Unfortunately, yesterday’s LA Times story missed the mark and you may have seen a few additional inaccurate stories in the news claiming that TSA was buying equipment to test for radiation exposure. Truth is, we continuously test all of the technology we use and post the results to our website for all to see.
Why the confusion you might ask? TSA routinely puts out Requests for Information (RFI) that are basically market research, asking industry to tell us what else is out there. In this case, TSA put out an RFI to gather information on available tools to continue to monitor our technologies. This is simply designed to ask industry what new technology might be available.
Testing our equipment and exposure to employees is not new. TSA routinely monitors radiation levels to ensure the safety of both passengers and our workforce. We've never found any radiation concerns and the safety reports can be accessed publicly at TSA.gov. TSA made a commitment to post new reports as they're completed to our website so passengers can see for themselves that the machines are meeting safety standards.
Based on all of our previous testing, as well as monitoring from independent sources, we’re confident that all of our equipment meets national safety standards, and is safe for all passengers and our workforce.
As far as another backscatter (body scanner) test is concerned, TSA is committed to working with Congress to explore options for an additional study to further prove these machines are safe. All tests so far, have shown they are well within the national safety standards and each scan is equivalent to the exposure one receives during approximately 2 min of flight.
If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in our Off Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog post archives or search our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by using Talk to TSA.
61 comments:
Thanks, but I always have, and will refuse to go thru any of them. Had at least a dozen pat downs, not counting the times I made it around the machine.
A Federal Court has ordered TSA to complete a period of public comment as require under federal law about the use of Whole Body Image screening devices.
Why hasn't TSA complied with a legal order by a Federal Court?
Is the problem that TSA leadership feels themselves to be above the law of the land?
Go outside, and stick your hand in sunlight for 2 minutes. No problem. Now get a magnifying glass, and focus the sunlight on your hand and leave it that way for 2 minutes.
You simply must stop with the comparisons to background radiation. Background radiation is not focused. The machines, on the other hand, do focus radiation. Stop misleading people.
Bob,
Where on the web site can this information be found?
How pathetic that the TSA has to resort to a summary of everything they find on a weekly basis to justify their existence. "Look, we found ONE knife! That meand that Osama is not dead and is trying to kill us all!"
A really pathetic move, while sugarcoating and spinning all the real TSA news - the abuse of power, the corruption, the money grab, the choking of an almost dead airline industry. And no one takes responsability for that. Imagine if someone starts a blog: "Weekly summary of TSA abuses"?
Many respected experts in security have written that TSA is 90% a show to give the public a sense of security, nothing more. The real security procedures that work (no more than 3 or for) have been in place for a while. Scanners, pat-down, screeners....Not efective to a well planned threat
we continuously test all of the technology we use and post the results to our website for all to see
------------------------------
Bob,
Please provide a link to the most recent test results
So, what you are saying is, TSA is not going to issue their employees dosimeters? That's a shame, I was thinking they were actually starting to care about their workers. Silly me!
I saw the story on the news last night. Right away, I knew something was wrong with the report. The backscatter machines use non-ionizing radiation to do their job. The radiation detectors mentioned in the story detect ionizing radiation. Thus, they would NEVER indicate ANY exposure to a person wearing it. You'd think reporters might do just a little research before repeating idiocy.
Bob...so why does TSA not post a public notice that the equipment it uses emits radiation as required per OSHA guidelines?
The national safety standard for the backscatter devices were set by a committee with heavy representation from the TSA and from the backscatter device makers themselves. There were no scientists on the committee.
There are no studies to examine the effect of x-rays on certain tissues, like the corneas of the eyes. Therefore, there is no scientific evidence upon which to base a safety standard.
Bob,
How often is the data posted to the TSA website? Weekly,monthly, quarterly?
And here I was thinking that the TSA was starting to show some concern for its employees and wanted to perform some more research.
I should have known better.
Maybe if you were nicer to them they would perform better, such as finding C-4 the first time around.
Screenshot taken
TSA could have avoided all the negative publicity surrounding the use of the body scanners if:
A: They waited until ATR developed
B: Stuck with the Millimeter wave
TSA already has deployed the millimeter wave ATR and it was out less than 2 years since all the Rapiscans were. Instead of rushing into a tsunami of privacy and ionizing radiation complaints, both could have been avoided by simply sticking with the non-ionizing millimeter wave and waiting for ATR.
Your test results are not believable.
Only independent testing is acceptable.
This isn't just a TSA issue, it's true for any product.
Do you have any information about the difference between thru-and-thru radiation, like what you get from flying, versus the skin focused radiation that the backscatter machines produce? Since radiation's effect is contingent on dose per volume, the X rads from the BS machine's going through just 10lbs of skin is going to be like 20X of thru-and-thru radiation going through all 200lbs of me. Given the documents that you link to, even at 20X, I'm at a 40 minute flight and still well under the limits, but I fly multiple times a week and starting to worry about cumulative effects. After all, the government has never raised the safe radiation limits, and they have an alarming habit of lowering them every few decades.
Thanks!
Why do you prohibit your employees from wearing dosimeters?
Is the radiation exposure during flight concentrated in one's skin and eyes?
Why do you keep lying about the testing on these strip-search scanners?
Bob, do they pay you enough for the kind of damage control that you are responsible for? If the answer is yes, you may still want to consider asking for a raise in the weeks to come.
This is just another reiteration of the same misleading information about the safety of backscatter imaging machines, which has been repeatedly refuted by numerous sources more credible than TSA. Why doesn't TSA just follow the European Union and stop using backscatter imaging machines? Or is TSA afraid to admit for just once that they were wrong about something?
you know, it's funny that you were writing just now about testing employees. yet, an excerpt from this article states that "(INFOWARS) Despite numerous reports this week suggesting that the TSA is to buy equipment to test employees for radiation exposure, the agency itself says it has no intention of doing so."
that is in the first paragraph. you can't miss it.
also, i would be willing to believe that the scanners are safe IF they were subjected to 100% independent testing from a non-governmental agency who would receive no type of compensation from the deal.
The very fact that the United States government uses even a small dose of radiation on its citizens in the name of "security theater" is a national disgrace.
If the TSA were a private business, it would be "out of business" due to a soured reputation and obvious lack of quality control - radiation testing notwithstanding. What kind of fool would believe an organization like the TSA who constantly apologizes for being wrong and incompetent?
Do you provide any testing or have any information on exposure to passengers? If you only travel once a year, it might not be a problem, but what about people who travel several times a month?
Repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it. FYI Bob - scanners are niether tested nor safe - especially for frequent travellers. The sooner TSA realises this, and moves to proper WEI administrative searches, the safer we will all be.
Are you afraid of what those dosimeters are going to teach you?
If you are not then why do you forbid your screeners from wearing them?
Bob,
Interesting that you chose to censor my comments regarding the TSA's truthfulness. I even provided data and links showing a recent example of when the TSA blatantly lied to the public.
My husband, when he was alive, worked for a Construction Engineering & Testing company. When testing compaction & moisture in soils, they used the Nuclear Gauge (nuke) and they had to wear the "nuke badge" every day. Those badges were monitored and any irregularity or "incident" was reported to the NRC, etc. The TSA workers should be wearing badges to monitor exposure and we should be told of any dangers. They don't want US to know so they don't monitor the employees either.
P.S. (cont'd from comment about "nuke badges"). My husband died 3 years ago of cancer.
Bob,
You are amazing. Your post criticizes an organization for not telling the "Truth". I provide an example of the TSA not telling the "Truth" and you censor it!
How Orwellian...
Truth is, we continuously test all of the technology we use and post the results to our website for all to see.
Truth is that is lie.
Where on the TSA website are the results of these continuous tests?
Is any amount of radiation safe?
There is no firm basis for setting a "safe" level of exposure above background for stochastic effects. Many sources emit radiation that is well below natural background levels. This makes it extremely difficult to isolate its stochastic effects. In setting limits, EPA makes the conservative (cautious) assumption that any increase in radiation exposure is accompanied by an increased risk of stochastic effects.
..............
Sure sounds like the answer to the question, "is any amount of radiation safe" is clearly a NO.
Yet TSA is eager to expose TSA employees and the public to these dangerous unneeded devices.
Why on earth should I expose myself to radiation when doing so provides me with absolutely no benefit to offset the genuine risk of radiation exposure?
No Bob,
The TSA is desperately trying to stall congress and the public until backscatter machines have been replaced and the TSA can claim "we now have improved technology".
Be honest for cripes sake.
Can this blog (the TSA) please point me to the research/ peer-reviewed journal article that puts the exposure from a backscatter scanner at the equivalent of 2 minutes of flight. Thanks.
I don't think that anyone would look poorly upon you for buying equipment to test for radiation exposure. In fact a lot of people would welcome it. Kind of goes along with the better safe than sorry motto that TSA embraces with confiscating cupcakes and removing back braces from little old ladies.
Why the backscatter X-rays instead of the lesser evil (i.e. MMWs)?
And my comments are censored? What's going on there? FOIA inbound.
All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer
"Washington, DC July 30, 2005 The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation—that even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells.
Among the reports conclusions are:
There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure.
Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers. Additional exposures cause additional risks."
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
It is clear that TSA is being dishonest when saying exposure to the Whole Body Imager Xray Device is safe.
The question is why is TSA trying to harm travelers?
Anonymous said...
And my comments are censored? What's going on there? FOIA inbound.
January 20, 2012 12:52 AM
...........
TSA doesn't comply with the Constitution.
That is what's going on here!
Anonymous said...
TSA could have avoided all the negative publicity surrounding the use of the body scanners if:
A: They waited until ATR developed
B: Stuck with the Millimeter wave
TSA already has deployed the millimeter wave ATR and it was out less than 2 years since all the Rapiscans were. Instead of rushing into a tsunami of privacy and ionizing radiation complaints, both could have been avoided by simply sticking with the non-ionizing millimeter wave and waiting for ATR.
January 18, 2012 1:43 PM
----------------------------
You do realize that congress ordered TSA to have these machines up and running at that time due to security concerns at the time right? You know, CONGRESS the people you vote for to be in charge of organizations like TSA.
Adrian said...
The national safety standard for the backscatter devices were set by a committee with heavy representation from the TSA and from the backscatter device makers themselves. There were no scientists on the committee.
There are no studies to examine the effect of x-rays on certain tissues, like the corneas of the eyes. Therefore, there is no scientific evidence upon which to base a safety standard.
January 18, 2012 10:48 AM
--------------------
Because X-ray technology and its affects hasn't been around and tested for the past 50 years.....
That would just be silly to consider.
Everyone knows where this is headed, right?
Forget about being a passenger for a moment.
If you work in a hospital or other environment where exposure to ionizing radiation is anticipated, you wear lead or stand behind a shield and wear a film badge.
Regardless of how trivial the risk may be, mitigation is simply due diligence on the part of the employer.
Next time you go through a backscatter machine, take a glance at the TSA screener. No lead, no badge, no shielding of any sort.
Mark my words: In a few years, former TSA employees will be lining up to join a class-action lawsuit against the TSA and pretty much everyone involved with design, manufacture and use of backscatter imagers.
The allegations will involve everything from premature baldness to leukemia. The standard for liability is usually based on a "preponderance of the evidence" ("51% guilty")rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt." A good team of plantiff's attorneys will have little problem with convincing the jury, given TSA's behavior toward the public.
You can practically hear the lawyers whetting their lawsuits already...
(And guess who gets to pay the settlement?)
All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer
Washington, DC July 30, 2005 The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation—that even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells.
Among the reports conclusions are:
There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure.
Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers. Additional exposures cause additional risks.
..........................
I submitted the above information to the TSA Blog on 01/20/2012.
Apparently TSA's Blogger Bob censored the submission even though nothing in the material challenged the illegal TSA Posting Guidelines.
What the article does, which only a small part was submitted with a link to the whole article, is challenge TSA's Claim that Backscatter X-ray Whole Body Screeners are safe.
I would ask that TSA have their nuclear scientist step forward and explain their position and let us know who they are. Surely TSA must have some expert(s) in radiation exposure on staff what with nearly 60,000 TSA employees to pick from.
Since TSA, a government agency supposedly bound by the First Amendment, is engaged in illegal censorship I am forced to post this exact submission on other Internet forums.
"You do realize that congress ordered TSA to have these machines up and running at that time due to security concerns at the time right? You know, CONGRESS the people you vote for to be in charge of organizations like TSA."
You do realize that what you wrote is incorrect, don't you? Congress did not mandate a date for the introduction of these machines.
Why don´t your people wear dosimeters? All persons working with any level of radiation in the industry, research or medical areas I know wear them. It is a simple, cheap and effective way to keep people safe.
(Unlike the TSA, which is not simple, cheap or effective, and definitely does not keep us safe.)
All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer
Washington, DC July 30, 2005 The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation—that even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells.
Among the reports conclusions are:
There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure.
Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers. Additional exposures cause additional risks.
..........................
I submitted the above information to the TSA Blog on 01/20/2012.
I again submitted the same article to the TSA Blog on 01/21/2012.
In both cases the material has been illegally censored by TSA and its Blog Operators.
As can be plainly seen, if anyone gets a chance to read the full article, TSA is being dishonest about the safety of X-ray emitting screening devices.
However, even though the material presented is fully compliant with the illegal TSA posting guidelines TSA apparently doesn't want the public to see information that challenges TSA claims that they can x-ray humans without harm. Folks, that claim is false.
Copy of this post is being submitted to DHS OIG asking why my comments are being censored by TSA and in violation of the United States Bill of Rights.
"In both cases the material has been illegally censored by TSA and its Blog Operators. "
Probably not illegal but certainly unethical. Several of mine (25-50%) of my posts, all of which complied with the AUP, have also been deleted.
Congratulations on getting your post through. It's very informative. I suspect the x-ray based machines will have a short lifespan. The EU, as you may know, has already banned the machines as being ineffective and needlessly injurious to human health.
Every employee who works with x-rays uses a dosimeter. I was required to wear one as an infrequent user of an analytical x-ray machine, even though my chance of x-ray exposure was extremely low.
OSHA and all other professional organizations teach that there is "no safe dose of ionizing radiation."
If TSA isn't even ensuring that employees are avoiding radiation with dosimeter monitoring, the assurances about passenger safety are empty.
Further, TSA has not adequately addressed the questions raised by UC San Francisco's radiation experts.
Why not let passengers use and monitor their own dosimeters at no cost to the TSA?
Anonymous said...
"In both cases the material has been illegally censored by TSA and its Blog Operators. "
Probably not illegal but certainly unethical. Several of mine (25-50%) of my posts, all of which complied with the AUP, have also been deleted.
Congratulations on getting your post through. It's very informative. I suspect the x-ray based machines will have a short lifespan. The EU, as you may know, has already banned the machines as being ineffective and needlessly injurious to human health.
January 23, 2012 12:02 PM
.........
I believe that censorship by TSA on this blog is a violation of free speech and is an illegal act.
This blog is funded with tax monies. The blog team is paid with tax monies.
Government cannot restrict free speech except in very limited circumstances which are not in play on the TSA Blog.
TSA employees take an Oath to defend the United States Constitution then turn around an violate that oath.
Blogger Bob,
Please answer why my question regarding similar x-ray technology at Kennedy Space Center (and why its operation is considered hazardous while TSA scanners are not) has been refused twice now. It is a relevant and topical question phrased in an acceptable manner.
TSO Ron, you've assured us that the machines are safe. Can you address this:
"Washington, DC July 30, 2005 The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation—that even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells."
Please let us know when you'll be presenting evidence to refute the NAS.
Anonymous said...
Blogger Bob,
Please answer why my question regarding similar x-ray technology at Kennedy Space Center (and why its operation is considered hazardous while TSA scanners are not) has been refused twice now. It is a relevant and topical question phrased in an acceptable manner.
January 23, 2012 6:48 PM
................
How about a little more info on the KSC equipment.
The worst part of the x-ray safety issue is TSA's sneering condescension about the matter. This is the first organization ever to claim that ionizing radiation is safe.
Concerned experts have their requests brushed aside. What little documentation TSA provided doesn't stand up to scientific norms for disclosure. TSA even cited tests on a mock-up created from spare parts that isn't even a production model scanner.
This is shoddy, yet this blog has a snarky attitude about legitimate safety concerns (e.g., "in case you were wondering, our backscatter imaging technology is still safe").
Bureaucrats without credentials in imaging or radiation ensure us that these machines are safe and just ignore their well-qualified critics. You make things difficult for those of us who don't find your "expertise" sufficient to expose our children to this possible hazard.
I'd be happy to hold my arm still over an x-ray film for two hours to satisfy your background radiation analogy. We both know there will be no useful image, so please stop with this nonsense apples-to-oranges analogy.
January 23, 2012 6:48 PM
................
How about a little more info on the KSC equipment.
A portable backscatter device is used at KSC to inspect the External Tank, which is covered with foam. Average thickness of the foam is 2.54 centimeters, with a density of 0.038 grams per cubic centimeter (compare to cotton, which has a density of 1.54 grams per cubic centimeter). I do not know the output of the machine, but do know that its operation is considered hazardous due to radiation and requires what is called a Safety Clear when in operation. Since the KSC task penetrates a less dense material than clothing, I would think that its output would be less than that of the TSA scanners. If the lower output KSC machine is considered a hazardous operation, then why wouldn't the higher output TSA machines also be considered hazardous?
RB said...
Several of mine (25-50%) of my posts, all of which complied with the AUP, have also been deleted.
The TSA blog uses crappy software. Evidently, if you answer the captcha correctly, preview your post, and try to submit, it says you entered the captcha wrong. But if you answer it correctly, DON'T preview, and submit, it submits just fine.
More tax dollars at work, I suppose.
Anonymous said...
RB said...
Several of mine (25-50%) of my posts, all of which complied with the AUP, have also been deleted.
The TSA blog uses crappy software. Evidently, if you answer the captcha correctly, preview your post, and try to submit, it says you entered the captcha wrong. But if you answer it correctly, DON'T preview, and submit, it submits just fine.
More tax dollars at work, I suppose.
January 24, 2012 7:01 PM
..............
Those may be problems but if you get the message that your post was successfully submitted then the only remaining possibility is the illegal censorship by government employees on a government forum made possible only by use of funds derived from taxes.
The use of tax monies and government resources makes the First Amendment issue clear.
It's clear to me that DHS/TSA care very little about illegal behavior of its employees.
"A portable backscatter device is used at KSC to inspect the External Tank, which is covered with foam.
[a good description of the material and test deleted]
If the lower output KSC machine is considered a hazardous operation, then why wouldn't the higher output TSA machines also be considered hazardous?"
Likely it's because NASA observes the FDA guidelines (NASA isn't bound by them) on the use of ionizing radiation.
Don't worry, though, we'll bring the TSA in compliance as well. Keep writing your Senators and Representatives and remind the TSOs every time you go through one of the devices that if they worked for anyone other than the TSA, they'd have dosimeters and likely not be allowed to work such long periods of time in close proximity to the machines.
If the lower output KSC machine is considered a hazardous operation, then why wouldn't the higher output TSA machines also be considered hazardous?"
...............
The ouput of the Xray device doesn't really matter. If a device emits xrays it is potentially hazardous to humans. Period, plain and simple.
TSA is exposing people who travel to an unproven and dangerous device that is not needed. Other safe forms of screening are available.
WTMD and ETD being available at every checkpoint today and without any known issues.
The question that should be asked is why does TSA disregard the safety of travelers?
If TSA Backscatter Strip Search Machines are in use then I believe Opting Out is the only safe choice.
Come on, TSA, lets apply your own logic. If you aren't guilty you have nothing to hide, right? So why are you fighting tooth and nail to resist any kind of public oversight?
Is assaulting passengers really that much fun?
TSA was ordered by a Court to open a period of public comment, as required by current federal law, on the use of Whole Body Imagers.
Why has TSA not complied with the courts ruling?
Does TSA see itself above the law of the land?
The head of TSA, John S. Pistole, should be held in contempt of court, arrested, and jailed until the courts order has been fully complied with.
TSA Administrator John S. Pistole, in sworn testimony to Congress, stated that TSA would have the Backscatter Whole Body Imagers tested.
He lied!
Why should anyone believe the devices are safe or for that matter anything else TSA says?
"Go outside, and stick your hand in sunlight for 2 minutes. No problem. Now get a magnifying glass, and focus the sunlight on your hand and leave it that way for 2 minutes. "<----have to say, I love this metaphor. Great stuff.
Good post
Post a Comment