If necessary, I would not punch. I would shoot.

That is because I do not have, nor have I ever had, the punch of Mr. Tyson, unless of course I borrow upon the punch of Mr. Glock.

G'bye Ron. A class act as always.

As I read the study

1) They got to use some actual scanners (some other prior "studies" didn't).

2) Rapiscan (the equipment vendor) had advance knowledge of which scanners they would use, and controlled their access to the scanners. {As to why this is significant, do you think my local police would let me chose which of my guns they can test to match against the slug they dug out of a local homicide victim?}

3) According to the table on page 10, someone the size of a 10 year old child would receive a dose that's about 40% higher than the adult dose mentioned in the summary. Moreover, the dose they would receive in breast tissue is about 60% higher than the dose calculated for an adult.

4) This doesn't appear to be a peer reviewed publication.

5) As far as I'm aware, we still don't know what - if any - periodic maintenance or re-calibration work is done on these scanners.

I wonder if Ron even read the actual report or if he thought the link he provided was the report.

Half truths are facts but in the case of " radiation" half truths are hardly convincing. You do understand the concept of "back scatter" right? Read sec 5 .2. That's the problem.

Yep, more so to those that stand near the machines than go through it. We at least that's what the article states.

Keep in mind that this is an exposure to ionizing radiation, not to a radioactive material, so there is no "detoxification" as there is nothing deposited on the skin or in the body.

Similar to shining a flashlight on a wall, once the light is off, there is no further "exposure" to the light and the wall is not "contaminated" with light.

While there is an exposure, a dose and a potential biological effect, there is no additional dose and biological effect after the exposure (scan) ends.

We knew that. I know the backscatter machines weren't actually placing radioactive materials under my skin. Stipulated. So? X-ray operators still wear dosimeters. Ionizing radiation is still cumulative.

I hardly think a cite is required. You yourself have indicated that BKSX is no longer in use at airports. It seems to be common knowledge in this forum and was widely reported in newspapers.

As this is Flyertalk, I don't think admission to prisons and high-security government installations is germane to the discussion.


Now we come to something relevant. If indeed someone is developing BKSX with 'gumby' then I would have a problem. When a technology exists which does not use ionizing radiation (i.e. MMW), I see no reason for the government to employ something that does, no matter how minimal the risk.

Please note, that I am only addressing the ionizing radiation issue here. I had other issues with the BKSX technology as it was deployed unrelated to that issue, as well as with MMW.

http://ir.as-e.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=712149

You knew that. If you read the quote, the poster apparently didn't.

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."