Fabulous. X years after they were introduced they can be said to be safe.

Now, how many years more before we get the reason about why these types of scanners are needed? And how many years after that before TSA can show they are effective in fulfilling that (currently undemonstrated) need?

Personally, I always thought an organization was supposed to show all three things before they did X or Y. Silly me.

You don't know the meaning of "evidence." You've cited a travel news letter summary of the report. The actual report is here:

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

If you read it, you will discover that the "skin dose" of TSA's x-ray scanners is 4 times higher than the effective dose. And, though I'm not a doctor, even I know that short periods of high exposure to ionizing radiation present greater risk than longer periods of low exposure.

And, of course, there is absolutely no reason why anyone should accept ANY risk from ionizing radiation because of TSA's ill-conceived, readily-circumvented and completely ineffective security theater.

Keep drinking the Koolaid, Ron. You're not fooling anyone.

One correction: the report absolute does NOT say that the scanners are safe.

I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt on something. If I just point out that he's wrong and then demand he pony up on all the other things they've cocked up then he'll just get petulant. ;)

You are implying that that would be a change. I think it would be more accurate to say "remain" than "get."

I have a 10 Watt light on my keychain. I use it to find my keyhole on my door in the dark.

My doctor has a 10 Watt light in his office that he uses to burn warts. It has a caution to never look directly at the light.

One must encourage the TSO's: they give us such enjoyment here. :D

I'm beginning to think that TSOs are just politicians in training. After all, think of this similarity in behavior, attitude, and personality between TSOs and politicians....

Both think they're the smartest people in the world on every subject just because they were given a uniform/"won" an election (benefit of the doubt, seeing how many suspicious election shenanigans occur).

Poxes on both their heads and houses.

Even if true this doesn't address the issue of malfunctioning machines. Where's the inspections required of private x-ray machines??

Yup. My wife has retinal burns from a light that was less than 1 watt. (Done by a retinologist, not an accident.)

Walking down the street is not safe. Neither is sleeping, breathing, or pumping blood through your heart. I suppose we could accurately describe you as a "die-hard" then, right?

As for the report, I'm not going to do your reading for you. Not for any of you. Read it or dont, follow to the actual report and read that, or dont. No skin off my nose in any case.

If you folks absolutely need something to be scared of, read the link below. THIS I find terrifying in it implications.

LINK

No, you can accurately describe me as a "careful reader." None of the activities you've described above are (1) imposed on me by the government, (2) elevate the medical risks of very specific diseases, or (3) completely unnecessary and without personal return. As I've told you before, I am a melanoma survivor. The report is very, very clear that the x-ray scanning resulted in a concentration of ionizing radiation in the skin layer, the situs where melanoma develops. The report further indicated that the amount of ionizing radiation concentrated in the skin layer is significantly higher (by an order of magnitude if I recall correctly) than background radiation, notwithstanding the total dose absorbed by the entire human body. The report also does not mention the fact that the negative effects of ionizing radiation is cumulative. And, of course, it does NOT say that the scanners were safe.

Ah, good, because I would never ask you to do so.

Interesting choice of metaphor. I hope you never get melanoma or it might, indeed, be a considerable amount of skin off your nose.

What is ironic is that, whereas I actually read the entire report before posting my response to you, you had only read a travel-industry blog entry that summarized it. That, by the way, is one of the reasons why I would never ask you to do any reading for me.

As I said, I hope you never get melanoma. Do you want to know what's scary? Being told by your doctor that you have a choice: undergo immediate surgery involving slicing off a substantial portion of the skin on your face with the possibility, not only of disfiguring scarring, but of facial paralysis, OR, die within four years when the cancer metastasizes to your brain and lungs. THAT is scary. And that is why anyone who would submit to x-ray scanning by TSA is not just a fool, but a damned fool. By the way, I was lucky -- the 5-inch scar on my face isn't all that noticeable and no nerves were severed so there is no paralysis.

What about it do you find terrifying? Too many big words?

Thought you said you weren't coming back, but I guess you couldn't control your fingers on the keyboard.

WRT your link, are you worried that the government will take over your ham radio?

The history of this executive order seems to be that Congress dilled and dallied for a couple of years over legislation to allow the government to take over communications in the event of an emergency but they never took any action. Therefore, after a couple of natural disasters, the President acted. One comment listened to from EPIC, is that better DHS than the military having the responsibility for any take over.

What a totally bizarre, illogical statement to make. However, I guess it's about what we expect from you.

BTW, I, too, have had melanoma and have a 5" long scar.

How about you read this, Ron, to educate yourself:

http://www.telmarc.com/White%20Paper...ackscatter.pdf