A Molecular Biologist's Review of the TSA X-ray backscatter body scanner safety report: hide . . .

[Richard D]

. . . hide your kids, hide your wife.

"Our overriding concern is the extent to which the safety of this scanning device has been adequately demonstrated. This can only be determined by a meeting of an impartial panel of experts that would include medical physicists and radiation biologists at which all of the available relevant data is reviewed."

"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."

"In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist."

"There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations. We are unanimous in believing that the potential health consequences need to be rigorously studied before these scanners are adopted."

Much more:

"Blog of Jason Bell, a molecular biologist and biophysicist. I am currently a Ph.D. candidate in Steve Kowalczykowski's lab at the University of California, Davis. Topics are related to my work (lasers anyone?), rants and raves about science and science politics and other random tokens of awesomeness which might include links, photos, and the occasional recipe or kitchen project."

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

[KT2000]

1. Very good

we need to prove safety BEFORE they should be used.

[avaistheone1]

5. Great

so we are their guinea pigs.

[KT2000]

10. Yes - we are

the guinea pigs for chemicals and GM crops too.

[tavalon]

2. Yeah, 4th amendment rights aside, when I first heard about these,

I wanted to know about their safety. I couldn't find any solid certifications except one from the Homeland Security site. It doesn't make me feel all safe inside to know that a fascist organization considers them safe.

[avaistheone1]

6. I don't believe these scanners have FDA approval either.

Which if true is very troubling.

[WVRICK13]

19. Unfortunately FDA Approval

is kind of like using a fox to guard the henhouse. When the SS says something is true, I can't expect a lesser government agency to disagree.

[LibDemAlways]

3. And we shouldn't overlook the lack of qualifications of those

manning the machines. Do you want to be x-rayed by someone with 2 days training and no state certification? If you wouldn't put up with it in your doctor's office, you shouldn't have to put up with it at the airport.

[avaistheone1]

4. TSA is also not equipped with the clips that detect their own

exposure to radiation from the scanners. It seems like there was no real thought in protecting TSA employees or the flying public from the radiation from this equipment.

Who the hell is monitoring and maintaining the equipment anyhow?

[LibDemAlways]

7. These are questions that Congress should be asking. The TSA

acts as though it's accountable to no one.

[Pholus]

14. Yea for the SAFETY act. We had to protect Rapiscan from liability (and responsiblity.)

https://www.safetyact.gov/

It's nice to know (according to the ads on this site to vendors) that the SAFETY (Supporting Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002) exists so that we have no legal recourse here.

From TFS:

"The SAFETY Act liability protections apply to a vast range of technologies, including:

• Products
• Services
• Software and other forms of intellectual property."

Assurances to the vendors that if their stuff looks like it belongs on 24, we won't sue them over it cause we want it.

[obxhead]

29. I was wondering about that.

I wonder how long until we see the class action lawsuit commercials on TV, you know, the ones that will start something like....

Did you work for the TSA and are now diagnosed with...

[LiberalFighter]

31. Maybe regular travelers should invest in those clips to track their exposure level.

[Pholus]

43. You would not be allowed to carry the clip through. Maybe THAT would be a good protest.

[LiberalFighter]

47. If they are not allowed as you are probably right. This should go out to demand

the right to wear them and to know the full extent of radiation build up.

[Ilsa]

22. This is a huge point to make when I write my GOP congresscritters. Thank

you for your well-thought out comments.

I'm going to begin my campaign against the new procedures by fighting against these scanners and their health risks, just to keep the issue clear.

[Iterate]

8. Collateral damage

When a government puts its own citizens on the front line and suspects them all just the same, then who or what is that government defending?

[KT2000]

11. the people who make

the scanners of course!

[newfie11]

9. Are the TSA scanners checked by a physicist

Why are they not regulated by the NRC and why doesn't each state have the right to monitor the output of radiation.

[LibDemAlways]

23. And the personnel operating the machines ought to be trained x-ray

technicians with state licenses - not flunkies recruited off of pizza boxes. Where's the oversight here?

[newfie11]

44. I am a registered X-ray tech

that's why I am curious if there is any regs on these machines.

[LibDemAlways]

45. I am curious. What are the requirements for becoming an x-ray

tech in your state? I think this is an important issue. People are being forced into these full body "backscatters" which emit radiation, and yet the people who are operating the machines are, from the info available online, given only two days training. I find that mind boggling.

[newfie11]

52. There are still some states that anyone can do an x-ray

Is is VERY aggravating that anyone in South Dakota can be hired off the street and with just a little training (not required) operate an x-ray machine or CT. There is a FEDERAL law that only a registered technologist can operate a mammo unit. I use South Dakota because I am aware of places this is done (hospital) and clinics.

The requirements for Registration and to be ARRT certified are 2 years in an accredited school AND pass the test at the end of that. Also every 3 years one must have all the continuing education credits (24 months for mammography). This is done by going to seminars or or on line.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. I don't give a shit if they want to see me naked, but this concerns me.

I'm not convinced that the potential safety offset is great enough to warrant performing radiation experiments on a large portion of the population.

I have family members who suffered complications from radiation related activities which were, at the time, "deemed safe".

[unapatriciated]

33. I lost a sister to Leukemia in 1960

not to mention many autoimmune disorders in my immediate family. Yet virtually none in cousins, aunts, uncles and grandparents who unlike my parents stayed in Iowa.

They told our parents not to worry about the falling ash that we played in as children, it was indeed "deemed safe".

[Pholus]

13. Just remember the all purpose comeback: "Flying is a right, not a privilege."

It's a privilege to be exposed by an uncalibrated, unregulated X-ray machine operated by an untrained individual.

But we mustn't make waves.

[arikara]

27. And the common sense response to that is that

flying is nothing more than a mode of transportation for which you are paying good money.

In spite of all the terra hype, it is far safer than driving. The only problem with flying nowadays is all the theater that takes place in the airport. Why didn't they ever consider x-raying and physically assaulting random people who rent a ryder truck?

[Richard D]

38. Or enter a shopping mall . . .

. . . or a freeway interchange, or a supermarket, or a movie theater or or or . . .

[Pholus]

42. I guess the comeback is... they'd LIKE to.

Leaving the service economy for the security economy.

[quaker bill]

15. Neat trick

The radiation dose remains the same, but because 90+ percent of the body is not exposed due to low energy x-rays (longer wavelength), he calculates up a higher dose per Kg by dropping 90+ percent of the body mass. Using this line of thought, the machines would be "safer" (lower dose) if they used higher energy x-rays that penetrated the entire body.

No one in their right mind would advocate for that.

The point is that the machines use low energy waves that do not penetrate the body, this does not make the machines worse for health and safety through number magic. The real exposure is not increased by this, and the risk is reduced to near zero for the 90+ percent of the body which is apparently not exposed at all. He admits this himself by dropping that 90+ percent from his calculations.

Cosmic rays are not friendlier because they pass right through you, and some through the entire planet....

[Pholus]

16. So you're saying that he's completely wrong then? That the skin is not getting a higher dose?

Not that it matters. The TSA and Rapiscan will just play the SAFETY card when it becomes clear that they screwed us all.

[quaker bill]

48. yup, that is what I am saying

The same quantity of higher energy x-rays would hit the skin before they pass through the rest of you. But, because they would pass through the rest of you, he would use the full body mass to calculate a lower dose. Dose is x-rays/Kg of body mass, put any number in the numerator then decrease the denominator, see what you get. Then increase the denominator, if you are still not sure.

I am pretty sure that no x-rays pass through you without hitting skin on both sides. Backscatter would seem to hit the skin on only one side....

[Pholus]

54. The tube generates up to 50 keV photons according to the published report. That's NOT soft either.

So maybe you have a point because those suckers will penetrate. Of course it is a point defending a flawed, expensive system of questionable utility.

[Pholus]

17. In X-ray scattering, a reflection doesn't mean nothing happened to the target.

Furthermore, to be sure we're both clear as to what "low energy" means.

Soft X-rays have energies from 120 eV to 12 keV.
Hard X-rays from 12 keV to 120 keV

What is the ionization energies for electrons in the skin again? For Hydrogen it's 12.6 eV, so I'd expect less due to shielding and greater electron distances from the nucleus.

[quaker bill]

50. agreed

it does not mean that nothing happens. Yes, there probably is some modestly elevated risk. It does emit ionizing radiation, but then so does a tanning bed and a CRT. Then there is the natural radiation coming from the ground and the sun. The sun being of interest because you get alot more of that at 20,000 feet than you get at sea level.

[WVRICK13]

18. In A Previous Response To A Thread

about the dangers of the x-rays since I have just undergone radiation therapy and chemo. a DU member used the media line that the radiation from being in the air was just as dangerous. Regardless of the various radiation we are exposed to I still think it is in our best interests to limit the amount of exposure and the scanners add to the cumulative radiation load on our bodies. It may not be a problem for me since I rarely fly anymore but when I used to be on 4 or 5 flights a week it would have been a tremendous risk over the course of a normal business year. Let us not forget that every person tolerates exposure to radiation and toxins differently. Is it really worth the risk? Unfortunately, we won't know the real effects for many years of using the general population as test subjects. I was watching a show about the foot x-rays in shoe stores and the later effects on the sales people and customers. As long as the public is informed that we do not really know the long term effects and are given a choice in screening, even pat downs, then I would be less alarmed. In fact, I would even strip down for a security screening before I will be a test subject.

[lost-in-nj]

20. I have been wondering

about the effects on a woman who doesn't know she is pregnant yet, maybe 3-4 weeks and what harm the x-rays might cause... I get a tooth x-rayed and I get a lead cover over my torso and I am past the baby stage...
maybe a dumb question but if your traveling, and when this becomes mandatory, you will have to go through the scanners at least twice.... will you have to carry a note from your Dr. when you find out your pregnant also until you start to show?


lost

[Pholus]

21. I think the answer is that there is a lot of tissue between the surface and the fetus.

So not too much of a worry there.

The main concern is the blurring of the radiation dosages which are reported
by TSA as energy/kg of body mass when it is plain the penetration depth is much smaller
and that the skin gets most of the radiation. This means that the skin receives most
of the energy and hence most of the damage.

After watching my pastor die from melanoma, I'm not too keen to go that way in the name of security theater.

[Richard D]

25. not much tissue . . .

. . . at all between the scrotum and the testicles.

[Pholus]

26. I know.... I actually was pretty shocked to hear that it was a 50 kV tube.

The maximum energies are HARDLY soft X-rays.

[TorchTheWitch]

36. or between skin and breast tissue n/t

[eShirl]

24. interesting that the skin (and immediately adjacent tissue) absorbs most of the radiation

Isn't exposure to UV radiation (also absorbed by the skin) implicated in skin cancer?

Are the waves close to the same frequency or something?

[BREMPRO]

28. good questions.and real info for a change (instead of uniformed hysteria, propaganda, hearsay)

Although the blogger/scientist admits he's not an expert in the area. Independent expert analysis of these machines should have been done BEFORE they were implemented. Not sure who is at fault for this not happening. I suspect TSA just relied on the reports from the manufacturers (who are clearly biased and politically influential) as to their safety. They MAY actually be perfectly safe, or safe for most except vulnerable segments of the population, but we need to know for sure before submitting to them.

I think i'd rather get felt up than irradiated until this question can be answered with more independent analysis and study as to their safety.


on edit

There is a link from the blog to the TSA site where there are two apparently independent studies done by John Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab. Although there are some holes in the study and no mention of children/pregnant women that i could find, their conclusions are that the doses are within NID negligible doses standard- safe as long as one is not exposed to more 645 scans a year (page 31). They also studied operator's dosage and determined them to be within safe limits.

So clearly they DID do studies before implimenting them and not just from the manufacturer. The objectivity and expertise (more than the bloggers)of John Hopkins University's lab appears to be solid. Anyone who can refute the JHU study i would welcome more discussion.

[Duval]

30. Thanks! My first thought was about safety. :(

:mad: Damn it all...I thought this crap would improve under the current Administration. My husband and I had already decided to submit to "pat downs" rather than go through the "body scanners". Damn!!

[LisaL]

32. Here is kind of a nice summary of different opinions on the matter.

My opinion is pretty much summarized by this quote:

"Nobody can say with certainty that it will have an effect. Nobody can say with certainty that it won't have an effect," he said. "We really won't know until many years later. The biological effects might be different for different groups."

http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/sanbernardinocounty/ci_16729193

[Mhak]

34. I'm sorry, this is just amazing...

Weren't these machines designed to reduce our risk while traveling? And instead they might just be giving us a different kind of risk? We trade bombs for cancer?

Great protection we're getting.

[Alcibiades]

35. We have been told all kinds of things are safe

My brother in law's father was one of the guys sent out into the desert with a rifle during the atomic bomb tests. He died a few years later of a very aggressive testicular cancer.

Soldiers were told agent orange was safe. My father used to spray it, and drank a couple of dixie cups full to demonstrate its safety--though he's 69 and quite healthy, my half brother has downs, even though his mother was only 30. No proof of any link of course, though in my grade at our small military high school we had three kids missing parts of their bodies--two born with missing/partial fingers on one or both hands, one without a leg, all the children of Vietnam vets. Out of a class of about 60 kids. No proof of a relationship, of course, except now the VA admits that Agent Orange does cause birth defects.

Now they are telling us that exposing every inch of our skin to untested ionizing radiation is safe. They can go fuck themselves.

[happygoluckytoyou]

37. maybe IN THE SPIRIT OF THE MAYOR IN JAWS the airport mgmt could put their kids thru 100 scans ??????

[TheKentuckian]

39. Since I have been consumed with the machines being Constitutional

I haven't even thought much on health implications but Lord we are loaded on sheep to not even question the safety of the equipment or pause to wonder why hospital techs need at least two years of rather serious training, oversight, and a certification process but security guards can just handle similar equipment out of the box?

And

On another level, if we are to believe we MUST have these procedures why let them slide on what is often the biggest travel day of the year?

This business makes no sense and bears little scrutiny.

What is behind this mad scramble? Just the money?? Why are certain elements so adamant about it? Just fear???

Something feels at least a level deeper than usual on this deal.

Too sloppy and hurried yet defended vehemently from any and all questions and concerns.

Is there a message of warning in there from the inside? Something truly nefarious afoot?

Feeling awfully Reagany, dare I say Iraqish going on up in here. There are way too many dicey at best areas on this one.

[LisaL]

40. Most people don't question what authorities tell them.

Candid camera show got airport passengers to go through a fake x-ray machine as if they were baggage.
And that was before 9/11.

[TheKentuckian]

41. LOL (sadly). True

[EnviroBat]

46. The TSA bastards put my girlfriend right in the microwave.

She didn't even go through the metal detector, they just ushered her right into the X-ray. Then they made her stay in there for what seemed like 5 minutes! This was leaving Columbus OH. What the fuck are these TSA assholes doing to us? What is our government doing to us? We made a vow that when we flew back from Florida, neither one of us would go through that machine and we would "opt out". When we flew back out of Orlando, we had no problems.

[inna]

49. see this from the Nobel Prize winner at UCSF:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1011/S00267/x-ray-airport-security-scanners-serious-health-risks.htm

[whatchamacallit]

51. More silly media-inspired alarmism

:sarcasm:

[Generic Other]

53. All women should limit any exposure to x-rays

They don't know what causes high breast cancer rates. Why up the odds by taking chances? Like playing Russian roulette with your body.

Just sing my song when ya show up at the airport.

TSA Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUzpykxWh20