Apparently, the Port Authority of NY/NJ is going to be testing a backscatter full body scanner at at least one of the PATH stations (Journal Square in Jersey City?) beginning next week. The news item I heard did not say if it was going to be voluntary or random. The report also did not say if the TSA was running the test or if it was under the control of the PANYNJ.

Of course all the sheeple the news reporter interviewed said that they don't mind going through the machine, even if it does reveal their naked body, because they'd do anything for more security and, of course, they had nothing to hide. One woman did qualify her statement with "As long as they don't touch me".

Whatever happened to the backscatter experiment in the London tube system that was, I believe, voluntary?

I won't be entering any device that bombards one with radiation. They can claim it's non-harmful radiation all they want but I don't believe them.

It may well be harmless for a trip or two through the scanner... but for the commuter who passes through it twice a day, five days a week, 50+ weeks a year... well, radiation exposure is a cumulative factor.

If you don't like being bombarded with radiation I suggest you leave. You're being bombarded by radiation as you read this--the light from your screen. "Radiation", to a physicist, covers all radiated energy, all the way from the ELF radios used to communicate with submarines up to the gammas released by the targets in particle accelerators.

The popular usage of the term has been perverted into what's actually classed as ionizing radiation--stuff that's hot enough to knock electrons off everyday molecules. (I say everyday because some molecules are especially easy to knock electrons off of. All photodetectors--that includes film--and photocells are based on this.)

Do these people realize how many people use the PATH every day? It's completely unreasonable to think that they could scan even a small percentage of them.

What's more, there's no safe dose of radiation. Making people go through these things with no probable cause is unreasonable.

As for London, the security people for the Tube decided against doing any kind of random searches or scans of people, explaining that it would be totally unreasonable to do given the number of people who use the Tube every day, and the number of entry points to it.

Yes, I do know a few things about radiation and the EM spectrum.

I was referring in this case to a device that performs the same function as devices that normally use ionizing radiation like x-rays do.

There's no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Even if the TSA claimed this device was 100% safe, I wouldn't believe them. Moreover, this device is intrusive and I am not willing to trade my privacy for the perception of safety.

I'm with Spiff here. There is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Trying to confuse the matter by implying Spiff was speaking of visible light, radio waves, etc. does nothing to diminish the argument about ionizing radiation.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the risk from exposure to ionizing radition when my physician or dentist orders an x-ray; my own cost-benefit analysis says that is worth it. I'm also willing to accept the (small) risk of increased exposure to ionizing radiation from my frequent-flier habit, as again I benefit by experiencing travel.

I am not willing to accept the increased risk of ionizing radiation because the government wants to run a dog-and-pony show to make people feel safer. There is no benefit whatsoever to me to this test; I already know I'm not a terrorist.

Furthermore, I see no substantial benefit to me of subjecting my fellow passengers to ionizing radiation beyond the benefit already obtained by a WTMD followed by a puffer or ETD swab policy. The only extra things a backscatter x-ray is going to catch are concaled drugs and concealed money. Neither of these are threats to aircraft, nor should they be within TSA's scope to search for.

If the head of the TSA would like to demonstrate the safety of this system by having himself, his spouse, and his children/grandchildren sleep inside one of these things (turned on) for about a decade, followed by extensive biopsises and scans to check for mutation, I might reconsider my position.

Yep, and the ones claiming these things to be safe always make such statements as, "You receive more of a dose on a transcontinental flight," etc. That's all fine and dandy when we're talking a once-a-year chest X-ray, but when that exposure takes place twice a day (or more) every day on an ongoing basis as a part of one's everyday commute, well, exposure to ionizing radiation and the damage it causes is largely cumulative.

Yeah, you knew that when you left the house that morning. But don't you want to government to check that you didn't change since then? Maybe you became a terrorist without knowing it. Doesn't it make you feel safer that the government cares enough to check?

Bruce

The day I come face to face with one of these infernal things is the day I turn around, walk out of the airport and never come back.

Which isn't that far away in any case.

Oh? (Eyebrows raised.) Do you have something that you don't want the government to see, Citizen Bird? And what might that be?

Bruce

Ionizing radiation only does harm if it penetrates. From what I've read of this device the energy level is low enough that the penetration is so shallow it doesn't matter. The outer skin is going to be replaced soon anyway.

But what are the effects of repeated exposure over a long period of time? Can you guarantee that it is 100% safe? Who will maintain the equipment? To what standards?

I am reluctant to be a human guinea pig for government experiments, and I sure don't believe the official claims that this is harmless.

IMO, there are too many unanswered questions for us to blindly accept this.

It penetrates enough -- beyond the dead cells -- to do some damage. That is, there's skin cancer too. In any event, how long before a setting safety fails to work properly and/or the radiation exposure is turned up for people going through this virtual strip-search? A virtual strip search is what this really is. What's next, a body cavity check?

And what would be wrong with that, Citizen Wonder? Don't you want to be safe?

Bruce