Scientists say they have solution to TSA scanner objections

[truthisfreedom]

Source: Washington Post

A cheap and simple fix in the computer software of new airport scanners could silence the uproar from travelers who object to the so-called virtual strip search, according to a scientist who helped develop the program at one of the federal government's most prestigious institutes.

The researcher, associated with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said he was rebuffed when he offered the concept to Department of Homeland Security officials four years ago.

The fix would distort the images captured on full-body scanners so they look like reflections in a fun-house mirror, but any potentially dangerous objects would be clearly revealed, said Willard "Bill" Wattenburg, a former nuclear weapons designer at the Livermore lab.The scanners normally produce real-time outlines of the naked human body, and the Transportation Security Administration has been embroiled in controversy since installation of the new scanners began last month.

"Why not just distort the image into something grotesque so that there isn't anything titillating or exciting about it?" Wattenburg said.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/21/AR2010112104456.html?sid=ST2010112104457

---

If they don't adopt this fix, it's obvious they've installed the machines for their own private porno pleasure.

[Whoa_Nelly]

1. would not "fix" the unnecesary pat downs

of randomly selected fliers... :(

[Ozymanithrax]

2. A cheaper fix would be to unplug the damn things.

If I want to have my image fun-house-mirrorized, I will visit a fun house.

[avaistheone1]

18. lol

Perfect. :rofl:

[Atypical Liberal]

35. Wish there was a like button for replies.

I agree with you.

[marybourg]

3. Doesn't solve the problem of radiation exposure, especially

for flight attendants, and even frequent fliers.

[Hawkowl]

10. Exactly

I don't give a shit of someone sees a photo of my dick. I do care if you x-ray my testicles repeatedly.

[blackbart99]

26. Have a happy tumor then........

Not everyone is an exhibitionist. Some people say that flying is not a right flying is a privilege...
Bullshit...its a means of transportation that people pay for. They don't want to be groped or appear in porno. :wtf: :mad: :grr: :banghead:

[james0tucson]

37. Doesn't solve the problem of radiation exposure, especially

...or first-trimester fetuses... or anyone really, since we don't really know the risk factors of this exposure.

To the people saying that 2 minutes of flight exposes you to the same amount of radiation, that's a very flawed premise because it is NOT the same kind of radiation.

[Kali]

40. hey james0tucson

welcome to DU:hi:

do you play out anywhere/local band I might know?

[LisaL]

4. All of this should have been done before they bought and installed

these things. I can't help but wonder why they did not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. This is key

said he was rebuffed when he offered the concept to Department of Homeland Security officials four years ago.

Remember kiddies that was the DHS under Bush...

There is a chance that the turn over never had that in place, after all the technology would cut into the profits.

That said, these things, if they insist, have a place, AFTER you have established cause... not with every passenger.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[notesdev]

6. I have a better solution

it involves Michael Chertoff and a guillotine

[katnapped]

45. Unfortunately..

That guy in the WH agrees with it.

[Richard D]

8. Some of us . . .

. . . care more about the frequent exposure to x-rays.

[boppers]

12. If you're worried about radiation, *DON'T FLY*.

A body scan is equal to 2-20 minutes of flight (depending on whose numbers you're using)... when you're way up in the atmosphere, you're getting huge doses of radiation.

[avaistheone1]

17. Naked body scanners may be dangerous: scientists

WASHINGTON — US scientists warned Friday that the full-body, graphic-image X-ray scanners that are being used to screen passengers and airline crews at airports around the country may be unsafe.

"They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays," Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at Johns Hopkins University school of medicine, told AFP.

"No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner," he said.

The possible health dangers posed by the scanners add to passengers and airline crews' concerns about the devices, which have been dubbed "naked" scanners because of the graphic image they give of a person's body, genitalia and all.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/body-scanners-dangerous-scientists/




That is from John Hopkins one of the premier medical schools in this country.

[LisaL]

19. Another concern with body scanners-who is going to make

sure they are properly maintained? What if a scanner malfunctions?
"Even though Rez thinks the machines aren't harmful, he refused to go through the body scanner during a recent trip. That's because the professor worries about how these machines are operated and maintained -- a mechanical failure could expose passengers to dangerous levels of radiation."
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/health/body-scanners-radiation-11-19-2010

[avaistheone1]

20. Good point.

I am convinced these scanners are not for our protection. I doubt the maker or TSA is concerned with the machines' maintenance, safety and protecting us from excessive radiation.

Did you know these machines have not been approved by the FDA, and independent tests have shown they give off twenty times more radiaton than the manufacturer state.

Buyer beware. Opt out.

[boppers]

25. You're bracketed by *Ignored* posts, but he has valid points.

Even if you travel on airlines you trust, it's still dangerous. The smart thing is to weigh the danger.

[Pholus]

31. Most discussions of this sort are brushed aside with a "Trust us, citizen" from the TSA.

And 20 years down the road when it all turns out to be BS, no one will be accountable. Business as usual.

[daleo]

60. They claimed nuclear tests were no big deal

Same thing with x-rays used for routine medical scanning. It is now accepted that screening can sometimes cause more cancers than it prevents.

[Pholus]

22. Probability of getting cancer from scan = Probability of dying from terrorist = negligible.

This was NEVER about security, just obedience and an acceptance of a loss of rights.

[boppers]

27. I don't think so.

I look at it as an IQ test.

[Pholus]

29. IQ test? Nawwww. I believe TSA just doesn't pass Sagan's BS detection toolkit.

Here is my link: http://asunews.asu.edu/20101118_inthenews_radiation

Given that TSA has repeatedly declined to discuss the specific dosage of radiation, I cannot
independently verify these numbers.

But then again, I believe you are claiming that you are the intelligent one here.

Got a radiation dosage number for me?

[boppers]

52. TSA has actually provided numbers, as have others.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-12/travel/body.scanning.radiation_1_backscatter-radiological-research-radiation?_s=PM:TRAVEL

2-20 minutes of flight time, depending on whose numbers you trust.

[daleo]

61. Tobacco companies used to provide numbers too

They were hardly neutral on the subject of the health risk of smoking. Same thing with security agencies - they are not disinterested researchers.

[Pholus]

63. Congratulations boppers, your link confirms my original statement.

So the odds are statistically EQUAL of dying from a terrorist or from the TSA on the same flight.

And no, these are NOT dosage numbers. I want to know how many photons at what energy. That information is "classified."

I thought you said you did well on IQ tests.

[ProudDad]

48. +1000

[CreekDog]

34. I have to fly for work and I don't want to get 10 xrays per flight from CastScope

but there's no Opt Out.

i've had enough xrays in my life.

and you're defending this? if this is what it takes to be an Obama supporter, then I'll support someone else, but I have this idea that it can be stopped and that won't be necessary.

or are you going to tell me that i have to take my xrays to be an Obama supporter.

[james0tucson]

36. If you're worried about radiation, *DON'T FLY*.

>A body scan is equal to 2-20 minutes of flight

No, it isn't. The scanner emits a type of ionizing radiation that you aren't exposed to in flight. They are not equivalent. I don't know where you got this information, but you didn't get it from a radiologist.

[boppers]

53. You don't think flight radiation is ionizing?

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-12/travel/body.scanning.radiation_1_backscatter-radiological-research-radiation?_s=PM:TRAVEL

[catchnrelease]

58. Some more info......

Dr. Sedat is Professor Emeritus in Biochemistry and Biophysics at the University of California, San Francisco, with expertise in imaging. He is alo a member of the National Academy of Sciences. The other cosigners includes Dr. Marc Shuman, an internationally well known and respected cancer expert and UCSF professor, as well as Drs. David Agard and Robert Stroud, who are UCSF Professors, X-ray crystallographers, imaging experts and NAS members.


We, a number of University of California, San Francisco faculty, are writing — see the attached memo — to call your attention to our concerns about the potential serious health risks of the recently adopted whole body back scatter X-ray airport security scanners. This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary screening step for all air travel passengers.

(snip)

The X-ray dose from these devices has often been compared in the media to the cosmic ray exposure inherent to airplane travel or that of a chest X-ray. However, this comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X-rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight/vol, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high.



http://firedoglake.com/letter-from-john-w-sedat-et-al-o...

[Pholus]

64. The POINT is: You're exposed no matter what but NEEDLESS exposure is a waste.

And you STILL haven't gotten me that openly available dosage information there buddy.

How many photons at what energy for what duration?

[Doremus]

42. Yeah, it's def better to get a double dose.

btw, they're totally different.

[boppers]

56. For it to be "double", you'd have to be on such a short flight you might as well drive.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-12/travel/body.scanning.radiation_1_backscatter-radiological-research-radiation?_s=PM:TRAVEL
http://www.statepress.com/2010/11/17/professor-addresses-airport-security-health-concerns/
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/11/18/us_med_airport_scanners_safety

[daleo]

59. I don't think it's a valid comparison

Radiation from high altitude is essentially random, while the scanners are focused radiation. The latter can create resonance effects, and all of the energy is focused on the first few millimeters of dermis. Thus, the effect is potentially compounded. Multiple exposures would have corresponding potential for cumulative harm.

[Matariki]

9. How does this fix the health issue problems?

Or fourth amendment problems?

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. The fourth sort off

it hides you... so nobody knows who you are.

The medical issues, not so much.

That is why keeping this for people for whom there is probable cause.... but a well trained employee is cheaper too.

[james0tucson]

39. The fourth sort off

>it hides you... so nobody knows who you are.

That cannot possibly be true. They have to be able to use the image as evidence or else it's pointless, and this could even be a problem that would lead to a mistrial or acquittal.

[Moonwalk]

41. They don't have to use the image as evidence. If they see--

--something on you as you pass through, they're not going to let you go. They're going to find out if you've got a suspicious item on you and if you do, then they'll arrest you and, having found the item, have all the evidence they need, no image needed.

This is not like a security camera which catches a criminal after he's committed the crime and is used to convict them of it. The scan, presumably, will catch you in the act red-handed. And a criminal caught in the act red-handed means no other evidence is required.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Now you are entering into chain of evidence

and you are correct. If they can't save them... which by the way I don't buy. (That they can't)

[sofa king]

57. I'm with you.

In fact, I'm going to bet that we'll see our first "celebrity scans" loose on the Internet by New Years Eve.

[james0tucson]

38. How does this fix the health issue problems?

If over time, the rates of certain kinds of cancer increase with a strong correlation to people who travel by air, you'll have the basis for a trillion dollar tort.

Until then, the only real option is to make sure the issue upsets really powerful people.

[Safetykitten]

11. Oh thank God. I thought it involved radiation and mutants.

[boppers]

14. I'm amazed at how many Americans think their image would be attractive in any way.

C'mon, really?

We have one of the highest, if not the highest, obesity rates in the world, and the solution to the scanners is... to make human bodies look like funhouse mirrors?

What, are they going to somehow make the passengers look thin? More overweight?

[LisaL]

15. WTF does it have to do with americans thinking their image

is attractive?

[boppers]

16. From the OP: "for their own private porno pleasure"

What makes all these people think their image is at all pleasurable to look at in any way, shape, or form?

[Pholus]

23. Well, my image IS pleasurable to look at. Got another pro-grope argument?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pholus]

30. That was sarcasm. Don't they test for that in IQ test school?

I'm just trying to understand why I have to submit to this kind of crap when it is obvious that gaping holes in airport security remain open. Of course, I wasn't working for a scanner-building company while I was formulating security policy.

[DrDan]

28. since when was porno restricted to "pleasurable to look at in any way, shape or form"

[boppers]

55. Here, have a definition:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography

[Ian David]

33. Some people especially LIKE fat people. n/t

[boppers]

54. LOL, point taken.

There's somebody for everybody, but that doesn't mean that everybody is attracted to everybody.

[tomm2thumbs]

21. ...

[diane in sf]

32. Bill Wattenburg is a dummy who thinks radiation doesn't harm people

[valerief]

43. Does it stop the radiation? No? Then it's not a fix. nt

[sulphurdunn]

44. The DHS budget for 2010

is about $55 billion. TSA gets 14% of that. The full body scanners average about $150 thousand per unit. There are hundreds of major airports in the US. The companies making them are owned by people who don't fly commercial. Eight percent of fliers opt for the body scanners. The enhanced groping is intended to persuade the rest.

[goforit]

46. What about the radiation risk!! This is why I would refuse!

[ProudDad]

47. "People" like chertoff and napolitano

don't get off on sex...

They get off on money and power...

So this "fix" wouldn't make much difference...

[ProudDad]

49. This does nothing about the more egrigious part of the new fascist policies

the GROPING when the machine throws a false positive...

This is NOT about security, it's about POWER...

[sarcasmo]

50. It's the radiation and the violation of the 4th amendment, people in this country are clueless.

[24601]

68. When have the courts determined that this is a 4th Amendment

violation?

1. The government doesn't force the public to fly

2. You may decline the scan by choosing not to fly

3. Even if you choose to fly, the USSC hasn't said it's unreasonable anymore than a border search is unreasonable

Yep, the people are clueless - if they refuse to fly, policies will change when the industry again approaches collapse - the power rests with the consumer and "supply and demand" really works - just ask GM

[SoCalDemGrrl]

62. Still doesnt "fix" the skin cancer danger

[johnaries]

65. The current images are hardly "titillating" or "exciting".

I really don't see the furor over the images. As far as the x-ray exposure, we're constantly bombarded by radiation and I doubt the low levels of x-rays would cause any damage for a one-time exposure. The pat-downs may or may not be too invasive, but I don't think they would bother me any more than a medical exam. Plus, they can be avoided by going through the scanner.

I agree that fining people who refuse is going too far. I think the new rules where they are escorted out are much better.

Sorry, I think warrant-less wiretapping is a much bigger issue.

[Pholus]

66. Actually, as shown on the TSA blog, the TSA repeatedly refuses to show CURRENT pictures

at current resolutions, citing non-competition clauses in their contracts with the manufacturers. All you get are early (several year old) images.

I guess the TSA guy that beat his coworker over insults about the size of his package was just the victim of a lucky guess?

[TorchTheWitch]

67. wouldn't fix the radiation issue n/t