as report should have been conducted and released when the scanner first came on line.

I hate to disagree. It should have been done as part of the approval process, not when it came on line.

You couldn't find a link because there was none in Ron's article. Here's the "study:"

http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/RPT_217.pdf

BTW, did you notice the picture in the eTurbonews link? It's from a group determined to prove that microwaves, radiation and nuclear power are all bad. Strange choice as a source for a photo to say the least.

Thank you for saying this. I notice this a lot in articles, and it seems like a lot of people dont understand this.
Whenever I see reports that do this it pisses me off. I feel like they are preying upon the people who dont fully understand so they'll agree with whatever point is being made (in this case its that standing in your home or flying in a plane yeilds the same if not worse dose of radiation):mad:

Somehow I knew that the "die-hards" would never accept the very evidence they demanded.

Believe it or not, accept it or not, them's the facts ladies and gents.

INK:

A more appropriate analogy would be the difference between getting punched by Mike Tyson and getting punched by, well for example you. Given the shape Iron Mike is in today I doubt the difference would be all that much, and both can be shaken off in short order.

In any case, I am back out again. Fun to watch the show but I have no further interest in participating. I'll check in every now and again, just to keep my account active and to see just how far off the edge some are willing to walk. As you type just think of me laughing in the background at the statement you make. :D

Happy Trails!

Why this study now? Had TSA gotten behind something like this a few years back a lot of the distrust of TSA might have been averted.

The whole point is moot. Backscatter is no longer in use in the US.

I think we should also accept this other example of the same quality, even the "die-hards" among us:

http://www.earthnotaglobe.com/library/samuel_rowbotham_-_earth_not_a_globe.pdf

Cite?

My understanding is that BKSX is no longer in use at the airports, but IIRC, DHS wants to deploy the units in other government areas where there is a lower (*cough*) 'expectation of privacy', ie, prisons and even high-security government installations.

Further, IIRC, someone (may not be Rapiscan) already has a BKSX equipped with 'gumby' in development. The alleged reason for getting rid of the current BKSX machines had nothing to do with radiation and everything to do with the inability (supposedly) to retrofit them with 'gumby' privacy protections. (The truth is, someone will make a lot more money by installing all new BKSX machines with gumby than they would make by retrofitting the old machines).

Thank you very much for the link, petaluma1. I just read it and, although it is not a peer-reviewed scientific article, it appears to be a well thought of and conducted study which is designed to measure typical radiation doses, but not determine effectiveness, or their reliability in terms of operating as they should.

The results are a relief for me: they indicate doses are reasonably low, and penetrability on the skin is low enough that most of the ionizing radiation is gone by the time live cells (those that can become cancerous) are reached. It does not address a safety point I consider important which is mucosa (such as lips) and corneas. But still, it is good to know that doses are low enough that their use until today is not going to tragically increase skin cancer in the flying population. Cataracts are still a possibility.

All this of course should have been established before implementation.

Having said that, it is still ionizing radiation, and it brings no medical benefit whatsoever, and does not help catch terrorists (check the TSA blog to confirm they never catch anything using full body scanners that wouldn´t show up with metal detectors). Therefore, even if it causes a single case of skin cancer (and those doses multiplied by the number of flyers definitely will cause a few cases), I find that unacceptable medically.

Also, the worst point for me (and which pertains to MMW too) is that they simply don´t work. There are plenty of ways to bring dangerous objects such as guns through them undetected (false negatives) and many false positives with anything on the body surface, inconveniencing innocent people, and invasively pointing out medical issues (prosthesis, ostomies, adult diapers, disfigurements, medical devices, etc) that no one within the TSA should need to know about.

Let's say I accept the findings in the report as facts -- take the whole report at face value. Those facts still have absolutely ZERO verifiable connection to the TSA's implementation of those devices. None. And, intentionally so.