<p>LasMa: Why? There are plenty of legitimate reasons for a person to refuse a scan. I fully intend to refuse for what in my mind are two very good reasons: First, I do not want the government to possess nude photos of me; and second, I do not for one minute buy the line that these scanners are perfectly safe. Neither of these reasons makes me a terrorist.</p>
<p>And both of which will result in you having to find another way to travel because, as I explained earlier, TSA security procedures are not unconstitutional.</p>
<p>By the way, I don’t think the government keeps nude photos of you on file. In addition, radiologists have said the scanners are perfectly safe, with one even going so far as to say that we receive more radiation from sitting in front of our computers for 15 minutes than we’ll ever get from airport scanners. </p>
<p>So there you have it. Your fears are misguided.</p>
<p>Unfortunately what you think doesn’t match up with reality, since there have already been several hundred such pictures leaked out. Not to mention stories like this that have already been out for a while:</p>
<p>LasMa’s concerns are entirely valid. If procedures were properly followed then yes, no backscatter images would be saved or distributed outside of the TSA area. Yet those scans were saved in the past. TSA agents used them in inappropriate ways. Thousands of low-resolution scans from a courthouse were recently found saved on a computer system. This isn’t the kind of track record that inspires confidence that the TSA is doing the right thing.</p>
<p>The radiation risk isn’t well established, since opinions by experts range all over the map. Some assert that it’s entirely safe; others say that it conveys a statistical risk greater than the risk of being a terrorism victim. It’s perfectly reasonable for an individual to opt out until the risks are better understood. Since we don’t know how the radiation dosage is controlled, there’s also the risk of faulty software or controllers administering a higher dosage than required. Certain groups–like women of childbearing age–should definitely be opting out.</p>
<p>"But not everyone is a fan of the scanners. Some argue they pose a privacy risk, and still others are worried about the biological effects of whole body radiation. But do the whole body scanners actually pose a health risk?</p>
<p>The American College of Radiology (ACR) – the leading US professional society of radiologists, radiation oncologists, medical physicists, interventional radiologists, and nuclear medicine physicians – says no.</p>
<p>According to a recent statement, the ACR says it is “not aware of any evidence that either of the scanning technologies that the TSA is considering would present significant biological effects for passengers screened.”</p>
<p>Sure, the TSA radiologists say that; did you expect something else? Of more value is what independent experts say, people who have no vested interest in these machines or their use. There, the opinions are more mixed. For example:</p>
<p>*"The thing that worries me the most is what happens if the thing fails in some way" and emits too much radiation, said Arizona State University physics professor Peter Rez.</p>
<p>The risk for failure is higher than in a medical setting because the machines are operated much more often, and by TSA workers without medical training, Rez said* </p>
<p>For the most past, procedures are followed. That there are some employees that choose to do nefarious and illegal things is irrelevant to the fact that the TSA forbids such behavior in general. You cannot blame the entire organization for what a few perverts do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, TSA radiologists indeed:</p>
<p>"The American College of Radiology (ACR) – the leading US professional society of radiologists, radiation oncologists, medical physicists, interventional radiologists, and nuclear medicine physicians – says no.</p>
<p>The entire official organization apparently works for the TSA (lol).</p>
<p>“If the risks have not been determined in a randomized, controlled clinical trial, a medical device cannot be deemed safe.”</p>
<p>This is a made-up barrier of entry. There is no such qualifying procedure for medical devices such as these just as there is no such thing with regards to determining if a children’ toy is safe either. This is the full ACR statement:</p>
<p>ACR Statement on Airport Full-body Scanners and Radiation</p>
<p>(Originally Posted January 2010) - Amid concerns regarding terrorists targeting airliners using weapons less detectable by traditional means, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is ramping up deployment of whole body scanners at security checkpoints in U.S. airports. These systems produce anatomically accurate images of the body and can detect objects and substances concealed by clothing.</p>
<p>To date, TSA has deployed two types of scanning systems:</p>
<p>Millimeter wave technology uses low-level radio waves in the millimeter wave spectrum. Two rotating antennae cover the passenger from head to toe with low-level RF energy.</p>
<p>Backscatter technology uses extremely weak X-rays delivering less than 10 microRem of radiation per scan ─ the radiation equivalent one receives inside an aircraft flying for two minutes at 30,000 feet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The ACR is not aware of any evidence that either of the scanning technologies that the TSA is considering would present significant biological effects for passengers screened.</p>
<p>The ACR encourages those interested in learning more regarding radiation associated with imaging and radiation oncology procedures as well as radiation naturally occurring in the Earths atmosphere to visit [RadiologyInfo</a> - The radiology information resource for patients](<a href=“http://www.radiologyinfo.org%5DRadiologyInfo”>http://www.radiologyinfo.org).</p>
<p>“This is a made-up barrier of entry. There is no such qualifying procedure for medical devices…”</p>
<p>Tell that to the FDA, and see what they have to say. Any device intended to irradiate a human body IS classified as a medical device. The FDA has been shutting down shoddy device makers for ages.</p>
<p>“Tell that to the FDA, and see what they have to say. Any device intended to irradiate a human body IS classified as a medical device. The FDA has been shutting down shoddy device makers for ages.”</p>
<p>Are we even sure the FDA hasn’t already approved of this device?</p>
<p>My other statement was directly pointed at your “random clinical trial” qualification which I think is nonsense. The FDA doesn’t always do that.</p>
<p>Have a read. If the “device” has been approved by the FDA, it would have been listed in the database of 510(k) cleared devices. Nope, there is no clinical trial data on any body scanners on the FDA website. Vague statements do not count as FDA approval documents, which are public information. Show me the clinical trial data on the Rapiscan machines, and then I will make a decision whether I would want to go in one of them or not. Without 510(k) data - no way.</p>
<p>FYI - it is not RANDOM, it is RANDOMIZED. Again, there is big difference. The FDA trials always adhere to certain guidelines.</p>
<p>"HAWTHORNE, CA The US White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) requested confirmation on the safety of airport x-ray scanners, and scientists from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) reported that backscatter technology, which is used in Rapiscans Secure 1000 passenger screening system, poses miniscule health risks to individuals…</p>
<p>"In summary, the potential health risks from a full-body screening with a general-use x-ray security system are miniscule. Several groups of recognized experts have been assembled and have analyzed the radiation safety issues associated with this technology…</p>
<p>…John L. McCrohan
Deputy Director for Technical and Radiological Initiatives
Office of Communication, Education, and Radiation Programs
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Food and Drug Administration
Karen R. Shelton Waters
Deputy Assistant Administrator / Chief Administrative Officer
Designated Safety and Health Official
Transportation Security Administration</p>
<p>"</p>
<p>You need to brush on your research skills…(rude namecalling deleted). Have a little faith in your government.</p>
<p>Err… yes, we can. You seem to have some confusions about how these things work. Organizations are liable for their employees misbehavior while on the job - and all the resulting consequences.</p>
<p>What world do you live in? Let me guess - Enron was a well-run and respectable company with a few folks who did “nefarious and illegal” things. The RCC’s pedophilia scandals are just due to some “perverts” - nothing to worry about there, shouldn’t reflect at all on the organization as a whole.</p>
<p>Those of you on plane 3 are still gonna be sitting at a gate with no aircraft for years waiting for a perfect solution. I kinda need to fly now.</p>
<p>Maybe the public outcry is having some effect? I heard someone this morning saying the full-body scanners were not in use during at either end of his recent (Houston<->LaGuardia) flight.</p>
<p>It will have an effect because people are not going to put up with it. They will stop flying unless it’s absolutely necessary- not because they’re “recalcitrant” as Pistole asserts, but because minimum safety and comfort levels that people expect when traveling have been breached with these invasive measures. If plane travel is truly so unsafe that these extreme measures need to be taken, then forget it.</p>
<p>The people coming into the airport this week have already had their plans and tickets for weeks, and really have little choice. But in the future, people planning trips will look for places to go where they can drive or take a train.</p>
<p>Those of you reading the link from eturbonews that Keile has posted should also scroll down to the comments where a nuclear engineer says, “Bunk” to the safety analysis.</p>
<p>As noted in the letter from the UCSF scientists, the measurement they used is faulty because the machine only delivers radiation to the skin, not the whole body. The TSA hasn’t provided an answer to this concern, and of course, can’t answer what would happen if any of the machines malfunction during operation.</p>