Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rush Holt (D-NJ): TSA porno-scanners "misguided, counterproductive, and potentially dangerous"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 05:47 AM
Original message
Rush Holt (D-NJ): TSA porno-scanners "misguided, counterproductive, and potentially dangerous"
Rush Holt is a physicist and a Democratic congressman.
"TSA’s current obsession with fielding body imaging technology is misguided, counterproductive, and potentially dangerous,” Holt writes.
I'm glad he was re-elected - we need more like him.

Snippet posted by Richard D in General Discussion a week ago, much more at the original article:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9614464&mesg_id=9614464

20x the scanner x-ray radiation reported by TSA
Edited on Mon Nov-22-10 09:41 PM by Richard D

In August, Holt Urged Congressional Leaders to Freeze Funding for Scanners Until End of Investigation
(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, a scientist and the Chairman of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, Friday wrote the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), reiterating his concerns about the use of body imaging technology, notably about potential health effects and the effectiveness of the screening to detect the full range of explosive threats known or anticipated to be used by potential terrorists.

Earlier this year, the Congressional Biomedical Caucus - of which Holt is a co-chair – hosted a briefing by Dr. David Brenner of Columbia University on the potential health effects of “back scatter” x-ray devices. According to Dr. Brenner, the devices currently in use and proposed for wider deployment deliver to the scalp “20 times the average dose that is typically quoted by TSA and throughout the industry.” Dr. Brenner has pointed out that the majority of the radiation from X-ray backscatter machines strikes the top of the head, which is where 85 percent of the 800,000 cases of basal cell carcinoma diagnosed in the United States each year develop.

According to Dr. Brenner, excessive x-ray exposure can act as a cancer rate multiplier, which is why Holt has urged the government to investigate thoroughly the potential health risks associated with this technology. In August, Holt wrote to the House Committee on Appropriations calling for a freeze in funding for any further full-body scanning devices employing “back scatter” technology until the GAO completes its examination of the technology.
“I appreciate the challenges we face in trying to prevent terrorists from boarding American airliners. That same background also gives me an understanding of why TSA’s current obsession with fielding body imaging technology is misguided, counterproductive, and potentially dangerous,” Holt writes.

http://holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=651&Itemid=18


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 06:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. They should allow us to don a lead lined cap for the xray, then...eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I keep thinking that too.
As someone who took a device that looks like a handheld detonator, and sailed through the TSA screenings of late 2001, and all of 2002, I don't doubt that I could do that again tomorrow.

Their focus is (sadly) on the totally wrong aspects of "terrorism."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rbixby Donating Member (716 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
3. I flew last week
And I didn't have an 'enchanced patdown' or have to go through the 'porno-scanner'. It seems to me like those machines don't get as much use as the media is making it out to be. For me it was just the regular carryon/laptop/shoes through the xray machine, then through the metal detector, nothing else. The machines were there, but I only saw maybe 1 out of 200 people have to go through them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. And?
Does the 4th Amendment only apply to 199/200 people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rbixby Donating Member (716 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-10 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Well if I'm not mistaken
Previously if you set off the metal detector you would go through a pat down as well. When I flew, it was my impression that everyone would have to go through one or the other of these. I'm not saying whether these are right or wrong in my post, just listing my experience. Personally, if its only used as a secondary screening, there's still some 4th amendment issues that go along with it, but before all this, if you set off the metal detector you'd get wanded and/or patted down.
Has anyone had different experiences at different airports?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC