You asked for it: Independant Proof
 

"WASHINGTON, DC - A new report by an independent task force commissioned by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), has found that people absorb less radiation from airport X-ray backscatter scanner than they do while standing in line waiting for the scan itself."

More at the link below:

http://www.eturbonews.com/35763/radi...much-do-we-get

Warning pop-up when you attempt to view the report on the Association of Physicists in Medicine's website.

And a second time in a colored box on the front page of the report.

And a third time on the second page of the report.

From the summary:
So I'm standing in the scanner for, what?, 15 seconds and I receive a dose that's 11.1 nSv. It would take me seven times as long (1.8 minutes) to get the equivalent dose if I were not in the scanner.

Another quote, from page 3:
From page 9:
Personally I'm smaller in both weight and stature.

From page 10:
Oh, joy. So I'm smaller than the average American, so I'm actually receiving a larger dose?

The independence of this group is dubious. AAPM is headquartered in the DC area for a reason - they are government and big corporate shills. Who butters their bread to the tune of $10 million plus per annum? A quote directly from their website:

"To best represent medical physics, the AAPM has worked to establish a close and cooperative working relationship with numerous government bodies and organizations including the Congress, federal and state agencies, related professional societies and a range of medical providers, corporations and suppliers."

Wow, that's a truly independent bunch.

If this was a truly independent study, the TSA Blog would be all over this.

Um, why should I be irradiated AT ALL by a device that violates my Constitutional rights, generates too many false positives to be effective, and was purchased en masse without public input or a real cost-benefit analysis? What does your "independent" study say about that?

My concern isn't the increase in cancer caused by exposure to radiation; it is the fact that the machines cause brain damage and obesity.

Well, I guess I won't need to opt out next time I come across one of those things in an airport...

Oh, wait - there aren't any in the airports of America any more, are there?

Well, I guess that settles it.

did the independent report (sorry, I didn't read it; just too boring) mention that the harmful effects of radiation are cumulative ?

One isolated small dose may be statistically insignificant. But what about many of us who are (were) exposed to that small dose multiple times every week ? The human body doesn't detoxify radiation as easily as it does alcohol.

Why? Those devices are no longer in service anywhere in the country. If other nations are using them it would be news to me.

Was this a study (like they were given machines and physically tested them), or is this a "study of studies" (i.e. they took someone else's data and gave their opinion on it)?

You should have read the report. Standing in your house you get as much radiation in 1.8 minutes as a single scan by the backscatter systems. Once you are on the plane and flying, it only takes 12 seconds to get the same dose.

Given your theory on the concept someone who is 100 years old should be glowing and toxic to the touch. The human body is pretty good at throwing off minute amounts of radiation, otherwise we would all have real problems.

No, they actually tested systems in use in airports as well as test systems. Then they wrote the report. Read it, its a fairly interesting report if you have any scientific curiosity.

Can't be American standard.

Why read it, as you said upthread it's OBE?

Getting the same magnitude of exposure to radiation is not the same as getting the same magnitude of exposure to specific types of radiation. I have always taken exception with this comparison as cosmic rays (the type you get on the plane), background radiation (they type you get in line), and x-rays from the machine are not equivalent types even though they may be of similar magnitudes.

I'll offer a crude analogy. If I stand and take hits from a BB gun to a cumulative total energy of 414 ft-lbf it is not the same as getting hit by one 45 ACP 230 gr. Federal Hyrda-shock with exactly the same energy at 830 ft/s.

It discredits the report that scientists would do this.

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.

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.

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