Now that the rotten things have been banned, I can tell my story without fear of being locked up. I went through a body scanner on a trip within Europe about a year or two ago. There was no random selection, they were just forcing everyone through the machine (I assume it was an x-ray but didn't actually have time to check). This machine was of the variety that did not have an operator viewing the images in a private room, but the operator standing at the machine had a display mounted on the machine itself (some parts of Europe are much less fussy about nudity). When I went through, the image was indistinct but showed "concealments" all over me (I was also permitted to see the image). The guy looked concerned and started to pat me down so he could figure out what these "concealments" were. After twenty seconds or so it was clear to him that I had no concealments and he confidently pronounced that the machines actually don't work if you are sweaty. Hilariously, a full bottle of water went through the (bag) X-ray machine unnoticed in my backpack. I pointed it out and they were kind enough to accept that I had left it in my bag accidentally and let me have it confiscated instead of what ever else it is they do with someone who has bottles of dangerous liquids like water in their bags. Since that humiliating experience I have travelled by plane in Europe as little as possible, taking the Eurostar train wherever practical. I do not travel to the US any more for any reason. I am delighted the machines are unsafe and have been banned, but naturally I believe they should have been banned on grounds of them being ineffective and an unnecessary invasion of personal privacy.
Edit: I reviewed the information here: http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/5/163631/3181/travel/Ful...
and I do not know which type of machine it was. Frankly, it doesn't match the description of either. There were no rotating walls, it did not take 40s, yet it was not a vertical wall. Unfortunate. It would have been nice to know.
What is it about your post that would have you fearing being locked up? And what about the experience was humiliating? Your story sounds like a basic, routine scenario.
I was not fearing being locked up for anything that happened that day as I clearly did nothing wrong. And there was no requirement for me to subsequently report the problems with this technology as the operators had that duty themselves, being clearly aware of it. But there may have been a requirement for me to not report the problem publicly myself as the machines were presumably still in operation. Obviously "locked up" is a hyperbole, but presumably it's never worth the trouble to find out by how much.
I personally find it humiliating to have a nudiscan in public, especially when it then falsely identifies me as having "concealments". Anyway the way this machine was being operated would contravene the new rules, and for good reason.
Who said anything about a strip search? Wait a second....someone told this person to take off their clothes, then proceeded to physically touch them and probe their orifices searching for contraband?
I don't think it's reasonable to compare what happened with a strip search. And I don't see how what happened is all that humiliating, though I get the sense I'm probably just not as sensitive as many others. I find the security measures annoying and frustratingly misguided, but not humiliating.
You're right. I always thought that a strip search would also include some kind of physical searching while nude in order to ensure that nothing is hidden in hair, folds, and at least the mouth orifice.
Because they asked me whether there were any liquids in my bag before I put it into the scanner. I initially answered no. When the bag was already through the scanner I remembered I hadn't actually taken the bottle out of the bag. I hadn't collected the bag yet though. So what is a man supposed to do?
People forget water bottles all the time. They are very used to it. All that happens is that you get the standard extra detail check (they're polite), it takes 3 minutes, usually with just the missed water bottle in question or they just throw it away or just tell you to remember next time.
I had to answer (2 years ago) for a 6-inch razor sharp knife in my overnight bag at a regional airport in the States. I forgot it was in a pocket of my bag, which was an old carrier I hadn't emptied out since art school. Surprisingly, all they did was take the knife and let me through =)
It does show it's more important for them not to look like individual idiots than it is to protect the safety of people on the plane. The ol' Jerry Sandusky locker room mentality, eh? Just horsin' around?
TSA are douchebags, and I hope that agency was created as a convenient way to find all the dumbest people in our society so we could stand them next to devices that would irradiate their testicles and keep 'em from having kids. Oh snap, it was =)
Your sense of humour probably tipped them off about the knife, not the techonogical equipment or the enhanced grope test. I'm sure they were very threatened by meeting a socially well-adjusted person.
The bottle of water didn't cause me any trouble in Europe, but I had real fear after having previously had a terrible run in the US both with the Thug Squad and Immigration.
I don't know if you have a doctorate, but I can tell you that this is a big red flag. As I said above I don't travel to the US for any reason any more. I once saw a girl who couldn't have been more than 16 who had collapsed on the floor in tears because of what I assume was the abusive verbal treatment she had received. She was literally dragged right across the floor of the room by some fat prick holstering no less than two weapons. She was clearly frightened out of her brain. I was then singled out for obnoxious treatment by a different troll for absolutely no reason whatever. I made it through the barrage of verbal accusations and threats, but shook for about an hour afterwards. You just know that you cannot so much as raise your shoulders or flare your nostrils without having the moron escalate his creative fiction and possibly deport you. They love that sense of power they get. You have to stand there submissively and not let them get a rise out of you all the while insisting that they are wrong.
In contrast, I have never had an issue with immigration or the equivalent of the TSA in any other country. I did once get a secondary interview at immigration in Europe by some shadowy figure from some secret service. It was as bizarre as you might imagine. He had the emblazoned vest, the earpiece, the whole kit, and he asked me random questions about my past. But it was polite, short, not at all frightening and it was pretty clear that he wasn't there looking for people like me. (Who knows what these people get up to. I'd not seen them at an airport before and have never seen them there since.)
I don't think I can do that sorry. I'd have to talk about more than US Immigration. In particular I'd have to talk about two institutions which had nothing at all to do with the problems I experienced. I don't want to repeat the nonsense that was flung at me by the troll.
I don't think I mentioned two of the worst incidents that I experienced at the height of two security scares quite a number of years ago in the US. I can talk about those. On one occasion I had contact lens fluid confiscated. At the time I had $240 long life contact lenses. These were not designed to be worn all day and all night, but my flight was a long haul. During the flight I developed a minor eye infection from having to leave them in. When I had argued with the security people over this I was told bluntly that US National Security trumped my health and financial well-being.
On a second occasion I was travelling to the US and would then transit to an internal flight (either that or I was on my way to the US and had to change flights mid way -- I don't recall any more because it was too long ago). En route I was told that due to snap TSA rules that when in transit between my two flights my laptop would be siezed and that there was no means of returning it to me. I was told that it would most likely be destroyed in a crusher.
I don't know of any other people who this happened to and I didn't see any news articles about people being told this. It seemed to happen because they were making up security rules ad hoc due to a major security scare. The cabin crew seemed to have been fed this info just before the plane took off. I spent the entire flight consumed with worry that I would lose not only the laptop, but a large amount of my work which I had foolishly thought was too important to make any copies of anywhere. I had actually toyed with the idea of convincing someone that it was cybersecurity research of vital importance to the national interest. But short of me making a pretty astonishing breakthrough during the flight, the latter part of that wasn't really true. Fortunately, all the worry turned out to be for nothing. By the time the plane landed, sanity had been restored and my laptop was not confiscated.
It seems that the TSA and US Immigration didn't really want me to travel to the US. Not returning to the US certainly solved the problem. I haven't had any problems with them since.
While I'm happy to see them banned for any reason, I'd much rather they were banned on the basis that they constitute an unacceptable violation of peoples' privacy.
Is there a reason why the concept of "security theater" hasn't caught on in the mainstream? It seems like it should be easy to oppose things that make us feel safer but objectively make us less safe.
I experienced "security theater" just this past weekend coming back from Nashville. As the line for the x-ray scanner started to grow, they started letting people just go through the metal detectors. Once the line shrunk back down, they started forcing people to go through the scanner again.
I opted out of the scanner just as they started letting people go through the metal detector again. The TSA agent told me, "you know these are completely safe and no human sees the pictures anymore, right?" If I had gotten in line just a few seconds later, I wouldn't have had to go through the scanner or be subject to the enhanced pat down. I mentioned this to the TSA agent doing my screening and he said, "sometimes timing is everything". If the scanners are as necessary as they want us to think, I'm glad to know that the chance that my plane gets blown up doesn't depend on how well those scanners work but simply on whether a would-be bomber went through security during a busy period.
The TSA has an absolutely abysmal record for catching weapons and explosives during security audits.
The most embarrassing bit of security theater is that, even if these new devices were safe, even if they were necessary, even if they were effective at presenting the relevant data to their operators, that those operators simply do not catch actual weapons ~80% of the time. [1]
And that number has been that bad year after year after year.
Truly, a given flight's chance of getting blown up depends on little more than the chance that someone capable is trying to blow it up.
The only comfort to be found is in the relative difficulty in assembling a suitable explosive and the low co-incidence of that skill alongside murderous intent.
I went through security screening in LAX with a large pocket knife in my onboard luggage. IT was a mistake on my part - I'm glad they didn't find it because the knife has sentimental value to me.
I also went through a full-body scanner at MCO for the first time recently. It's not faster - in fact it is a giant bottleneck. Instead of just walking through, as per a metal detector, you have to stand there like an idiot with your arms above your head, for what seems like an eternity. If you move, the TSA resident rottweiler barks at you and the whole process is repeated.
In the meantime, you have 400 or so people jammed up in an unsecured area wiating to be processeed, which is a far-worse security risk than being on the plane.
But the worrying thing is - is this a ratchet? Will it be politically untenable to ever relax the security screening? I shudder to think at the GDP lost by people standing in airport screening queues. It's like a giant 24 hour stop-work protest that never ends. Even if only 1% of the time wasted would otherwise be productive work, well....
> The TSA has an absolutely abysmal record for catching weapons and explosives during security audits.
I know I'm expressing a view that's probably been expressed.
Nevertheless, I hope you can explain how/why this statement is wrong: "The scanners are deterring people from carrying weapons right now. If the scanners were removed, there would be more people carrying weapons."
I suppose you could argue that the people who really want to carry weapons wouldn't be stopped by a scanner. Then again, there are definitely "impulse crimes", where people are driven to commit crimes based on nothing but impulse/pent up anger. Those people would have been stopped by scanners, but are let through, if there were no/less effective scanners.
Regarding "impulse" crimes--I don't see why such crimes are that much more of an issue on a plane than anywhere else. My understanding of psychology is naturally imperfect, but I don't think that a hijacking would be an impulse crime.
I could see why explosives would be more dangerous on a plane than elsewhere. However, people don't generally carry large amounts of explosives with them for no good reason, so explosives also don't lend themselves to impulse crime.
Other dangers, like getting shot or stabbed--something that is actually likely to be an impulse crime--are not much more dangerous on a plane than on the ground. Since we're perfectly content running the risk of being shot walking around outside, I don't see why airports would need special security just to prevent impulse crimes.
Of course, this is not an argument against all airport security. While I am personally against it, I would have to spend more time and do some research before being confident of making a compelling case against it. I'm just explaining why I think preventing impulse crimes would not be a good reason for tight security at airports.
A certain number of people die from vaccines (side effects, negligence etc) every year. That's a fact. Do we stop vaccinating? No, we don't, because the number of lives saved is probably >10000X the cost.
I've seen this same scenario in play many times in different airports. In some larger airports (IAH) they only have 1 body scanner but way more volume than it can handle, so they will have two other lines going through standard metal detectors. I just stand in one of those lines and bypass the scanner. The last time I asked a TSA guy how to request a pat down and not go through the scanner he got visibly annoyed and started loudly proclaiming how safe the scanners were, its just an X-ray, yadda yadda.
>As the line for the x-ray scanner started to grow, they started letting people just go through the metal detectors. Once the line shrunk back down, they started forcing people to go through the scanner again.
That's not even limited to airports. I've seen it on festivals and concerts as well, and I'm sure it extends to other public events. Most notably I remember the security checks at the entrances of the infield on the Wacken Open Air 2010. When Iron Maiden or other very popular bands played, they just waved everyone through. It was ridiculous, really.
Also, there's a really amazing video[1] from a German talkshow on Youtube where Werner Gruber[2] completely embarrasses one of the most fervent supporters of the body scanners, Wolfgang Bosbach[3] of the CDU party. He easily smuggles enough thermite to blow a decent hole into the wall of a plane through a body scanner, and later demonstrates its destructive capabilities on a frying pan.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrKvweNugnQ - German, I sadly cannot find a subtitled version, though it's quite possible to understand the basic gist by merely watching what Gruber does (he's the slightly chubby guy with the red tie).
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Bosbach - Quite uninformative, the German version is much better. He's a supporter of all sorts of completely ridiculous laws and measures, including a ban of "Killer Games" (violent video games) and all sorts of surveillance and anti-privacy laws.
The irony there is that moving people through the line faster when it's busy is actually the right security decision... It's just also the right decision other times.
The Continental Terminal in LaGuardia is still using metal detectors and the TSA personnel there tend to keep the line moving pretty quickly, considering its a serious bottleneck.
As far as I can tell, it hasn't caught on because Americans don't want to hear it. We seem to have a deep problem with denial. Sure, people might join in on chastising the TSA for a particular mistreatment of a passenger. But overall they just don't want to think about the idea that there's no real solution to terrorism.
They certainly don't want to confront the idea that sometimes, despite setting our minds and hundreds of billions of dollars against a problem, that we can't solve anything; let alone consider the notion that we might have made things much worse for trying.
Look no further than the War on Drugs. It's been clear for decades that by every objective measure it's a (barbaric, costly) accelerant for exactly the kinds of social problems it was conceived to fight. But it's still deeply unpopular to say that.
>> Look no further than the War on Drugs. It's been clear for decades that by every objective measure it's a (barbaric, costly) accelerant for exactly the kinds of social problems it was conceived to fight. But it's still deeply unpopular to say that.
I think you're right about the War on Drugs being a failure but wrong about this being an unpopular viewpoint.
It's commonly thought to be a failure, but it's politically incorrect to propose any solution other than doing the same thing we're doing now, only harder.
I consider this one of the most common failure cases of government; if they don't stumble on the essentially-correct policy the first time out, it becomes virtually impossible to change it later because it involves someone (possible very large and powerful someones) having to admit they were wrong. For another example where the only acceptable solution is "the same, only more more more", see school reform. "Everybody" knows that isn't going to work, but nothing else is acceptable.
Perhaps "unpopular" was the wrong way to phrase things.
"You don't hear it very often/emphatically from the mainstream media, nor spoken aloud by anyone in a position to change policy, nor spoken aloud by anyone who has a serious desire to gain the positions that could change policy."
I suspect it is the same reason that "auto repair theater" or "computer repair theater" or even "movies-that-are-garbage-but-pass-as-entertainment theater" still exist. It is nearly impossible to be well-educated in every facet of one's life, and people need to pick and choose what they become knowledgeable about. Security is both a new enough topic that most people don't realize its importance and a complex enough topic that it isn't easy to really understand.
Most people want to be safe; they don't want to understand security.
I think part of the problem is that a significant portion of the US doesn't fly often enough to be greatly inconvenienced by this. And, of course, the media can always find people willing to say "Well, if it will make us safer..."
Imagine the outcry in New York if they announced that they were going to install metal detectors and x-ray machines at the entrance to every subway stop. --That would (hopefully) never be implemented because the number of people who would complain and campaign against such measures would be much higher.
Well, they did do random bag checks at random subway stops for a while. It was always half-assed and you were not compelled to let them search your bag, you could just turn around and walk a few blocks to the next stop where they were not checking bags. It was all Security Theatre to make all of us here in NYC "feel safer" and let us know the NYPD was "on top of things". From a security standpoint it was absolutely pointless and people did get annoyed.
In the past I would have agreed. But I've seen the "imagine the outcry" argument brought up, the thing is later implemented, there is brief murmering, police crack down on the few hard core dissenters, then the masses begin to chant "Well of course we have to xray everyone getting on the subway, it's the only way we can be safe."
I have traveled with people who are happy with the situation, they don't understand whats going on, and are very happy to give up out freedom for a insignificant increase in security.
Seven syllables is too many. But you're right, the article glosses over the bigger issue than the two it mentioned: these measures don't help security and very strong cases can and have been made that it actually hurts security.
Because the 'mainstream' is still largely controlled by the 'powers that be' and there isn't a clear distinction between those that ultimately influence the ideas in the mainstream and those benefit greatly from a marginalized society.
Security theater benefits those in the oligarchy in two ways: highly profitable contracts for expensive machines, and a normalization of invasion of privacy.
Alas too many people ignore other people's objectivity and pay attention to their own feelings instead. And then they notice that many "objective" people say the security measures that make them "safer" really put them at increased "risk", and wonder what hidden agenda these "objective" people have and whose side they're really on.
Keep in mind that there are 2 types of machines in common use. 1) Backscatter (X-Ray) and 2) Millimeter Wave (Radio) and they operate very differently.
Based on what I've read I'm comfortable with the millimeter wave system and have some concerns about the backscatter x-ray system. However, if the backscatter system operates correctly then the amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight. I still think I'd opt-out of the backscatter system until long term effects and performance are studied.
Tip: Millimeter wave looks like a circular telephone booth, Backscatter x-ray looks like a big rectangular wall you stand in front of.
> The amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight.
One difference. I get something back from the flight. I get to be in another place rather fast. I am willing to take a small radiation dose for it. I am not getting anything back from being scanned by a Rapiscan (that is the name of the company that makes most of them).
That's horrible logic. To carry it to absurdity: the flight gets you from A to B rather quickly - why all the delays while they, you know, put fuel and peanuts into the plane? They should just do away with that, it's not the flight, all you need is the flight.
Similarly: buy 1 get 1 free? Why not just give out the free one?
As absurd as the security theater is, it's part of the packaged deal that includes "the flight". The radiation from the machines may not be part of the physical act of moving you from A to B, but that doesn't mean they can just be removed.
And given the number of test firearms that the TSA manages to get through the carry-on X-ray, it'd hardly be reassuring even if the full-body X-ray turned out to be useful.
You still don't make any sense. Here is activity A: flying. Here is activity B: walking through a Rapiscan machine.
One can do activity A & B independently. One can board a plan and fly ( I just did recently, got into a line that didn't have an x-ray machine and flew). Or one can do B -- keep buying tickets and go through security without flying and just do that all day.
Now the argument was both activities will blast you with x-rays so at least "logically it doesn't make sense to complain about one but not the other". My comment was that it is not the same, there is a difference. I am willing to engage in activity A because that gets me from one place to another faster. I am not willing to engage in activity B because I get nothing for it. You said it yourself it is security theater, so I get nothing but harm from it. Therefore it the two activities are not the same.
> The radiation from the machines may not be part of the physical act of moving you from A to B, but that doesn't mean they can just be removed.
I am confused since to you it seems that having the ability to fly without being blasted by x-rays and be seen naked by some underpaid TSA guy is such an outlandish thing.
Are you a teenager? Do you remember flying before 9/11? Do you remember how we had daily airport bombings and hijackings? (Yeah, neither do I). Then do you remember how many terrorists TSA caught red-handed, just about to board on the plane with an explosive device in all these years? I do - 0.
Then you acknowledge it is security theater but somehow claim that we need it. Sorry but that doesn't make any sense.
However, if the backscatter system operates correctly then the amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight.
The most compelling argument I've heard about the dangers is that while the total amount of ionizing radiation you receive is small compared to the flight itself, the radiation is chosen such that it doesn't pass through you and more of it is absorbed at the skin.
Even if they are safe, I will probably opt-out but I definitely don't like being separated from my baggage on the belt during the pat-down process.
> The most compelling argument I've heard about the dangers is that while the total amount of ionizing radiation you receive is small compared to the flight itself, the radiation is chosen such that it doesn't pass through you and more of it is absorbed at the skin.
I have a genetic pre-disposition to skin cancer. The total radiation dose may be small, but the type of radiation (ionizing), and the fact that it is targeted at, and fully absorbed by the skin doesn't give me comfort. Should I be concerned?
That's a rhetorical question, because in reality we just don't know because no one has studied it. And that's scary. I've opted out ever since these things were introduced, and will continue to do so.
The power of ionizing radiation being absorbed entirely at the skin (not the entire body mass) is also my concern. Those figures of the radiation being equal to "just a few minutes of flying in the plane" are totally inaccurate.
I am also notably concerned about that ionizing radiation being absorbed by my open eyes and also down below.. not to be crude.
you are absolutely right. Talking about small exposure only is a typical marketing trick. The type/frequency of the radiation and absorbing site would make all the difference. They just abuse the general ignorance of the population. When i'm to fly, i'm all for groping. Just need to get a Prince Albert done.
Even if they are safe, I will probably opt-out but I definitely don't like being separated from my baggage on the belt during the pat-down process.
This usually isn't an issue, you can see your bags or have them set aside. The issue I have personally been running intro (I travel about 2x per month on average, meaning potentially 4 trips through these things) is that when you opt-out it seems like it is taking longer and longer for them to find a suitable pat-down attendant.
This could just be my own skepticism, but it certainly seems that the wait is getting longer and longer each time.
In my experience (I've opted-out 6 times now in the past 1.5 years), they let you take your baggage with you to the pat down area, and you never have to lose eye contact.
I was at JFK Terminal 1 (International) and I got separated from my bags on the belt for an extended period of time. When I complained that my bags were at risk of being stolen or lost, the TSA agent said "You opted out. That's what happens."
Needless to say, I found a supervisor and complained. I'm also filing an official complaint. I have no problem being patted-down but I do have a problem with them trying to coerce me to do something I've expressly asked to be excluded from, and using my fear of property loss to get me to do it. That's WRONG.
I've done it a few times now, and they have always had me identify my bag, shoes, etc on the belt before the pat down. Then they set the bags aside. They also insist that you don't touch it until you are finished with the patdown.
Even leaving aside whether the TSA is well-run or not, the lack (as far as seems to be publicly known) of a rigorous risk analysis is a bit troubling. Not just as far as the medical questions go (e.g. what's a safe exposure level), but just standard engineering stuff.
For example, since backscatter machines work by scanning a narrow beam very quickly over the body, a particularly problematic failure mode would be the beam remaining energized but failing to move, which would give a very high localized dose. Even if that "can't happen", you would typically have some sort of failsafe that should rapidly cut off the beam in that case. If this were a medical device, there are fairly well established ways of doing failure-mode analysis to quantify that risk and the reliability/speed of the failsafes. Have companies like Rapiscan done that?
What makes you comfortable with the mm wave system? My understanding is that more research is needed on how millimeter waves affect cells. http://thz.caltech.edu/
While more study is needed with any system it is my understanding that millimeter wave radio waves will not penetrate very far beyond the surface cells while x-rays will pass through the entire body mass. Just on the raw mass affected by the device the millimeter wave system seems less risky.
The x-rays don't pass through the entire body. They go only into the skin. That's actually what's most concerning about them. Because they don't pass through the body, they are concentrated entirely in one layer which receives a much higher dose.
>amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight
Yes, I believe that's true however we should also consider the health of the TSA workers who are subject to constant exposure for 8 hours a day. For all that we can say, it's their choice to work there, that's not a fair assessment given today's job climate.
> The amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight.
Except that you get it in a milliseconds, instead of over a period of several hours. I get a lot of sunshine in a day (haha who am i kidding i'm a programmer, but humor me), but ask an ant what its like to get the equivalent energy in a few seconds.
However, if the backscatter system operates correctly then the amount of radiation exposure is really quite small compared to the amount you'd receive on the actual flight.
Very true, but the danger from it is still about the same tiny magnitude as the danger from terrorists without the x-ray system.
I wouldn't say entirely uneffected, but I do think the reduction is very small. The point is, though, that even if we were to assume the machines were 100% effective the end result would be to be spending money to not make anyone any safer.
The part that annoys me is that the security clearance process at airports is invasive. It serves no purpose other than to provide the perception of security.
Policy dictates that passengers are not allowed to carry any weapons onto airplanes. The scanners and other mechanisms are used to detect firearms, knives with blades longer than 6cm, and so on and so forth.
The ridiculous part is that you clear security, go into duty free, and buy a bottle of whiskey which you're allowed to take onto the airplane.
If you're so inclined, once on the airplane break the bottle and threaten a passenger or the airhostess with it.
That makes the whole process (at huge cost to the tax payer) a complete farce.
There are other crazy things we're paying for, like finger printing, and forgoing the right not to have our laptops and phones searched. Anyone who wants to get around these measures can. It defies belief.
I think "completely inaccurate" is overstating it. Here's a quote from that source:
In order not to risk jeopardising citizens' health and safety, only security scanners which do not use X-ray technology are added to the list of authorised methods for passenger screening at EU airports.
I edited my comment as you were replying, but still, this writeup totally buries this part of the story (from the opening paragraph of the original source):
This legislation allows airports and Member States that wish to use security scanners for the screening of passengers to do so under strict operational and technical conditions.
People who see the headline are going to think Europe isn't going to be deploying body scanners. But this story is about the opposite: The headline should be, "Europe approves passive-millimeter full-body airport scanners, prepares for rollout."
The headline is technically accurate, but I suspect most people don't know the difference between x-ray scanners and millimeter-wave scanners and assume if a scanner shows underneath your clothes then it is an x-ray.
the list of authorised methods for passenger screening
How about that. The EU has a system limiting government authority to a list of enumerated powers, while the US government runs around doing whatever it damned well pleases.
US Government: please go back to your copy of the Constitution (I assume you still have one) and re-read the 10th Amendment.
I wish it was ProPublica that had got posted instead the Geek.com article is very poorly written. He didn't even bother to take 2 minutes to verify you can still opt-out.
He has links and things providing his point. I agree with him, it was clearly a corruption thing from the start. Otherwise, why would people need to be scanned while leaving the airport. It only makes sense for either (a) creating useless jobs for people and/or (b) buying useless equipment to do the useless job.
""Let's not forget the REAL motivation for the US Gov't to buy these things [1] The former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff whose company, Rapiscan, miraculously won a contract worth $173 million just days after he left his office and essentially bought the company.""
I couldn't remember seeing many (if any) x-ray scanners in European airports - it's almost always regular metal detector gates.
X-rays do cause cancer and must not be used in airports. Enough using terrorists as an excuse, there are much easier targets - but it's been quiet for a while and hopefully continues that way.
I fly through Schiphol all of the time and I have opted-out without any issues before.
They had me walk around it, and they patted me down US style. The person on duty with a clipboard was asking people why they opted out and I explained to them that I do not feel comfortable that the machines are safe and that cancer runs in my family and I would prefer to not have exposure to ionizing radiation.
I am from The Netherlands and being able to speak in the agents native tongue probably helped as well.
I went through in August, and it was mm wave. Humorously enough, the security guard said, in broken english, "sound, not dangerous like your scanners".
When I flew through Schipol this summer I was indeed on a flight where the scanners were "required".
However, when it was my turn I stopped up and told the guy at the scanner that I wanted to opt-out.
At first he just looked puzzled and said he did not understand what I was saying. After first repeating, and then rephrasing "I do not want to go through those scanners", he told me to talk to his supervisor.
I then approached the metal detector (which was blocked by a mobile barrier) squeezed in between the two huge scanners. The guy on the other side then tried to wave me through the scanners again at which I simply pointed to the metal detector.
After then shouting to him that I wanted to go through there he finally approached me.
He removed the barrier and told me to then take off my shoes before going through (notably not a requirement in the scanners).
This is where it a bothersome experience turned into a really lousy experience.
Just as I passed through the detector when I was passing in between the two active scanners (imagine the radiation there) he came up to me face-to-face, at a really uncomfortably close distance.
He asked me angrily why I didn't want to go through the scanners. Was it privacy issues? Because those were accounted for. So what could I possibly be thinking? It really felt like an interrogation.
I told him I was concerned with the health risks associated with there scanners, and that a group of American academics had signed a letter stating that these scanners weren't actually proven safe.
This is then where it got really bizarre, because at this he said plain out "Oh yeah? What do they know about these machines? What about trusting European scientists instead??". *
At this point I was simply shocked and horrified. I believe I managed to ask him if he actually knew where the machines where from, before he finally just shrugged at me and let me escape from the scanners.
I was later told by another, much nicer guard at another security check (we all actually had to go through two checks within the span of an hour), that I sure had the option to opt-out, but only until the end of this year at which point they would become mandatory for everyone.
Notably, at no point in this security circus was I or any of the other passengers told that we even had the option of opt'ing-out.
And as soon as I was through the metal detector, they closed it up again, so no other passengers might get the idea that they too had the right not to be scanned.
* I do not believe these scanners have been tested for real in Europe or "by European scientists", before perhaps now.
if you read the link you provided, you'd find mentioning of increased leukemia and thyroid cancer in humans and animals as result of such "therapeutic" exposure. And it is understandable because the ionizing radiation like sledgehammer hits varios accidental pieces of the internal cellular machinery. It is normal to see some repair machinery being activated in response, it is also normal that some pieces are just broken so that results in the cancer and other mutations.
Btw, the "ionizing radiation" is a very wide range of frequencies and their effect on the living matter is different (and such aggregate measure as dose/Sv takes only overall absorbed energy into account which provides only very general classification of the potential effects)
The only mention of thyroid cancer in that article was a single study of cobalt-60 exposure (unknown levels).
The point is, everyone here is getting all worked up over uSv exposure, when after they get on the plane, they are exposed to several thousand fold levels of radiation.
you just don't get it, don't you? The exposure amount is just one variable. Just for example of how exposure amount alone is meaningless to determine the outcome - locally deposited ~60Sv (with ~20Sv deposited into healthy tissue) during radiotherapy course is rarely fatal while 5Sv received whole-body during the same period of time would almost always be fatal.
Maybe you don't get it? I'm guessing that's the case since you're using an extreme example.
The point is, the levels of radiation experienced in back-scatter scanners is several thousand fold LESS than that experienced while in flight. Both are total body exposures, although one could argue that the exposure times are different.
Either way the exposure is well below the limits that cause concern, therefore my original point (that low levels of radiation may be beneficial), still stands.
no. Again, you just don't get it. The absorbtion site and effects on it also depends on the type and frequency of the radition. Back-scatter is mostly absorbed by skin while the radiation experinced while in the flight comes in different frequency range (more energetic gamma rays which pass through and backscatter less from the matter, incl. aircraft shell and human body and thus result in more even absorbtion through the body).
Hormesis is valid for exposures of less than 100 mSv.
The airport scanners are in the uSv range.
How is my comment not applicable?
"The Health Physics Society (HPS) reports that a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.05 μSv (or 0.005 mrems) of radiation; American Science and Engineering Inc. reports 0.09 μSv (0.009 mrems)."
Dosage and risk is energy * weighting factor / mass.
It's not accurate to calculate radiation exposure as an average over the whole body when it's consecrated in a small area like the skin. Especially when skin cancer is so prevalent AND deadly.
The opt-out process is very easy in America. For example: When I fly out of SFO and am in line for the body scanner I simply ask for an opt-out and they quickly take me over for a pad down. No big deal, all you have to do is ask.
> A spokesperson for Manchester Airport said: "Extensive tests by the UK Health Protection Agency and the US health authorities have already confirmed that back scatter body scanners pose a negligible risk to human health. It is irresponsible to suggest that because Europe has yet to complete its own health study, our passengers should be concerned."
Just back from the US. Saw what I assumed to be these machines in use in LAX but couldn't understand the point as it was trivial to just pick the security lines that had the normal "doorway" scanners. I was pretty blatant in changing lines too once I'd seen the larger scanners ahead, and no one seemed to pay any attention.
As far as I know the full body scanners are terahertz scanners. They do not use X-rays. An X-ray scan would show your bones!
Also if you really want to reduce your exposure to radiation, you should avoid flying itself.
That said, if there is a significant increase in cancer among TSA workers, that should be a cause for concern.
Backscatter x-rays which use a low dose (hopefully) of x-rays but instead of measuring those that go through you 9as in a medical x-ray for bones) they measure the x-rays reflected back by metal objects such as guns and knives.
These do give you a dose of x-rays, hopefully a properly installed, maintained and operated system will limit this to a safe dose.
The alternative are mm-wave radar (terahertz imaging) these use similar radio waves to a mobile phone (but at lower power) They measure the change in the radio signal returned from metal and fluids in your body.
Since they work on the same technology as mobile phones (but even lower power) they are assumed to be safe(r)
That's because the Europeans have never had a problem with terrorism and so don't know how to respond.
(It turns out that the IRA and ETA are just cultural groups misunderstood by the British and Spanish imperialist oppressors and Baader-Meinhof is too hard to spell so doesn't count.)
Edit: I reviewed the information here: http://www.jaunted.com/story/2010/1/5/163631/3181/travel/Ful... and I do not know which type of machine it was. Frankly, it doesn't match the description of either. There were no rotating walls, it did not take 40s, yet it was not a vertical wall. Unfortunate. It would have been nice to know.