Radiation has nothing to do with it ?!?
 

Thought about adding this to this thread, but it has become about lawsuits.

This morning at RDU I opted out of the nude-o-scope. The TSA person (who was very polite) asked me why. I told her I do not believe what the government says regarding radiation exposure.

Professional in all other ways, she said -- and I wrote it down to quote:
"Radiation has nothing to do with it. There is no radiation. It is just radio waves. I went through 25 hours of training on this thing, and that is all it is."

Am I wrong in understanding that the 'scope uses X-rays -- that is, ionizing radiation?

Misunderstanding regarding the electromagnetic spectrum certainly could explain why she thinks it is just radio waves -- after all, both radio and X-rays are part of the spectrum. But one would expect the training to be cystal clear, taking into consideration that very few of the trainees have degrees in physics.

To add regarding new pat-down:
I got the "new" pat-down, and it sure was more thorough than last time I experienced it. I know some will accuse me of being "sheeple," but I'm not going to hassle the working stiff who is doing is job -- unless he does it inconsistently with what Flyertalk teaches me about the procedures.
He seemed to be a stickler for procedure. He insisted that I listen to him explain the entire procedure. Then he stopped every step of the way and reiterated the explanation of the next step. And he did exactly what he said he would. And standing watch over my carry-ons, jacket and shoes, another TSA person witnessed. All according to the procedure as I understand it. Whether the procedure makes sense from a security point of view, I am not qualified to judge. All I can judge is whether they follow the procedure, and do so courteously. They did.

Finally, from the Jay Leno department of TSA:
Perhaps soon to be unemployed by TSA and working for WN as a flight attendant, one barker sprinkled one-liners into his speil. As in: "be sure to take off your jackets. Or, if you want, just take it all off (gesturing toward the nude-o-scope)." Maybe he's one of us doing undercover work.

What an idiot. :td: I hope you file a complaint.

RDU had 1 MMW scanner when I was there in May of this year. MMW uses non-ionizing radiation unless the backscatter scanners that use x-rays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner

OK, so how to tell the difference between the Millimeter Wave Scanner and backscatter x-ray scanner?
There now are multiple scanners at RDU, soon to be one per line.

Based on the systems I have seen, the physical layouts are different. Backscatter WBIs put you between two open rectangular boxes for the scan. Millimeter Wave WBIs have you step inside a glass octagon.

MMW devices look like a large, glass-enclosed phone booth, with prominent L3 labels on the top edges.
http://www.sds.l-3com.com/products/i...PS_Jan2010.jpg
(image sourced from L3's ProVision pages)

Backscatter devices come in two flavors, both of which look like large boxes, manufactured by Rapiscan Systems. One version requires two boxes, which the passenger stands between, facing one of them (boxes form two walls, with an open pathway in the middle and no overhead obstruction). This version is capable of performing simultaneous front/back scans.
http://www.rapiscansystems.com/image...le-pose-sm.gif

The other version looks like a single wall from the previous description, and requires the passenger to receive two scans, based on reading the Rapiscan pages.
http://www.rapiscansystems.com/image...ng_imaging.gif
(images sourced from Rapiscan Systems pages)

Thanks for those pictures DevilDog438.

CLT definitely has Backscatter...the single pose flavor.

I'm hearing from some that the L3 MMW NOS are being replaced with the backscatter X-ray machines.

According to this thread (List of Airports with NoS), RDU has MMW. While the attitude displayed by the screener leaves a lot to be desired, in this case it appears she was accurate in saying that it's "just" radio waves.

Technically, any energy in the electromagnetic spectrum is radiation, so she got that part wrong. But, as deldel has pointed out, radio is non-ionizing radiation, unlike x-rays.

And I think TSA takes advantage of the (understandable) confusion among passengers and the (unnecessary) confusion among screeners about the two technologies. They tell a passenger (accurately) that the MMW machine is just radio waves, and at the next airport, a screener tells the same passenger (wrongly) that the backscatter machine is "safe." Not enough people have the knowledge to know the difference between the two types of NoS.

Nevertheless, her attitude and that of the barker are unprofessional.

Thanks to all for the clear explanations. Nice to have it all in one place.

Even setting aside the fact that radio EMR causes changes to nerve cells cultured in petri dishes -- given that I am unable to discern between the two types of machines, I will continue to opt out.

That said even though I grew up adjacent to high-tension electric power lines and the electromagnetic fields clearly have had no eff...
ct
no electo fect bzz uh?
hm, earn miles
run
No effect
bonus bzz??

I'm OK.

wonder how long before a groper gets a knee in the chops.

hope its a woman that does it

:mad:

I cant believe you post things like that:
1. The officers on the line are doing what they are told.
2. Some one is going to be hurt.
3. It will not prove to be effective for anything.
4. It will result in local, federal charges and loss of airline flight priveledge.

Not to Godwin myself, but I've heard that somewhere....

And how is a common passenger supposed to know that? How do we know that a given "enhanced" patdown is being performed properly?

Re #1, the employee can do something else!

Let's see, how do I put this politely?

No one is forcing these people to work for the TSA.
Said TSA employees are free to make a choice and work for another company that neither requires them to perform same gender sexual abuse, nor to put their lives at possible risk due to unnecessary, daily radiation exposure.

Regarding #3 above: my mother taught my cousin to drive, who used to gun for cars that made left turns in front of them. His reasoning was that he was in the right because people turning left were required by law to yield to him. My mother reminded him that though he may be correct, he would still sustain injuries and be without a car.

So, pontificate all you want that it won't be effective for anything. In the probably likely event that a TSA employee gets their clock cleaned, or a swift kick to the groin as an unpredictable response to a perceived sexual assault, they can claim they were doing what the law required all they want. They will suffer the consequences of their actions, which may include sexual assault charges, registry to a sex offender list, and physical harm.

I personally question the sanity of anyone who continues to do this job faced with those options.

eyecue, I agree. I feel that too many posters re-enforce the worst stereotypes of both pax and TSA. Putting that aside...

The TSA has repeatedly refused to officially state what their staff can actually do during the hands on search.

So how do we know when the groper is doing their job or if they are committing a sexual assault under the cover of doing their job?

eyecue:
An honest question for you sir, do you & most of your co-workers enjoy doing this stuff ?

To steer this thread back on topic:

25 hours of training? Whoopie-sh!t.

Sorry, but that's the only response I can come up with to that statement. An x-ray technician working in a medical setting will have 1 to 4 years training before they point the machine at anybody.

I do not trust either the government or makers of the machines as to the safety of these devices. We all know the government regularly lies to us on the safety of food and drugs and yes, even on medical devices. Now they are turning over what is essentially a medical device to undertrained people with a political agenda.

I opt out.

Indeed .... my response would be along the lines of "unless and until you show my your Ph.D. in physics and your medical degree, your opinion doesn't count for much when it comes to my health."

Dont forget to add, state medical license as well.

I'll do one better. Show me at least 3 of the following:

1. Results of longitudinal studies confirming that the these doses of raditaion have not caused any health issues over the long-term

2. Results of clinical trials evaluating the effects of these doses of radiation as administered to the general public, along with tolerated doses and a full listing of resultant adverse experiences

3. Independent medical analyses by MDs and degreed physicists not affiliated with, employed by or contracted by the governement or the manufacturers of these machines, with a signed disclosure stating such

4. Peer reviewed medical journal articles and/or other peer reviewed literature (written by physicians not affiliated with, employed by, or contracted by the government or the manufacturers of these machines) published in legitimately accepted scholarly journals with references

Yes, indeed.

And, furthermore, before you tell us this thing is safe for everyone, we should have data of this kind not just for adult men, but also for infants, children, women of childbearing age (does repeated exposure affect fertility, for example?), and pregnant women.

Lets look at that 25 hours of training.

Training day one, first hour of training time devoted to forming the class and other administrative activities, mid morning break for 15 minutes, one hour for lunch, mid afternoon break.

8 hour day, 1 hour admin, 30 minutes break, 1 hour lunch, 5:30 hours real training time

Training day two: 15 minutes answering questions from day 1, 2 breaks totaling 30 minutes and lunch 1 hour.

8 hour day less 1:45, training time = 6:45

Day three same as day two, real training time 6:45

So for a scheduled 25 hour class (24 in this example) real training time =19 hours. Hardly time enough to learn complex equipment.

And senior citizens - in other words, all age groups, all genders, and all health conditions that passengers might present at a checkpoint.

But, in any case, why should ANYONE be asked to add to their personal accumulation of radiation exposure without personal benefit? Either the scanner will confirm what the passenger already knows (threat on body or not) OR (worse case) the scanner will result in a false positive. No benefit to confirmation of lack of threat. Cost to passenger for false positive.

So maybe TSA is trying to create a personal benefit by making the alternative to the scanner so negative (intrusive) that passengers are willing to pay the cost of additional radiation exposure to avoid the "enhanced" pat-down. (Enhanced = degrading in TSA speak, I think.)

And what about the confirmation of the threat? It is assumed that this will result in stopping the would-be terrorist from boarding a plane and carrying out the threat there. So, the assumption is that we all accrue some marginal benefit by stopping the terrorist and avoiding the threat on the plane.

But what if the would-be terrorist decides to move up the timetable and carry out the threat actions at the checkpoint? How much does a suicidal terrorist care exactly where he/she introduces injury/death/chaos into the system? Has TSA got a plan for how they will keep the explosive from being detonated if discovered at the checkpoint? For minimizing casualties if there is a detonation?

Excellent posts Ruth, Boogie, and BC!

There are so many issues and reasons why this is all lunacy that it is mind boggling. Someone said earlier that for political reasons, this will never be challenged by any elected officials and as much as I hate to believe that, I think it is true.

Unfortunately, this is going to have to be resolved by the Supreme Court once someone is wronged and stands up for themsleves. Let's just hope to a higher power that they do the right thing. I'd say it's 50/50 on that.

BC has it right. It's punishment so we do what we're told.

In fact, none of these has been done. A group of UCSF professors sent a letter of concern to the TSA about this earlier this year:

http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

I opted out Friday at Memphis. The TSO said there was no more radiation than from the metal detector. I've had cancer and don't want to risk it

I've had cancer and don't want to risk it.

+1

you might want to google the "Nuremberg Defense" or even speak to an attorney.

This defense didn't work out to well for the Nazi's or more recently Sadam's baathists

For now on I will be carrying around about a dozen of these letters in my shoulder bag.

http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf

The next time any TSA clerk says "it's safe", or "trust us", or "I went through 25 hours of intense training" or any other BS line, simply pull one out of your bag, hand it to them, and say:

"This may be above your reading level but give it a shot. You just might learn something."

Printing them off tonight when I get home...

I'll take the pat-down over the scanner any day....I'm sure whoever has to do it won't enjoy it any more than I will :p

I love how TSOs think people care about their opinion on this--as if they've done anything more than repeat what they have been told. Sheesh.

Some of the NOS are MMW, and some of the NOS are BXR. There are some where the problem is only constitutional, and there are some where the problem is both constitutional and medical.

You may have gotten (un)lucky and gotten an MMW machine.

MMW is physically safe, the radiation is non-ionizing. The first wave of NOS were all MMW. The second wave are BXR, for reasons the TSA refuses to explain.

Are you sure about that?

http://current.com/news/91879541_ful...-human-dna.htm

The TSA has no desire to teach their screeners about the equipment any more than they have a desire to educate passengers.

Thanks very much. I haven't seen the official letter, althrough I have talked to some OSTP staff members about it. Every one of them said that the TSA was literally getting away with murder. They said that the TSA backed itself into a corner by procuring these things and would rather give cancer to Americans rather tyhan admit they have another "puffer" on their hands.

Thanks but no thanks. My wife & I choose not be irradiated by the clerks, period.

Excellent. Thank you for posting as I just sent it to several friends and will also be carrying copies.

Yes. Speaking as an electronic engineer who has worked telecom, I am positive about that.

MMW is non-ionizing, therefore doesn't cause genetic damage. The only danger is the dose, it is like warm water versus scalding water.

BXR is ionizing and I won't get near one of those.

I'm a scientist (kind of) and the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing is pretty basic stuff.

By the way, MMW uses Gigahertz, and the article is discussing Terahertz. I could be wrong on that point, not that it makes much of a difference because both are on the safer end of the spectrum The article confuses MMW and X-Ray consistently. The picture provided is from the BXR, and yet they say it was generated by "millimeter wave technology and / or backscatter X-rays".

It is clear that the article was not written by someone familiar with basic physics.

I'm the last one to defend the TSA, I'm always attacking their bad science. But I must attack bad science that attacks the TSA too.