Opting out of the airport body scanner "cancer machine"

[Quantess]

Showdown at the Airport Body Scanner
By NATHANIEL RICH

I have never walked through an airport body scanner — or, as I think of it, “the cancer machine.” In the years since these radiation chambers began appearing in airports across the United States, I have developed a variety of tricks to avoid submitting myself to them.

At checkpoints that use a combination of cancer machines and traditional metal detectors, it is just a matter of choosing the right queue. Often, however, a single line feeds into both machines, making the Transportation Security Administration officer responsible for directing passengers to one or the other. Since the officer gives priority to the cancer machine, relatively few passengers end up walking through the metal detector.

Confronted with this situation, I create delays, futzing with my shoes or laptop, until the line has bottlenecked at the cancer machine. At that point I walk confidently — or as confidently as one can possibly walk without wearing shoes — to the metal detector, at which point the officer usually waves me through.

Sometimes, however, there is no escape. In these cases I look directly into the eyes of the officer and explain that I refuse to go through “that machine,” or “that radiation machine,” or “that hateful cancer machine.” The official term for this is “opting out,” a phrase that suggests a reluctance to honor a simple, reasonable request. The suggestion is that the unwilling passenger is the unreasonable one. But I don’t think the United States government’s insistence on using these machines is reasonable. And if you think I’m crazy, then I have one thing to say to you: You’re crazy.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/showdown-at-the-airport-body-scanner/

[davidpdx]

1. You simply state it is a health concern

Smile and let them wave you through. If you are pleasant about it, most likely they will accommodate you.

[flamingdem]

27. You're kidding right? I've always been forced to get a body search

You must be talking about Podunk, USA.

[davidpdx]

41. Are you talking about them actually touching your body or waving a wand around you?

There is a big difference. I've never had a full pat down. Even when I had an ankle boot on when I broke my ankle I was treated gingerly. Maybe I'm just lucky.

[flamingdem]

43. Oh I've been mauled by many tsa agents

Some did it to be bitchy. Some were nice. I got used to it but don't enjoy the fact that one doesn't know the way the agent will act and how much of a power trip they're on. Mostly you can tell they don't want to be doing their job, and you don't want them to touch you. They touch around the bra and up and down insides of legs, some more than others. Last time she did it twice for no reason, that's what i mean by bitchy.

[davidpdx]

46. If that happened I'd ask them to suspend the process and request a supervisor

You do have a right to file a complaint. They by all means should send a supervisor out to talk to you.

For me most of the time I just walk through the scanner, but as I said when I had my boot I knew there was no choice but to tell them I needed to taken aside. I went from Seoul Korea to SFO to Southern Oregon, then from PDX to SFO to Seoul Korea and a week later from Seoul to Shanghai all within a month (wearing the ridiculous boot).

[flamingdem]

51. I'm going to have to wear an ankle boot!

That might help

[davidpdx]

61. I'll sell you mine

Geez I had to pay almost $200 for the damn thing. Granted that was here in Korea because it was an imported item. I'm sure they are cheaper in the US.

[RobertEarl]

55. Last time I went thru that

Right in the middle I acted up like it was electrocuting me. Ya know a jiggly dance thingamagig.

The boys at the gate were not amused, and the people behind me looked quite discombobulated. n/r

[davidpdx]

60. Ha!

That sounds like something I do. You should have fell on the ground and started into convulsions for good measure.

[RobertEarl]

62. Fall on the ground?

On that dirty floor?

Heh, I almost got detained as it was.

[sabrina 1]

104. Lol, you haven't been keeping up with things. If you refuse, no matter how pleasantly, the TSA

(thanks Napolitano) will allow you to opt out, but then you MUST submit to an 'enhanced body search'. They love that world 'enhanced'. According to the President responding to the fierce opposition to these tactics, he 'understands how inconvenient it is' but in order to 'keep us safe' some things are necessary. Grandmas, having their diapers removed, little girls being fondled by strangers etc, apparently is necessary for us to 'remain safe'.

Well, that was then, the ACLU, EFF, and multiple other Civil Liberties Orgs filed suits against the TSA and the Government, individuals who had been mauled at airports also filed suits.

Some people made huge profits from the installation of those machines, Michael Chertoff eg.

Now however, it appears the PROTESTERS were correct. We apparently did NOT need to assault grandmas and children at the airport to feel safe. Because suddenly the TSA despite having sworn for years that we needed these despicable machines to remain safe, has removed them.

Does that mean we're safe now? It's more likely that the new machines they installed was a new contract to make more money for a Big Corporation.

[davidpdx]

116. So my question is..

Is an enhanced search a pat down or full body cavity search *cough*?

[sabrina 1]

118. There have been reports of people being made to feel as if they are being sexually assaulted.

Probably not widespread, but enough of those kind of reports to cause lawsuits to be filed.

[Major Nikon]

2. Ironic

The person in the article refers to scanners as "cancer machines" and avoids them like the plaugue, then gleefully embarks on a high altitude flight and exposes himself to higher doses of radiation.

The study estimated that the scanners expose a passenger to less than a third of the maximum recommended dose of 0.25 micro-sieverts , a standard established by the American National Standards Institute.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/10/business/la-fi-travel-briefcase-20120611

During the last period of "solar minimum," at an altitude of 30,000 feet, the dose rate was about 4 ?Sv per hour at the latitudes of North America and Western Europe. During solar maximum, which is occurring now, the dose rate fell to around 3 ?Sv per hour.

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q444.html

[Gravitycollapse]

4. Science is not welcome here.

Please see yourself out.

[Quantess]

14. What are you talking about, that "science is not welcome here"?

Would you care to back up that extremely lame, pointless, broadbrush, statement?

Does that mean that you enjoy subjecting yourself to unnecessary, gratuitous, x-rays?
I call them unnecessary because they don't diagnose a medical or dental problem.
I call them gratuitous because they are ineffective and slow. They do not make us safer.

So, please tell everyone why we need to keep rapiscan in airports.

[Gravitycollapse]

15. The dosage you receive from a backscatter machine is significantly less than from flying...

And the majority of airports now use millimeter wavelength scanners that do not produce ionizing radiation.

I hate full body scanners because they are an invasion of our privacy and, as you mention, ineffective. But I do not resort to hysterical false claims of "cancer machines" to prove my point.

[Quantess]

17. Apparently you didn't read the article, or even notice the quotation marks around "cancer machines".

Which should have been a clue that those weren't my own words. But that's okay. I understand you just wanted to be snarky.

[Gravitycollapse]

19. I never accused you of writing those words. Nice try though.

Although I'm sure that, to a certain extent, you endorse them regardless of their origin.

[Quantess]

21. Weak!

I have my own ideas about you, too! Would you like me to tell them to you, just so you can tell me I pulled it right of nowhere, just like you just did to me?

[csziggy]

53. They've taken the Rapiscans out of the airports

TSA dumps near-naked Rapiscan body scanners
Jan. 21, 2013 - 10:21AM | By BART JANSEN

The Transportation Security Administration said Friday it’s dropping the full-body scanning machines that produced almost nude images of people at checkpoints and outraged many travelers.

The reason: The maker of the machines, Rapiscan Systems, cannot produce software to eliminate the almost nude images that TSA personnel view and turn them into stick-like figures.

The machines also were controversial because they use X-rays to scan passengers, prompting concerns about radiation.

The move doesn’t mean that passengers won’t have to go through full-body scans at airports. TSA is keeping other machines that use a different technology and software, and which provide stick-like body images that personnel examine for potential weapons.

TSA has 174 Rapiscan machines, which will be removed from airports by June. The agency earlier had removed 76 of the machines from airports — including New York’s LaGuardia and JFK, Chicago O’Hare, Los Angeles, Boston, Charlotte, N.C., and Orlando, Fla.
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20130121/TRAVEL02/301210002/TSA-dumps-near-naked-Rapiscan-body-scanners

There are other full body scanners manufactured by L-3 Communications that will still be used. I wonder why that company was chosen?

Body Scanner Producing L-3 Communications Increases Political Gifts, Targets Power Brokers
By Michael Beckel on November 24, 2010 6:10 PM

The political action committee of L-3 Communications -- one of the two contractors behind the full-body scanning machines now used in more than 60 U.S. airports -- has doled out more political cash this election cycle than at any other time, the Center for Responsive Politics has found.

The L-3 Communications PAC contributed $466,300 to federal candidates and committees between January 2009 and Oct. 13, the date of the most recent campaign finance reports, the Center's research shows. That's 1.5 percent more than what the PAC gave during the 2008 election cycle -- and a 26 percent increase above the group's 2006 cycle contributions, the Center has found.

L3 Comm PAC chart.pngAs of mid-October, the L-3 Communications PAC also still had $454,400 cash on hand, so the PAC's giving for the cycle could be even higher. It might have used some of this cash on hand to make additional contributions to politicians before the election, or it could use portions of it to further contribute to politicians through the end of December. The group's "post-general" campaign finance report covering Oct. 13 through Nov. 22 is due to the Federal Election Commission on Dec. 2. Its final report of the 2010 election cycle, its 2010 "year end" report is due Jan. 31.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/11/body-scanner-producing-l-3-communications.html

[Quantess]

64. Thank you for the good news!

As I have written elsewhere in this this thread, I have not been submitted to a rapiscan, (I had one flight in the past 2 years) and I am happy to learn that I probably won't have to.

Also, just to make sure ALL readers understand: my name is nothing even close to Nathaniel Rich, and I'm a woman.

[Puzzledtraveller]

95. This shit is allover the place

If you change youre diet becuase you are allergic to wheat you are anit-science, I've seen that implied, it's stupid. These people sound like corporate mouth pieces.

[flamingdem]

26. Did you read the report by scientists from UCSF on this?

I thought not.

[Gravitycollapse]

33. You are going to have to link me to the report.

As I'm sure there are many and I could not possibly know off the top of my head whether or not I read the ONE report you wish me to know about.

[flamingdem]

40. Here's the link, Colombia U did a similar study

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/02/10/airport-body-scan-radiation-concerns-ucsf-researchers/

[Gravitycollapse]

45. That is not a study. You said UCSF did a study. Show it to me.

What you linked to was questions presented without any answers. You said UCSF performed a study. Where is it?

[flamingdem]

52. Show yourself. That tone leaves me cold nt

[Gravitycollapse]

56. I'm just going to mark you down as not having it.

[flamingdem]

73. I'll give you an F for frickin ridiculous nt

[Gravitycollapse]

75. I'm starting to think you confused a news article with a university study.

Which is telling.

[flamingdem]

78. Too lazy to google, eh

do you order people around in your life? Or just wish you could

[Gravitycollapse]

80. It's sad that you think being required to post evidence of a claim...

Means I'm ordering you to do anything. Not doing the work for you does not make me lazy. It means you make baseless statements.

[flamingdem]

81. Why would I bother with

a committed nuke lover

[Gravitycollapse]

82. How do you define "nuke lover?"

[Quantess]

120. Here. It is not the original story, but NPR's report of it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126833083

Also, again, my name is not Nathan Rich and I do not, myself, call airport rapiscans cancer machines.

I did what many other DUers do by posting an interesting article, awaiting for discussion to ensue. And I thank you all for the discussion! Even you, Gravitycollapse.

[Quantess]

38. We need something to back this up.

If you have a source, please share.

[flamingdem]

39. Here's a link, Colombia did one too

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/02/10/airport-body-scan-radiation-concerns-ucsf-researchers/

[MotherPetrie]

126. But blind obedience to the expanding facist state apparently is.

[Gravitycollapse]

127. You will notice downthread that I am against full body scanners.

I choose not to express that by giving into anti-science drivel.

[MotherPetrie]

129. I don't consider it drivel. As a 2x cancer survivor who has had waaay more x-rays and CT scans than

most people, there is no fucking way I will voluntarily stand still for a totally useless, politically driven scan by TSA agents, a scan whose "safety" has NOT been "proven."

[Gravitycollapse]

131. It is absolutely drivel. Backscatter machines do not give you cancer.

[Ilsa]

9. I suppose he could drive or take a bus,

but why expose oneself to the additional radiation? Last I heard, the pilots union has fought it because of the additional radiation.

[Thor_MN]

10. How dare you make an appropriate assessment of risk...

instead of just knee jerk reacting to fear.

Madeline Kahn, Mel Brooks in High Anxiety going through airport security...

[Quantess]

16. Knee jerk reacting to fear & TSA...

hmmm, now what did you say, again?

[Thor_MN]

18. Perhaps you meant to reply to MajorNikkon?

After all, he was the one who correctly pointed out the irrationality of fearing the scanner, then blindly getting on the plane that renders a much higher dose of IONIZING radiation, as opposed to the nonionizing radition delivered by the scanner.

If there is something to fear, it is the FLIGHT, not the scanner.

[Quantess]

28. No, I meant to reply to your statement.

Thanks for engaging in reasonable discussion, by the way, unlike some people.

I do trust that the health risks of the scanner are extremely low. But, why should I be expected to subject myself to extra, unnecessary radiation? No really, convince me WHY I need to.

Metal detectors and drug sniffing dogs and human intelligence from the trained TSA workers (scoff at that if you will) has done a more efficient job of keeping flights safe than these silly, expensive rapiscans.

The flight itself is something I choose to do to get from place to place. That means I choose to be subjected to atmospheric radiation because it gets me somewhere. Why do I need to be subjected to the extra radiation just to get on the plane? Is there any good reason for it?

[Thor_MN]

31. No, there is no reason, but to call them CANCER MACHINES is ridiculous...

You chose to use loaded terms to describe the machine. Rather late to try to attempt to say that you understand the risk is extremely low. You selfishly talk of deliberately fouling up security lines. I don't know your reason for posting, but it appears you either wish to be considered clever, or want other people to adopt your strategy of screwing up everyone's chances to move through the security lines as quickly as possible.

Excuse me if I don't applaud.

If you are going to object to the scan, why not just do that, rather than first doing your best to delay everyone in line behind you?

[Quantess]

35. Did you notice that this was an article written by someone else,

and that I used quotation marks to indicate that these were someone else's words? Basic info.

Anyway, let's just get back to my question to you: Why should passengers subject themselves to extra radiation just to board the plane?

Does it make us safer?
Does it fight terrorism?
Is it efficient? Cost effective?

[Quantess]

37. It might actually not be clear that I did not write the article, I don't know.

My name is not Nathaniel Rich.

[Thor_MN]

50. By posting it, without comment, you appear to agree without reservation.

To be honest, I did not notice that it was not your original words. Regardless of whose words they are, the writter is irrational, and in my opinion, a selfish ass.

To answer your other question, I already have done that. The random scanning of individuals is at best a feel good thing, a show of doing something rather than nothing. I do not think they are necessary, but also do not think deliberately fouling up the security procedures to avoid them is worth the effort and a waste of everyone's time.

[Quantess]

54. No.

I gave you too much benefit of the doubt, apparently.

[Thor_MN]

57. Apparently, you agree wholeheartedly with the ass that wrote what you posted.

He claims he deliberately slows down security lines, in an attempt to avoid what you, yourself, said was extremely low risk. An exposure more than an order of magnitude lower, and of nonionizing radiation, than 1 hour of flight. He selfishly screws up the process first, then opts out if his antics don't work.

If he wants a pat down instead of the machine, he should just ask for it, rather than messing with everyone in line behind him. I have no issues with him wasting his own time, but he truely is an ass for wasting everyone else's.

[Quantess]

59. That's a losing argument, if you are thinking about the bigger picture.

On a totally unrelated and personal note... How do you get off calling yourself "Thor" with a viking helmet when you have such a submissive attitude? No, really. I would like to know when you folded and gave up your rights as a human being.

Hey "Thor", you were the first to get personal about it, remember that.

[Thor_MN]

63. My calling a selfish ass a selfish ass is a losing argument?

I don't see it that way.

I don't remeber needing your approval for anything, much less my screen name. As long as we are discussing screen names, are the mugshots that come up in Google for Quatress yours?

Apparently you have lost sight of the point that I agree that the scans are mostlu useless. I just think that being a asshole to everyone around you, when you are going to ask for a pat down rather than scan, is a childish selfish act.

Not really sure where you got the asinine idea I have given up my rights. I've never been through one of the scanners myself, but did get choosen for the swipe down/vapor analysis of my shoes and carry on while coming back from Aruba, Do you think I should have maybe kicked up a fuss, bitched and moaned, rather than take the thtree extra minutes before I planted my ass in a seat to wait for the plane? The extra security is a sham, we all know it, but I choose to get through it without being a crybaby or making an ass of myself. The vaopr off my shoes probably broke their damn machine, I don't give a rat's ass about spend a couple minutes extra time. I DO care about dipshits wasting my time by playing games while thinking themselves clever.

[Quantess]

65. Hey never mind what I said. you just come back here

when you sober up, okay?

[Thor_MN]

66. Really? Cause I'm not there, you are sitting in your own whiff...

For someone who has not typed anything more substantive than "I'm rubber, you're glue" rejoinders for several posts, you seem to be projecting quite a bit.

Nathaniel Rich is an asshole. Selfish crybaby. Willing to screw over an entire airport to get his way.

If you want to support him, don't feel bad if people toss you into the same bed.

AS the man said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own "facts".

Have a nice evening, hope you avoid having any more mugshots posted on the internet.

[Quantess]

68. You are the lamest poser "viking" I have ever encountered.

What a fucking weak "yes man" you are. You just kiss authority's ass without a second thought, don't you? Do you even have a sense of humor about it? No, apparently not. You are the lamest "Thor the viking" imaginable.

Also, you ramble on about nonsense that doesn't even apply to what I wrote.

[Thor_MN]

70. Really? You haven't said a thing other than desperate attempts to insult me...

Come on, show us what a strong proud person you are by posting ONE thing supporting why Ol' Nate isn't crybaby. Seriously, try something other than an insult.

>YOU< haven't written a damn thing. You posted the words of someone else, apparently entralled with his assholish qualities. Why not just some Ayn Rand passages while you are at it.

Not sure what you are talking about when you are saying rambling, how about tyring to refute something I have said by citing a coherenet arguement against it? Anything? Got anything other than childish insults?

[Quantess]

72. All anyone has to do is just read the thread.

Anyway, you really need to give up your helmet and change your name "Thor" to something like "Todd".
You are the lamest fucking pretend viking I have ever encountered. I don't know how to say it nicely.

Also, "try to refute anything I have to say" is pathetic.

[Thor_MN]

76. What is your particular defect? Increasingly attempting to insult my screen name is childish.

If you have a point, bring it on. We all get that you don't like my screen, for about the 6th time now. It's getting really boring waiting for you to post something of substance rather than just another lame insult. The insults equate to LaLaLaLaLaLa. The true sign of someone who has run out of anything to say.

Your hero Nate is but one step above pulling a Ted Nugent, "Oops, I crapped my pants" in order screw up everyone's travel plans. Tell me how he is a genius.

"Also, 'try to refute anything I have to say' is pathetic." No, that's called having a discussion, rather than childishly huringl insults.

[Quantess]

83. Time to take a step back from the keyboard.

Pause. Take a deep breath. (yes that means you, too, Todd)no

I am a swedish-american woman posting from Sweden. I think your concepts of submitting to authority and also mocking those who question authority, is really terrible, and shameful.

My basic point is that these unnecessary things are oppressive,
while your basic point seems to be that we need to OBEY and OBEY and OBEY regardless.

You have the nerve to call yourself a viking?
Vikings were tough people who didn't put up with any shit. They had to be tough because there was not much to live on, so they ate rotten fish and killed their enemies when they had to.

Which brings me back to your poser name: you seem like a poser, based on your name.

[Thor_MN]

84. Damn, I was so hoping you had something to say...

I am a Norwegian-Swedish-American, which has exactly jack shit to do with anything. You do not own the concept of Vikings or Norse mythology, so get over yourself.

Where the hell do you get off thinking I'm saying obey, obey, obey? I'm saying don't be a total prick to everyone around you for no reason other than irrational fears. I don't know, maybe you like selfish assholes willing to crap their pants to get their way.

I've agreed with you multiple times that the scanners are essential useless. Which you seem to be oblivious to. Maybe put down the bottle and get some sleep?

My point, which you have studiously avoided, is that if you are so damn afraid of the scanners, just tell them, rather than fucking up an entire airport with childish antics before hand.

Or try it the way you seem to prefer, fight your way through security...

[Quantess]

86. Only in your imagination

did you ever agree with anything I had to say.

Not in my understanding of things. You know, it's easy to get your mind a spinnin´ thinking of things to write, thinkin' you wrote all these wonderful things that went through your brain...but actually you didn't. None of it is on record, anyway.

[Thor_MN]

87. Sigh, I guess you can't read...

Post 31. " No, there is no reason" (in reply to your question " Is there any good reason for it?&quot

Post 50. "To answer your other question, I already have done that. The random scanning of individuals is at best a feel good thing, a show of doing something rather than nothing. "

Post 63. "Apparently you have lost sight of the point that I agree that the scans are mostly useless."

Post 84. "I've agreed with you multiple times that the scanners are essential useless."

Reading is fundamental, as they used to say. Perhaps English is not your primary language, let me try saying things differently

NATE RICH IS AN ASS. YOU HAVE SAID NOTHING INTELLIGENT. YOU GOT YOUR BUTT KICKED.




BTW, nice try on changing post 65... All anyone has to do is click show edits to see that your lame post was
"Original version with no edits.
65. I smell desperation.
You just lost. "


Seriously, give it up. When that is an example of the best one has, one should realize that one's backside has footprints all over it.

I really don't expect you too though, I expect you will come up with another lame rehash how I don't deserve to have my screen name or icon, while I'm ironically not putting up with any of your pathetic shit...

[Quantess]

119. Here ya go, genius.

Edit #1 Awaiting a better link
Edit #2 this should be a better link http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126833083
I still think you're a big poser, Todd.

Edited a 3rd time to say: please post the mugshots you found of quantress!

[Thor_MN]

121. Wow, took a long time for you to sober up.

Three year old article , how about one more recent? Maybe if you ask around, you can find someone to read to you, since we have proven that you are not very good at it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333685/TSA-removes-ALL-backscatter-X-ray-machines-airports-privacy-concerns.html

Your hero is still a selfish punk. Craphispants Nate deliberately fouls up airport security lines due to irrational fears.

Sorry, the mugshots were from googling Quantress. Any comment on your epic fail of saying that I never agreed with you one anything?

[Quantess]

122. I take it that you still are in favor of gratuitous radiation, in the name of security theater.

I am not in favor of it.

Apparently this is a pointless conversation, especially since you can't even show us Quantress' mugshots. That makes you even lamer than I thought. Oh, well.

[Thor_MN]

123. You really are unable to read?

I've told you repeatedly that there is very little reason for the scans. And the scanners (that equaled 4 minutes of flight time, from your own three year old cite) have been removed. So your hero Nate is now just a little punkass, wasting everyone's time. And you idolize him for being a selfish ass... Bet you are into Ayn Rand, too, aren't you...

And you are apparently too dumb to know how to use Google for yourself. So yes, this is a pointless conversation since you seem to not understand that I can think Nate Rich is is asshole and you can think he's just dreamy and it doesn't matter one bit.

He's is a selfish jackass, who could just opt out of any scanning, but chooses to fuck up the lines by screwing around first. Maturity of a 4 year old, no wonder he appeals to you.

[Quantess]

124. Fine, Todd. You WIN!

Hear that? You just WON!

[Thor_MN]

125. I told you that several posts back. Good to see that you finally understand.

[Quantess]

128. The problem is that many other people are reading this, and they don't all agree.

A good many will recognize that I meant it sarcastically.

I personally think you are an ass for not backing out of dumb comment #1 by simply admitting you were mistaken. There is your mistake, champ, try not to do it again.

[Thor_MN]

130. Sorry Brainiac, you are the one arguing a pointless case. Try deflecting some more.

The scanners had all been removed several weeks before you posted your love affair with a selfish asshole.

Dumb comment #1? WTH are you talking about? That I thought you wrote that idiotic drivel? Damn, you really need to try some remedial comprehension classes. (hint..try reading post 50 again, before you embarrass yourself some more.) Are you going to try to turn back the clock and rewrite history? Dumbass Nate's childish pranks to avoid an extra 4 minutes of flight time's worth of radiation are exactly that, childish, selfish pranks. No one is forced to do the scanner, one can simply decline. There is absolutely no fucking reason to pull the asinine little stunts delaying everyone else other than being a major league dickhead.

You keep wanting to turn this into something else, apparently because even you know your arguments are lame to the point of being laughable.

[Quantess]

132. I read post 50. Are you really this stupid?

Are you as stupid as the way you are treating me?

"You keep wanting to turn this into something else, apparently because even you know your arguments are lame to the point of being laughable."

[Thor_MN]

133. Do you have ANY point?

Your post is semantically null.

[Quantess]

134. Thanks, Todd, for kicking the thread. (no text)

[Thor_MN]

135. Let me see if I can sum up your position(s)

You think Nate is really cool, because he likes to screw with airport security lines.

You agree with Nate and live in fear of machines that were removed weeks ago.

You like to post while have been drinking (OK, I made that one up, you might just be not bright.)

You really can't keep track of what you posted, and don't bother to read what others post.


Do us all a favor and next time you fly, rush the security line, berserker style, and force your way through. Prove to us that you are not just a blowhard hypocrite that likes to talk tough.

[Quantess]

136. My summary of your position

is that you are kind of a dumbass who is really terrible at arguing and probably shouldn't try, just stop for your own good.

I will be nice and encouraging, and will tell you that you need to keep trying.

[Thor_MN]

137. I've proven you wrong so many times, it boggles the mind that you claim you got anything right.

A post about an issue with absolutely no relevance. An asshole who thought himself clever for wasting people's time. And you fell for him, hook, line, and sinker...

You project as much as those on the right, your tour de force of argumentation includes "I smell desperation.
You just lost." Brilliant riposte, you really should write a paper on that one, it was just devastating...

[uppityperson]

69. Oh, picky picky picky. (Thank you)

[Pholus]

77. Considering the SI definition of a Sv, perhaps you can clear one thing up.

What mass is used to calculate the TSA dose. They've never been real clear on that. I've heard claims that the dosages divide by the total mass of the victim, rather than the mass actually radiated (which of course is a few layers of skin -- the xrays are reflecting after all).

[Gravitycollapse]

85. Reflections never reflect back 100% of the light.

Besides the fact that a reflection is actually the absorption and emission of photons, not all of the radiation is reflected. Some of it is cast off.

As far as how they measure the dosage, I have no idea. It would obviously have to be a statistical generalization though.

[Pholus]

90. If transmission were domininant or even comparible to reflection.

The images released would look different. The bulk of the radiation is reflected, not transmitted.

This of course, is different from the cosmic rays on the plane which are of sufficient energy that they transmit.

[Major Nikon]

88. The dose rate is a function of how much energy is absorbed per Kg of mass

[Pholus]

89. Thanks for the definition.

Of course, the dosage value will differ depending on the mass used. Was it the total body mass or was it mass of tissue actually irradiated (a smaller value, obviously).

[Major Nikon]

101. As mass goes up or down, the effective dose will remain constant

For effective dose, the value does not differ depending on the mass used, because mass is used as a function of the rate. Effective dose applies weighting factors which are dependent on where the radiation was applied because different parts of the body are more or less sensitive to ionizing radiation. In terms of cancer risk due to ionizing radiation exposure, effective dose is a much better unit of measure, which is why ANSI develops it's standards based on effective dose and it's why the government and other organizations use those standards and unit of measure when evaluating such risk.

[Pholus]

103. So in order to understand this, you need the additional weighting factor for the particular organ.

Got it. Do you have a reference for the interpretation then?

It's funny because one of my friends works with low level radioactive materials for her research and as an aspiring mother is rather paranoid about sucking up radiation without her badge. She says the only non-background reading she ever got (despite being a frequent flyer) was the one time she wore her badge through a Rapiscan (having had to negotiate for her right to do so).

That's the closest thing I've every gotten to real data about the system, so that event ranks quite highly in my personal risk calculations.

Between that, noting that TSA screeners are specifically exempted from radiation safety regulations that require badges around machines like this and a careful reading of the SAFETY act I figure it is an unnecessary risk for a negligible safety increase.

[Major Nikon]

105. You can get it from Wiki - radiation effective dose

[Pholus]

106. So to get the skin dosage,

You divide the effective dosage by the skin weighting factor, which appears to be 0.01, right?

[Major Nikon]

107. No, the effective dose unit of measure has already done that for you

[Pholus]

108. Rephrase:

When you are given an effective dose, to get the tissue dose you divide by the tissue weighting factor.

Correct?

[Major Nikon]

109. I'm assuming you mean equivalent dose absorbed by the tissue in question

The answer to your question is no, because the formula is not that simple.

[Pholus]

110. You sure?

So, the double equality implies that the last term can contain a fair amount of specific detail. But the table is of the weighting factors W_T.

Certainly, the point of a backscatter x-ray is to reflect the radiation. Examination of the imagery does imply that you don't see bones so it would seem like most of the radiation reflects and given the surface detail and stated failings, it reflects within the skin. I understand that most of the radiation scattering depths would be in W_R but again, if the radiation reflects not a lot penetrates and W_R looks like a delta function for the skin only.

At that point, then dividing E by W_T seems to give H_T as I asked. This is the point of the exposure debate, or at least the arguments from Arizona State. The skin takes the bulk of the exposure and so the tissue weighting factor effectively makes the net radiation dose sound smaller than it is from the point of view of the skin.

Unless of course a substantial amount of the radiation penetrates -- then the W_R becomes complicated again -- but that would be useless, unnecessary exposure from a design standpoint right (though such a design flaw even if deliberate would not be punished thanks to SAFETY)?

[Major Nikon]

111. This confuses dose penetration with imaging penetration

The letter from the system designer to congress explains why those arguments are invalid and reinforces the FDA's conclusions.

http://www.tek84.com/downloads/Holt-Letter2010-12-2.pdf

[Pholus]

112. Okay, so most of the radiation is not used usefully by the system.

If they weren't hiding under indemnification, I might even trust them for their honesty at that point.

[Major Nikon]

113. I'm not sure whom you mean by "them"

ANSI develops the standards, so do you mean "them" or do you mean the manufacturer of the system?

[Pholus]

115. Not ANSI, but the revolving door between DHS and the manufacturers for sure. nt

[Gravitycollapse]

3. The millimeter wavelength body scanners emit non-ionizing radiation and are not "cancer machines."

The risk of cancer associated with these body scanners is non-existent. These machines are dangerous to your health because they are a gross invasion of your privacy.

[Major Nikon]

5. The TSA still uses x-ray machines

The non-ionizing machines are probably the most prevalent, but there's still plenty of x-ray machines out there. However, even in the case of the x-ray machines, the dosage level is extremely low.

[Gravitycollapse]

6. Are backscatter's still being used? I haven't seen one in a long time. Although I don't travel much.

I was at Phoenix Sky Harbor, La Guardia, Newark and Charlotte Douglas last week and they all had millimeter wave machines.

[Major Nikon]

7. They moved the older backscatter machines to smaller airports

The TSA is working on phasing those machines out because the software can't make the generic body shapes like the millimeter wave machines. However, the TSA has a new contract for the next generation of scanning machines and some of those will be backscatter. So x-rays will be in use for many years to come.

[flamingdem]

24. Oh darn I thought they got rid of them all nt

[flamingdem]

25. I think the Millimeter's use radio waves nt

[Gravitycollapse]

32. They do.

[Recursion]

44. Radio waves are radiation (nt)

[Gravitycollapse]

47. Visible light is also radiation. What is your point?

[Recursion]

49. I thought flamingdem was saying they are radio waves "as opposed to" radiation

I may have misinterpreted his post, though.

[Berlum]

8. Sigh

[snooper2]

30. Couldn't they have used a picture of some who wasn't

urinating?

[snot]

11. I've never gone through one either, but

I just calmly inform the TSA agent near the machine that I'd prefer not to. They do the pat-down instead.

I do wonder if I should make a bigger deal out of it in an attempt to inspire other passengers to do the same, but it takes a bit of nerve just to do it the way I do.

[Quantess]

12. Somehow I've missed out on the joyous experience of a "rapiscan".

I haven't flown anywhere in the past 2 years, which is why. But even my flight 2 years ago, I don't remember being asked to step into the rape-a-scan and raise my arms. I'm pretty sure at that time I just went through the familiar metal detector.

As for the health risk, I trust that it's very low. However, I resent being subjected to an x-ray for no good reason. I say for no good reason because the full body scan has been shown to be slow and inefficient.

I don't want to be subjected to x-rays unless I'm at the doctor or the dentist. I'm not satisfied with the dismissal of the health risks, because they shouldn't be subjecting passengers to it at all. It doesn't make us safer.

[Gormy Cuss]

13. It's only a matter of time.

I avoided it until the damn things were installed at every terminal in my home airport and most common destination airports. Opting for the patdown slows down your progress through the checkpoint, intentionally so it seems.

I doubt that making every passenger take off their shoes and walk through the effing scanners is an effective use of resources. I think the x-ray exposure risk is the least of the problems with this screening.

[MindPilot]

20. when you deliberately create a delay at the security line

you are putting your fellow passengers at risk of further scrutiny.

Here's how it works: Passenger A is in the security line followed by B and then C.

Pass. B starts to spend a long time getting his shoes off or can't seem to stop fidgeting with the items in his pockets, creating some kind of delay.

Security people look at that situation--that individual--and see an attempt to create a distraction.

Suspicion is then focused on the people B arrived with, most notably A & C who are very likely now headed for a secondary inspection.

So, Mr Rich, while you are being all self righteous about not wanting to go through the x-ray machine, you are likely screwing over your fellow travelers.

Yeah, I will put my level of visceral hatred of TSA up against anybody, so I prefer not to deal with them, so please just shut up and let everybody get through the line as unmolested as possible.

[flamingdem]

23. I bet you never read the studies of the harm the xray could do

or realized they were so bad they've been removed.

[MindPilot]

96. Do you really think they were removed out of concern for OUR welfare?

Do you think for a moment TSA gives even the tiniest shit about the well-being of airline passengers?

Fact is you will receive a much greater dose of radiation during the flight that you will in the screening machine.

I'm not saying it is not harmful, just not harmful enough to make this big a deal about it.

[Quantess]

36. There you go with gratuitous, baseless judgments.

In your own words, Mr Rich. As if any one person choosing to protest a full body scan is suddenly Mr. Rich!

Aren't they all just passengers with a boarding ticket? If somebody protests TSA are you going to demand to see their bank statement? Dumb statement on your part.

[MindPilot]

94. "Showdown at the Airport Body Scanner By NATHANIEL RICH "

Addressing the author as "Mr" and his name I do not believe constitutes a "baseless judgement".

[flamingdem]

22. They took away the rapiscan x-ray machines already

now they use the other ones that use radio waves.

I am paranoid enough that I won't do those either but they're much less of an issue.
Those are the ones with the clear plastic and marks for your feet, roundish shape.

The Rapiscan are the boxes and have been phased out.

A lawsuit at Heathrow over miscarriages might have caused this.

I always refused and would allow an extra half hour for BS treatment.

They'd always try to make me stand next to the carryon machine while waiting
for a female tsa agent. What a bunch of stupid idiots, for the most part.

You really have to be compliant with some of these jerks, one little bit of tone
and they'll leave you there and you'll miss your plane. The female tsa's were a
mix of bulldog and young woman who was scared about constant exposure to
the machines, I would always encourage them to stay as far away as possible

[Quantess]

34. Good to know, thanks.

I am happy to hear rapiscans are being phased out.

People are just doing what they need to do to get their paycheck. It's not about being dumb or being a jerk. It's what they were trained to say, or else they risk losing their job. Those TSA workers don't get paid all that much. What the hell is a person supposed to do for work in this shitty economy? If someone is to blame for bad policy, we all know you look toward the bosses.

[wryter2000]

29. I just say I prefer to be patted down

I don't feel I have to give them a reason. I've never had a problem other than having to wait for a female officer. The worst that ever happened was one man seemed a bit exasperated at me standing there and told me, "that's faster," pointing at the machine. I repeated I preferred to be patted down.

The officers who've patted me down were very courteous and professional. I know I shouldn't have to go through all this, but I am NOT getting naked in the airport. I don't care where the image shows up.

[Recursion]

42. *facepalm* To avoid radiation, he goes through higher-radiation metal detectors.

Sigh.

[Quantess]

48. Okay, now that sounds interesting.

Tell us more, please.

[LisaL]

67. That's absolutely false.

[Major Nikon]

71. Metal detectors emit non-ionizing radiation

[Pholus]

93. Can you explain how metal detectors work?

See, I thought metal detectors had negligible radiation risks because the detector uses a generated magnetic field to induce a current in the hidden metal item. Because the induced current costs energy the detector works by sensing the loss of energy.

Certainly, a magnetic field is less harmful than full out ionizing radiation in any case.

[Recursion]

97. Magnetic field is radiation

And a metal detector uses a lot of it.

[Pholus]

99. So I should avoid magnetic fields more than x-rays?

[Recursion]

100. If what you want is to avoid "radiation", yes

But there's no particular reason to avoid "radiation" per se.

[Pholus]

102. Yes, but you have made a comparison.

You are making the "facepalm" implication that the metal detector actually is more harmful than the backscatter machine when it comes to "radiation."

Some radiation damages human tissue, other types do not.

Please elaborate.

[Ian David]

58. How can you not trust the machines that the nice Michael Chertoff sold to us?

How can you not trust that face?





Oh, sorry. Wrong one...

[flamingdem]

74. Mike looks radiated

He's been sampling the product

[Dawson Leery]

79. Chertoff's cancer/porno-scanners are being phased out.

[titaniumsalute]

91. Breathing the huge amounts of spent jet fuel from the planes

taking off and landing is probably much worse than a few seconds in the xray machine.

[Major Nikon]

114. The flight itself is much worse

You are exposed to higher levels of ionizing radiation at altitude.

[roody]

92. I opt out. It is not a big deal.

[ucrdem]

98. "In May, TSA chief told Congress all Rapiscan full body scanners had been removed from US airports"

Last edited Fri Jun 21, 2013, 12:46 PM - Edit history (1)

After issuing the show cause letter in November 2012, TSA canceled its contract with Rapiscan in January 2013. In May, TSA chief John Pistole told Congress that all Rapiscan full body scanners had been removed from US airports in favor of scanners that could support the privacy software, which depicts scans of air passengers as generic human outlines instead of medical X-ray images.

http://www.hstoday.us/single-article/once-high-flying-rapiscan-could-serve-as-subcontractor-to-tsa/0d7d9df1dcdbe2f9e7b6b7bb38e18792.html

Rapiscan was ordered by Congress to remove the full body scanners at their expense by June 1; whether they're all gone yet I can't say. But they're definitely going.

[FrodosPet]

117. So if the airport scanners ARE a cancer machine, there might be something to the X-Ray WMD?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/justice/new-york-x-ray-plot/

Feds nab KKK member, accomplice for lethal X-ray plot

New York (CNN) -- Two New York state men have been charged in a bizarre plan to develop a mobile X-ray system that would be used from afar to silently kill people that they deemed "undesirable," federal officials said.

Glendon Scott Crawford, 49, and Eric J. Feight, 54, were arrested Tuesday after an undercover operation by the Albany FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. They were charged with conspiracy to provide material support for use of a weapon of mass destruction, according to the criminal complaint.

Crawford and Feight were developing a device "intended to be mobile ... designed to turn on remotely from some distance away" that would emit "some dangerous levels of X-ray radiation," according to John Duncan, executive assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York.

Individuals who might have been "subject to this X-ray radiation, would not immediately know that they had been harmed until some days later when they would either be injured, or it could result in their death," he said.

~ snip ~

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I was reading that it is technically not feasible. But what you are saying makes me wonder.