There actually are medical and scientific experts posting to this forum, but none of them have the hubris or are foolish enough to make an unqualified statement that it is safe to use an airport AIT.

This above is code for "Darn, I'm in way over my head and I don't have any snappy responses...uh oh"

I would like to start off by thanking you for the very informational post. What I am trying to get is for the TSA to acknowledge that this information has never been published by them or their vendor. All we have are assumptions and guesses.

Don't hold your breath. I'd bet any TSA employee leaking such information or making such an admission would be immediately terminated - and then where would they find work?

"Would you like fries with that?"

Because there is none.

That must be some delicious, delicious kool-aid to not even think of questioning the veracity of your boss' claims that they are safe.

Bart, before you make any statements about comparing TV and CRT computer monitors to backscatter’s, do some basic research. Since the 1970’s there has been a federal law, CFR 1020 called Performance Standards for Ionizing Radiation Emitting Products, the subchapter’s for TV’s is 1020-10 and for CRT devices is 1020-20.

If I remember correctly is was the Swedish Government in the 1970’s that discovered that CRT devises can cause cancers, especially computer CRT monitors because of the close proximity of the user to the monitor and they were the ones who first established standards for CRT monitors.

Here is the John Hopkins report to the TSA in a PDF format for the backscatter machine they tested. And remember the TSA after contacting JH, refused to let them use a production model of the machine, so what they tested was a machine assembled from spare parts.

On page 40 it clearly states there is an area where there is possibility of primary beam overshoot that could exceed the general public dose limit could be exceeded.

http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/jh_apl_v2.pdf

The bottom line here is no one really knows how much radiation damage the backscatter can cause because there has not been any long term testing of these machines.

Bart, if you sincerely believe these machines are completely safe, then go ahead and work next to these machines all day. It is your life, do what you feel is right. In a few years down the road if no screeners come down with cancers that can be traced back to the backscatter, then your are right, the machines are safe, if not, then there is the possibility of paying the ultimate price.

So basically TSO’s are being used as guinea pigs, and what is money to the Federal Government if it does prove out that these machines did cause an abnormal amount of cancers among TSA employees and they all sue in a class action lawsuit, they just print more money when they need it.

Do some research and see how much money the Federal Government has paid out in damages to survivors, or their families after the EPA declared the air safe to breathe at the World Trade Center site after 9-11, or for using Agent Orange in Vietnam.

So before you start making any claims about the safety of ionizing radiation, please tell us about your engineering or scientific education, degrees and/or work experience in the field of ionizing radiation.

Mr. Elliott

Unfortunately the backup for such statements is now quite dubious.

Certification for the safety of the AIT devices comes from two sources:

1. The manufacturer.

2. ???

Well, now there is no second source since NIST has made their non-opinion public essentially invalidating Secretary Napolitano's statements. And let's just call the FDA's opinion 'artfully conceiled'.

Remember the Federal Government once believed asbestos was safe and was a very heavy user. Now we know better.

The issues is not use, but mandatory use.

Sources:
NIST
FDA

This is 100% pure opinion on your part, Bart.

I made a very simple request: show us the third party independent research that demonstrates that the WBIs are safe and pose no short or long term danger.

The reason why you won't is because you know very well that such independent research does not exist.

Therefore, you can give all your platitudes until the cows come home but it doesn't change the fact that we have no independent basis to gauge whether the machines are safe or not.

It just cannot be that difficult to have third-party, independent research done.

So, why don't you at least join us in calling for that independent research and then either 1) you can be proven correct or 2) you can be proven wrong.

Are your beliefs so sensitive or important that you are not willing to put them up to scrutiny?

OT, but, when I retired from the USAF in 1998, the VA benefits counselor told me that, by virtue of an assignment in the Pentagon, the VA assumes you have been exposed to asbestos.

Bart, the skeptics, who include MDs and radiologists, have done a pretty good job of establishing reasonable doubt and cause for concern. (In a thoughtful, hyperbole-free way.) You and TSA have done nothing to counter them beyond issuing absolute, unsupported assertions (like yours, above) with a big side order of disdain. You're not exactly winning the science fair here. If this were an objective forensic competition the fight would be stopped and your side would be ruled too feeble to continue. Which wouldn't be so remarkable if your own health weren't at stake. How high a price are you willing to pay for blindly parroting the party line? How many ex-TSOs on their deathbeds, years from now, are going to wish they'd questioned authority?

If I were you I'd wear a lead-lined pup tent over my head at work. I disagree with you backwards and forwards but still think it would be a shame if you got sick and suffered for your obedience to your deception-minded federal agency, as so many have before you.

Missing skillsets: "Accountability" and "responsibility."

Bart, if you are so convinced that they are safe then why don't the people running them wear dosimeters? If they are perfectly safe then the badge will never show anything.

Agreed. I back-calculated the 20-30 keV energy level from the equivalent aluminum shielding levels published in the Johns Hopkins paper. This energy level makes sense based on the backscatter characteristics of human tissue, and it is loosely supported by other publications from the manufacturer. But it is strictly deduction on my part. Thanks for letting me clarify. ;)

Have you seen the performance and operational specs? I think they are on the EPIC web site. There are performance parameters and other technical requirements in both documents. I suspect they are reasonably current and my give you a sanity check for your calculations.