Review of the TSA X-ray backscatter body scanner safety report
myhelicaltryst.blogspot.com
myhelicaltryst.blogspot.com
I was a bit jetlagged so I didn't raise my concern quick enough, which I fully admit is my fault.
They basically herded my fiancee and I through the machine without telling us what it was or that we had any option for a pat down. That's what bothers me the most I think. They seem to be ok with subjecting people to this without telling them or presenting them with the choice.
After careful consideration being molested by the state would have been my preferred method of security authentication, given the opportunity.
But some of his conclusions don't make much sense. "With that being said, because the scanners have both a radiation source AND a detector in the front AND back of the person in the scanner, it is actually possible for the hardware to conduct a classic, through-the-body X-ray...So the hardware has the capability to output quite high doses of radiation..."
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. I would expect any backscattering system to have a detector behind the subject for the purposes of calibration, if nothing else.
Overall, nothing he says (apart from the vague speculation above) cuts against the fundamental point of the report: the dose is exceedingly low and is highly unlikely to cause any significant damage.
I'd also like to point out that much like the TSA report, this blog post is "NOT authored by anyone with either a Ph.D. or a M.D., raising serious concerns of the extent of the expertise of the individual". (Not that this should matter, but the OP seems to think it does.)
Also may want to google "depopulation agenda"
Do you not see the problem with the above? If you want to successfully argue against what the TSA is doing, you need to drop the conspiracy stuff. It's not a question of being right or wrong: it's making sure that valid complaints can't be brushed aside by snide remarks such as "Yeah, whatever, he's a conspiracy nut."
And just for the avoidance of doubt, when the first page of Google is littered with links discussing the Illuminati, that does, sadly, damage your credibility.
I'm not sure how you think that's not a dishonest thing to do.
I've found that such folks fall into one of three categories.
(1) He's doing this for the attention. (2) He's incompetent. (3) He's lying to discredit his supposed cause.
You can focus on one topic at a time, to avoid being labeled a crank.
This is also why modern nuclear power plant design seem so safe. And then something they didn't factor in shows up, or someone takes a sloppy shortcut in building or regulations that wasn't accounted for and suddenly there's no way to undue the damage (and no way to stop the failure).
If they won't let TSA agents wear dosimeters, well then you'd have to be a moronic zombie to become a TSA agent and work around these machines. And that's predictably who is left working there. But hey you can sue for lack of benefits when you are dying of cancer, only to be told on your deathbed that you fall within the range of people who get cancer anyway, couldn't be the machine.
I'd say "stop flying" but of course these machines are now in portable versions in vans and they can just drive down a street and expose everyone to it, opt-in or not (this really exists, it's not tinfoil hat paranoia http://google.com/search?q=backscatter+vans ).
> This is also why modern nuclear power plant design
> seem so safe.
So, how about once in 10,000 years? Once in 100,000 years? That's on the level of meteor strikes, and I can't think of any power plant that could withstand those.
I think that "never" is as impractical as "two years from now."
Reference: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is...
[1] http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflig...
[2] http://www.sievert-system.org/WebMasters/en/evaluation.html
I would reject to fly in that case. No question. The whole security around planes is already stupid as it is now, no need to get more intimate with the security staff.
As a matter of fact I haven't seen a lot of back scatter scanners in European airports.
Actually only one, in Amsterdam and that was not operational.
My observations may be biased, of course. But I'm pretty certain that I haven't seen any in ZRH, VIE, DUS and PRG and LCY. And even Amsterdam security (which is a huge operation) didn't have one last time I passed it in March.
EDIT : To clarify, the only one I've seen in AMS was in the Summer of 2010. March 2011 I didn't see any
I saw some writing by a guy who (claimed to have) refused the scan a while back, who was (he claimed) told by airport staff that because so few people refuse the scan, his details would automatically be sent to some government department (read: watch list). No idea how accurate his account was, but he certainly seemed quite upset about it, and it does have the ring of truth about it. After all, as many people have observed, "don't fly" is not a practical answer for a lot of circumstances, and in the UK at least, if you want to fly and you're selected, you're getting the virtual strip search and radiation dosage. There ought to be a law that anyone who thinks a 99.whatever% "acceptance" rate under those circumstances implies that almost everyone is happy with the scanners should be locked inside an active scanner with a few textbooks until they get the point one way or another...
The funny thing is that in the US they have this complicated process "to protect the passengers pricacy" where the person viewing the pictures is located in a special room. The personal directly dealing with the passengers never sees the pictures but just receives an Ack or Nak for each passenger.
In Amsterdam the displays are located directly on the scanners for everyone to see. The makes the whole thing much faster and I think Europeans do not really care about this as much as Americans.
As for UK airports. They seem to have a rather inflexible approach as DO AS WE SAY, OR ELSE! Haven't seen them in London City Airport, though.
I could also imagine that Amsterdam only channels US travelers through the scanners. In Zurich airport the US airlines essentially have half a terminal building reserved for their flight operations during the morning hours. I haven't seen scanners there, but flying mostly within the Schengen area I wouldn't necessarily know.
Direct observation at Gatwick and Stansted.
"A hospital consultant at Huddersfield Royal Infirmary in the UK was barred from boarding his flight at Manchester Airport earlier in the summer after he refused to use the scanner, claiming he could be exposed to X-rays."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0830/break...
This is not to say that the whole process isn't stupid and broken. Certainly I was separated from my belongings on the belt which I didn't like.
And of course the system is designed to be impervious to feedback. We can count on one hand, possibly one fist, the number of agents who have been disciplined for aggressive behavior. The only chance is to somehow raise enough of a stink to catch media attention. Any complaints officially made to the agency summarily disappear down the TSA memory hole.