Why I'm worried about the backscatter scanners of the TSA

[xiphias]

So, the TSA says that the scanners give out some amount of radiation that's totally safe. I don't know the numbers, and, if I DID know the numbers, I wouldn't know how to interpret them.

But let's say that the TSA is completely correct about their numbers and about their interpretation of the numbers -- two things which I'm not completely convinced about.

I REALLY don't trust the TSA's competence as MAINTAINING the machines. We're putting machines with radioactives in the middle of all our airports. If the shielding on the radioactive things is all up to standards, then things are only as dangerous as designed.

Who's maintaining that shielding? Who's checking for radiation leakage? The TSA is forbidden to wear film badges to check for exposure, and I personally know one TSA scanner who worked on luggage -- and every single person who worked on that particular machine now has some sort of abdominal cancer. THEY were forbidden to wear film badges, and they are forbidden, by "national security concerns" from suing about it, or having any sort of check of the machine.

So, I'm pretty certain that at least one TSA X-ray machine has dangerously damaged shielding. I'm also certain that the more X-ray machines you put out, the more chances there are of having at least one X-ray machine with dangerously damaged shielding.

And we aren't allowed to check.

THAT'S what worries me -- not that the machines, properly used and maintained, are dangerous, but, rather, that at least SOME of the machines won't be properly used and maintained.

Comments

[wcg.livejournal.com]

I am just croggled that the TSA employees are forbidden from wearing film badges, or any sort of dosimeter. That goes completely against the nuclear materials safety training I had in the armed forces and later as a physics student working with radioactive sources. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission used to have very strict rules requiring anybody who worked around nuclear materials to wear some sort of dosimeter.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah. Remember: the point of the TSA is to allow various companies who have various legislators in their pockets to sell vast, vast quantities of useless and dangerous equipment to the government at astronomical profits. If it becomes known that any of this stuff is DANGEROUS, then a) the government won't buy it, and b) there might even be lawsuits.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I saw where an order of 150 backscatter x-ray machines cost $25M. Even by the standards of radiation lab equipment, that's expensive.

What's odd about this to me is that companies have been selling radiation emitting devices to the US government and scads of hospitals for decades now. The procedures are standard, and mature. So what the TSA is doing now represents a radical deviation from policies and practices that have been in place for five decades.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

*sigh* As is so *much* of what's been going on in the last nine years.

[ceo]

That's the point of the Defense Department too, except that a lot of that equipment is intended to be dangerous, at least to the people it's pointed at.

[jjhunter]

I find this terrifying. Mind if I signal boost? I promise there'll be no outright hysteria.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Sure, feel free. I've not seen too many people talking about the issue of "weak form Murphy's Law" ("The more opportunities there are for things to go wrong, the more things will go wrong, and therefore systems and products should be designed to have fewer failure points.")

We're adding in a process and equipment for which the failure mode is dangerous; we're NOT preparing to prevent the failure mode, nor to mitigate the damage of the failure mode, and, in fact, we are PREVENTING people from checking for the failure mode themselves.

[thespian.livejournal.com]

well, there's the science about the problems even with well maintained machines:

http://myhelicaltryst.blogspot.com/2010/11/tsa-x-ray-backscatter-body-scanner.html

[403.livejournal.com]

I asked a TSA agent about this two days ago, and was told with a shrug, "Yeah, we all have to wear dosimeters to work now." Can't rule out the possibility that they've been trained to lie about it, of course.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I hope that it's changed.

Possibilities are multiple:
1. The policy has changed, and the TSA is now providing and requiring the use of dosimeters. I really, really hope this is the true one.

2. Policy hasn't changed, TSA agents are still not allowed dosimeters, but there is now a policy of lying about it. That seems to be the least likely scenario.

3. Policy hasn't changed, but that particular TSA agent was just annoyed by the question, so decided to lie for his or her own reasons. Possible -- people are weird -- but maybe not the most likely.

4. Somewhere in the chain of command of that PARTICULAR TSA agent is a SANE supervisor who has taken the responsibility on him or herself to ignore, and, in fact, change the dosimeter policy.

I'm really hoping for #1.

[querldox.livejournal.com]

Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't a TSA agent wear a film badge under their clothes so that it can't be seen (after all, for the most part the radiation would have to penetrate their clothes to be harmful above a skin cancer level), then if it starts darkening scream murder about getting the machine tested and fixed, possibly by leaking to the media?

(and yes, I do agree that a policy prohibiting them from wearing detectors is just insane)

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Suggest it to a TSA agent.

But, c'mon. The TSA is looking for people who RESPECT legal authority, even unreasonable legal authority, because they REPRESENT unreasonable legal authority. Philosophically and psychologically, I'd guess that the people who would think of that, and would carry it through, are the people that the TSA DON'T want to hire in the first place.

There certainly are people who have asked their supervisors if they couldn't just buy some dosimeters and have been told they weren't allowed to. Generally, those people have respected their chain of command, though.

[ailbhe]

I've been looking it all up on The Interwebs, and I'd be in trouble. I can't hold my arms up like that, and I can't stand with my legs spread shoulder-width apart, either. Also, I come over all funny when molested by people in a position of power over me. I cannot even begin to think about imagining persuading my children to go through a pat-down.

So quite apart from the radiation dosage, the whole thing would be physically and psychologically bad for me *anyway*.

[unquietsoul5.livejournal.com]

I agree with you 100%.... that and well, we know the tendency of the government at present to cut corners to save money. Maintaining equipment like this is expensive... and these folks running them only receive a very short training course on how to use them.

And, well, like any device that uses radioactives.... isn't it a likely target for a suicide bomber to want to explode themselves in it and spread radiation throughout the airport?

[felis-sidus.livejournal.com]

Even if one buys the statement that the machines are as safe as getting a chest x-ray, and even if one assumes that they will be perfectly maintained, that still doesn't reassure me. For one, doctors no longer recommend routine chest x-rays in part because over time it was determined that the risk posed by the repeated exposure to radiation was not justified by the number of cases of unsuspected lung disease found. The same applies to annual mammograms started early in life regardless of medical history.

Add to that the fact that no one knows how much background or "incidental" radiation is safe over time. We are exposed to background radiation daily from a variety of sources. Smoke detectors based on ionization, television sets of some kinds, aging microwave ovens, cell phones, computers, and other devices all emit small amounts of radiation. The amount produced by each is, by itself, negligible. But we don't really know what our combined exposure is, nor do we know what our lifetime dose is. Even if we knew, we don't know how much is too much.

There's also the fact the even when regular chest x-rays were considered the medical standard, exposure was only once a year at most. Sure, there are plenty of people who fly only once a year or less. But there also are plenty of people who fly frequently, and who are required to do so in order to keep their jobs. How will these folks be affected by the scanners' radiation? We don't know.

It gets worse. According to one local news program, the TSA has announced their intention to extend use of the scanners and invasive pat-downs to trains and buses. As inconvenient as it is, at present I can avoid the whole scanner/groping issue by taking a train or bus if I need to travel. If that were to change, then my only option would be to drive. And if the TSA can get away with violating our constitutional right to freedom from unreasonable search by claiming this kind of random invasive search is necessary to "keep us safe", and can extend this to train and bus, what's to prevent them from setting up highway checkpoints?

At what point will the American people face the fact that absolute safety is unachievable? How many more constitutional rights will we give up before deciding that freedom is worth a little risk? And when we reach that point, will it be in time to do something about it through legislative channels?

Edited to fix spelling errors. I gotta start checking that before posting.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

This entire department was set up by Bush and used BushCo. policies. I believe modifications would make it safer for all of us. Then again, sanity would make it more humane and likely more effective.

There is a little information on possible radiation risks here, but it is a blogger who is not a radiation specialist.