· Before TSA decides to use a new technology, procurement specifications are developed that include requirements to meet the national radiation safety standard. The requirements are validated by manufacturers through third party testing or through testing arranged by TSA, to ensure it meets national safety standards.
· After deciding to use new technology that has proven to be safe and meets applicable standards, the manufacturer then will conduct validation tests on each individual unit in the factory during their quality assurance process before the unit is shipped to TSA.
· For the carry-on and checked baggage x-ray systems and the general-use backscatter advanced imaging technology equipment, the factory tests, post-installation tests and regular preventive maintenance mentioned above all include radiation safety surveys. These surveys verify that each unit operates within specifications, is installed correctly and continues operating according to specifications for the life of the unit. When the technology operates as designed, the dose to any member of the general public, system operators, or other employees falls well below the national standard for safety.
· The regular preventive maintenance checks, including radiation safety surveys, are performed at least once every 12 months; after any maintenance that affects the radiation shielding, shutter mechanism, or x-ray production components; after any incident that may have damaged the system; after a system is moved or at the request of any employee.
· In addition, TSA partnered with the U.S. Army Public Health Command (Provisional) to conduct independent radiation surveys and inspections to confirm the regular testing performed by TSA. Health Physicists from the the U.S. Army Public Health Command (Provisional) perform the surveys and inspections.
· The Public Health Command’s Health Physicists also check the indicators, controls, labeling, and observe system operators to ensure proper operating procedures are followed. The Health Physicists are also gathering area radiation dose data by mounting dosimeters within the inspection zone (that area only occupied by the individual undergoing the screening and delineated by the yellow bordered floor mat) on certain equipment.
· Over the past two years, Health Physicists performed radiation surveys and inspections of 437 carry-on luggage and checked baggage systems at 34 airports during screening operations, and observed system operation and work practices. The Health Physicists work has thus far confirmed TSA testing that shows all of these systems operating well within safety standards.
· On top of all these steps, more than 1,100 TSOs at six airports have participated in a mandatory personal radiation dosimetry study over the past year. The results of both the dosimetry study and other surveys to date reveal that TSA systems are in compliance with safety standards.
On a related note, a study conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) at the Centers for Disease Control just a year after TSA was stood up in the aftermath of 9/11 (between August 2003 and August 2004) has been getting some attention recently. The study came about after TSA requested it when management and other employees expressed concerns about their safety on the job. NIOSH looked at the levels of radiation emissions from Explosives Detection Systems (EDS) and evaluated employee exposure to radiation at airports during baggage screening.
Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) from 12 airports were highly engaged in this study. They chose the airports to include in the study, provided valuable input, and assisted the NIOSH researchers during the on-site surveys. The report was released on October 1, 2008. You can read the report here. NIOSH made several recommendations that TSA has since implemented.
Some of the information below duplicates some of the information I mentioned previously but I am including it here to show steps taken since the completion of the study in 2004:
· TSA has implemented key recommendations from NIOSH, including formalizing a comprehensive radiation safety program to meet OSHA and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requirements and evaluating TSO radiation exposure levels at selected airports through an additional year-long dosimetry study that commenced in April 2009.
· TSA took additional steps to ensure safe working conditions for our workforce, including:
· Adding EDS safety training to baggage screening courses;
· Increasing the number of service technicians equipped with radiation survey meters;
· Improving maintenance through more stringent maintenance contracts;
· Working with EDS manufacturers to improve machine design;
· Providing annual radiation safety awareness training for all TSOs; and
· Using Safety Action Teams, Collateral Duty Safety Officers (CDSOs), and Employee Councils to improve health and safety communications between employees and management.
· Consistent with the recommendations of NIOSH, each piece of TSA equipment that uses ionizing radiation undergoes an initial radiation survey upon installation and an annual radiation survey to ensure it stays in top working condition. In addition, radiation surveys are performed after maintenance on components that affect radiation safety and at the request of employees. This provides a continuous level of safety.
· Over the past two years, Health Physicists from the U.S. Army Public Health Command (Provisional) performed radiation surveys and inspections of 437 (carry-on luggage and checked baggage systems) at 34 airports during screening operations while items were entering and exiting systems with the leaded curtains constantly in motion. The Health Physicists also observed system operation and safe work practices. Over the past year, more than 1,100 TSOs at six airports have participated in a mandatory personal radiation dosimetry study. The results of both the dosimetry study and surveys to date reveal that TSA systems are in compliance with the Food and Drug Administration’s standard for cabinet x-ray systems emission limits.
This is a lot of information to read through, but after reading, I’m sure you’ll find that TSA is doing its part to ensure the safety of its employees and the traveling public.
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
99 comments:
I would love to see the study that validated that the radiation from these machines actually goes through the body, rather than concentrates on the skin.
Also, no one ever claimed that one dose of radiation today will give you cancer tomorrow. It's incremental, and happens over many years.
So, unless your studies were 20+ years in length, can you really say with certainty that the machines are safe? We won't know until it's too late. And by then, I have a feeling health care costs will have gone up already, and now we'll have higher cancer rates too!
1) Why aren't the machines marked with radioactive materials signage?
2) Why don't the TSOs wear radiation badges?
3) Is an inspection every 12 months sufficient for machines that will process 1000s of people a day?
4) There have been no studies of the effect of this type of radiation on mass numbers of people, especially children. Isn't TSA conducting a vast experiment here?
So why don't your TSA screeners wear radiation dosimeter badges or lead vests like other that work around x-ray equipment?
Why aren't your employees allowed to wear dosimeters? I'll choose being groped over being given cancer, I suppose, but only under duress.
Yet the backscatter technology is basically a huge experiment that is being conducted on the traveling public. Radiation concentrated in the skin? How many additional cases of melanoma are we going to have 10 years from now? Ask the residents of Bikini Atoll about that...oh wait, they're all dead from radiation poisoning or displaced because the island is still uninhabitable. And yet we are supposed to trust you?
The TSA is turning a public safety issue into a public health issue.
There was never an issue with baggage x-ray equipment and there is no comparison between that particular application and human imaging using Compton-effect backscatter x-ray machines. The TSA is still vague on this even in the face of overwhelming information available on exposure and potential adverse health effects. Just because the equipment emissions fall within the government-created "specifications" doesn't make it safe for passengers or workers. Ship the machines back to the manufacturers and get the taxpayer's money back.
What about the connection between Michael Chertoff and the company that makes these scanners? That's too much of a conflict of interest to ignore. It taints anything else the TSA says about the scanners.
My wife works for TSA and I'm very concerned about radiation. Her mother died of Breast Cancer and she is more likely to get it then other women. I read what you wrote her but I would feel better if she wore some kind of radiation badge that indicated how much radiation she was exposed to.
She has too much to worry about on her job. She doesn't need to worry about radiation.
Blogger Bob, will you please explain why TSA employees are prevented from wearing radiation badges? And if your answer is that they are not prevented from wearing them, then please explain why TSA employees are not required to wear them.
This still doesn't address our concerns regarding radiation safety of the backscatter x ray machines. There is conflicting scientific literature out there that indicates any amount of ionizing radiation is not good especially if it is only absorbed to the skin versus through the whole body by x-ray. I don't think enough studies by independent organizations have been done. I will not submit to these machines and will opt out evertime!
TSA, are we your guinea pigs? I don't think so, you underestimated the American people!
Is it true employees who try to wear radiation badges are disciplined and/or fired?
How are these machines calibrated and maintained? Who fixes them when something goes wrong?
The TSA had explosive sniffing machines once before but scrapped them because they were too expensive to maintain. Lighters were banned then unbanned after the TSA found out they were too expensive to dispose of properly.
Was this NIOSH report posted for TSA workers to see?
Where did you pull the quotes in the first block from? There is no link.
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the comprehensive update.
The only thing that worries me here is this
"The regular preventive maintenance checks, including radiation safety surveys, are performed at least once every 12 months; after any maintenance that affects the radiation shielding, shutter mechanism, or x-ray production components; after any incident that may have damaged the system; after a system is moved or at the request of any employee. "
This means it's possible for a machine to be in operation for 12 months with no safety check, other than the dosimeters situated around it? If there is a fault with the machine that causes it to increase it's output then that won't be caught until the doismeters show it up.
I would have expected daily checks on these machines...?
Also, can you provide any links to studies showing that ionising radiation on the surface of the skin is safe?
cheers,
G.
"Safe" is a relative term. The fact is that low levels of radiation on a very large population will lead to disease in a number of persons over time. Even though the number of persons is low percentage-wise, it still exists, and is much, much larger than the number of terrorists caught with these machines.
After deciding to use new technology that has proven to be safe
Meeting standards does not prove something is safe. See cigarettes.
The regular preventive maintenance checks, including radiation safety surveys, are performed at least once every 12 months;
Then the TSA should have no problem releasing these reports.
So why are they refusing to do so.
could it be because:
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted an investigation back in 2003 and 2004 exposing several X-ray machines that were in violation of federal radiation standards.
When investigators with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's workplace safety team visited a dozen airports in 2003 and 2004, what they found was disturbing - at least to federal airport workers.
Advertisement
Although most radiation levels around baggage X-ray machines were low, six of 281 machines used to screen checked luggage violated federal radiation standards, some emitting two or three times the allowed limit, the CDC found.
Perhaps most troubling, the CDC had found what the Transportation Security Administration hadn't noticed. The TSA and its contractors had failed to identify the machines that were emitting excessive radiation -
http://www.9news.com/news/health/article.aspx?storyid=168434&catid=180
"The regular preventive maintenance checks, including radiation safety surveys, are performed at least once every 12 months; '
------------------------------------
Not according to the CDC report.
Once again the TSA looses credibility with this blog post by not directly addressing this report.
The public just can't count on this blog for facts.
Bob says "So, I’d like to use this post to address those questions with facts provided by TSA’s director of occupational safety, health and environment, Jill Segraves..."
Talk about the Fox guarding the hen-house.Plenty of non TSA medical sources out there saying the opposite.These machines are a health hazard and any TSO reading this better be getting danger money to stand next to em all day.Hope you guys have solid health plans...your gonna need em.
Nice attempt to distract from the real concern about backscatter x-ray being used on *people* by focusing on the safety standards for well-established baggage x-ray technology.
Why didn't you have your Health Physicists evaluate the backscatter x-ray?
Why did TSA insist on choosing backscatter for most checkpoints over the much much safer millimeter wave?
Why do you refuse to let your screeners wear dosimeters when on duty? Do you also prohibit passengers from wearing dosimeters through the backscatter or in the checkpoint vicinity?
Are the backscatter machines in compliance with state laws on devices that emit radiation? Are the TSO's operating the backscatter certified as x-ray technicians?
Can you cite a single independent study that says that shooting x-rays at innocent passengers is 100% safe? Can you cite a single practicing board-certified physician who says that the risks of subjecting thousands of passengers to backscatter x-ray are justified based on the infinitesimally small risk of terrorist attack?
http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/healthcare/government/2010-12-06-tsa-xray-inside_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
You'd be more trustworthy, Blogger Bob, if you included the bad news with the good in your attempts to spin.
And what has the TSA done to make amends to the passenger?
If I bring a prohibited item to the checkpoint, the fines start at $300 and work their way up from there, plus possibility of arrest.
If I "interfere with the screening process", $300 and up. "Interfere" covers a lot of ground -- that's can be one of those "we don't like the way he combs his hair" situations.
If I make "non physical contact" with a screener, $300 and up again. (How do you make "non physical contact" anyway? Use the Force?)
If I get asked "do you want to fly today", and I answer "not any more", the fine is $10,000 (or is it $11,000?) for not completing screening.
OTOH, on the occasions where the TSA looks into even blatant screener abuse, the passenger might get an apology. The public gets the standard bromides about retraining, never mind "you can't fix stupid." (Thank you Ron While.) I doubt you can fix power tripping jerk, either.
If the TSA were subject to the same financial sanctions as a passenger, they might take matters a bit more seriously.
Mark
qui custodiet ipsos custodes
I find it something close to ironic that the TSA is more concerned about the airplane in general than the passengers inside of said airplanes.
We have to go through the scanners, enhanced pat-downs, metal detectors and magnetometers to make sure we don't so something to the *airplane*.
At the same time, we are getting dosed with radiation from equipment that is inspected only once yearly and inspected by a company that has a vested interest in placing the machines. I think the cliche is something about a fox and a hen-house.
I'm not a genius, I'm not even really that smart, but it seems like a simple lead-lined (lead paint?) wall on either side of the scanners would be a huge step up in controlling 'stray' radiation from the machine blasting bystanders including the TSO's.
In late November, USA TODAY requested current inspection reports for the 4,080 X-ray machines used to examine checked and carry-on bags, and for the 221 new full-body X-ray scanners.
The TSA insists that all have passed radiation inspections conducted by contractors but has thus far been unwilling to release the reports.
The TSA's lack of transparency troubles agency workers, according to the union that represents them.
---------
Blogger Bob, why won't the TSA release the inspection reports? This is very troubling to the average person - as "not releasing" equates to "hiding" which can equate to "danger, danger".
As a skin cancer survivor, I refuse to go through the body scanners at my doctor's recommendation. As he said, there has not been long-term studies done on the new scanners to show if they present a danger or not. (I'm a frequent flyer.)
Does the TSA allow pregnant and cancer survivor agents not to work near these machines without loss of job or pay level?
I note that nowhere in this post is a study of the backscatter machines mentioned, simply a 'did they install it right' survey.
Passengers are not subjected to the luggage or carry-on screening, but they *are* subjected to the backscatter machines, and the only documentation relating to the safety of these machines is so heavily redacted as to become useless.
Until the same kind of testing is applied to the machines that actually scan people that is applied to the machine which scans my luggage, I'm opting for the pat down.
No, Bob. I read it. Your organization still doesn't care at all about safety. If they did, they'd scrap every BXR and replace it with MMW.
The BXR is simply unsafe. MMW is safer, although we do need long term studies to back up the claim to safety. But the BXR really is truly unsafe.
I'll tell you a story. Many years ago when I was in the military, still in training, we had to do Physical Training three times a week, and that meant running. Air Force Regulations had us not run under certain weather conditions (black flag, red flag, determined by heat and humidity). It was widely known that if it was red flag the Drill Sergeants (or as we called the MTMs) would simply lie and put up a yellow flag, and if it was black flag they wouldn't put up a flag at all.
If questioned about the temperature and humidity before we went running, and there was no flag up, they'd say "I don't see a black flag, do you?"
Now the whole point is that they would get caught with their lies if they put up the wrong flag, so they didn't put up a flag at all and could act as if the flag was whatever color they wanted it to be.
Now why aren't the TSOs wearing dosimeters? Are you simply not putting up the black weather flag and claiming that it must be green weather since the black flag is not up?
Plus, BXR is still unsafe. It simply is, from start to finish.
Trust, but verify.
We have your word that these machines are safe. Your word is not even remotely good enough. Not when X rays are concerned. Malfunctioning software controlled X ray machines have killed people. At a very minimum, the screeners operating these machines should wear dosimeter badges. Your anti-dosimeter policy makes yoru assurances worthless.
You only check these machines once every 12 months? So if something goes wrong, you could be unknowingly giving people deadly amounts of radiation for several months?
Also, based on your mandatory human experimentation radiation trials with your employees, how many years can they work before the radiation levels become deadly? Or is your turnover so high that this will never be an issue?
Who you going to believe, some guy from the Center for Disease Control or the experts at TSA?
"When the technology operates as designed..."
And what about when it doesn't? The "member of the general public" gets radiation burns, cancers, an ice cream sandwich, what? What about the employees when the shielding fails or the beam tracks outside of parameters? They get an ice cream sandwich too?
"The regular preventive maintenance checks, including radiation safety surveys, are performed at least once every 12 months..."
On all machines or some machines? As in, are all machines given the surveys or are only a representative sample given the surveys? What's the expected MTBF for these scanners/components and is a yearly check frequent enough?
"mounting dosimeters...on certain equipment..."
Only on certain equipment, not necessarily on all ionizing radiation emitting equipment? Which equipment has the dosimeter, which doesn't and can a "member of the general public" view that meter?
"over the past year...to date reveal that TSA systems are in compliance with safety standards"
So only recently have they been compliant? Or only recently TSA has confirmed they are compliant? This one might seem like I'm just trying to parse words, but the way it's written sounds like your saying you just started checking in the last year, which doesn't imply good things about the TSA's awareness of radiation risk and handling prior to 2010 or that TSA is really ready to begin irradiating the public at this time.
"Increasing the number of service technicians equipped with radiation survey meters..."
But not the employees who are exposed to the machines all day? Really? Just the guy who gets to work on the machine mostly when it's powered off gets a dosimeter, but not the poor schmoe who gets to stand next to it all day? Really? I must be reading this wrong. Please help me understand that you are not saying what I think you're saying.
"undergoes an initial radiation survey upon installation and an annual radiation survey..."
I thought it was at least every year, not just every year. See above. Which is it? Annually or "at least" annually? All machines or some? How frequent is the "regular preventative maintenance" while we're at it? Also yearly?
Seriously guys - if you can't provide actual information, then don't bother providing anything at all. Every press release the TSA does on these things, the more I'm resolved to never get near one.
It seems even Congress is ignored. Is TSA an agency of men, not of law?
If my doctor says I should avoid x-rays, are you saying your x-rays are safe?
Folks, I don't blog for the TSA, but the answers to these questions are obvious:
1) Why aren't the machines marked with radioactive materials signage?
Answer: They don't use radioactive materials. The X-rays are made electrically, like almost all medical, dental, and industrial X-rays.
2) Why don't the TSOs wear radiation badges (or lead suits)?
Answer: Because the levels are below the exposure levels where individual tracking (or protection) is mandated by OSHA.
3) Is an inspection every 12 months sufficient for machines that will process 1000s of people a day?
He clearly said 12 months was the maximum time between tests. They test them after repairs and a bunch of other things.
4) There have been no studies of the effect of this type of radiation on mass numbers of people, especially children. Isn't TSA conducting a vast experiment here?
Answer: FALSE. This kind of radiation is common in nature, particularly in space. In fact, flying in planes exposes passengers to the same part of the energy band by putting you above 35,000 feet of protective air.
The real question is "Is this worth it?" Let's say that 350,000,000 scans per year causes 5 cases of cancer in the subjects. That's not far-fetched, lots of things have a 1:70,000,000 chance of causing cancer. That's a generally acceptable level of radiation exposure risk. Nothing is completely free of cancer risk.
During these 350,000,000 scans, how many terrorists will be caught? Terrorists are a lot less common than air travelers. I'll even grant we might catch one, even though the TSA has not caught a single terrorist at the screening station in 10 years of trying.
Under these conditions, you give 5 people cancer for every terrorist you catch. That might not be an acceptable level of cancer for the American public. Yet not giving those 5 people cancer means not "doing everything we can" to catch that one terrorist.
The TSA is being wrongfully attacked for using "scary radiation". Normally, folks in this situation can fall back on science and proven statistics to defend themselves. The TSA only finds itself in this bizarre Catch-22 because the very statistics that prove that their X-ray and naked scanners are safe also prove that the machines aren't worth it. Bummer.
If the machines are so safe, please tell us why they are not made available to doctors for independent peer review study? Also, please tell us what precautions are in check to ensure that the machines' software or hardware does not "glitch," resulting in radically higher levels of radiation exposure to each passenger.
I would like to see the long term in vivo studies proving the safety of these machines on human skin.
Two comments.
First to be acceptable, the risk from these machines has to be lower than the risk of getting killed by a terrorist. Since that's almost zero, you will have a tough time proving that your machine is safer.
Second, even if the machines are safe, they are sill unacceptable from a personal privacy standpoint.
Bob -
Why dont you use it ISCON 1000D which uses completely harmless IR, does not see through clothing, and DOES detect liquid explosives?
Or use the MILLIVISION scanner which uses passive waves? Again no radiation, no through clothing, and can detect liquid explosives?
This would also allow the TSA to get rid of the secondary "viewing" rooms. A screener could simply stand next to the machine and view the silhouette. This would save time and money, and more people would use the damn things.
You have the resources to defuse this whole situation yet the TSA keeps going out of its way to defend the purchase of the radiation scanners.
And don't ever use the FDA as proof that something is "safe". Independent scientific study needs to be conducted.
You guys are doing this to yourself.
For those asking why the machines aren't tested more often than once every 12 months, I'd like to point out that the X-Ray machine dentists use are only inspected every 3 years in Virginia. http://www.vdh.state.va.us/epidemiology/radiologicalhealth/xray/dental.htm
You check these machines once a year? Once a year? How many people are zapped by electronic strip-searching ionizing radiation in a year? You call this safe?
Seems like it would make more sense to give the money used for these body scanners to the FBI to use for real terrorism combat, like the FBI has already been doing. Maybe if they had more funds for resources they would have followed up better on the Christmas bomber. These scanners wouldn't have caught him anyways, but profiling would have.
Beefing up TSA resources because of these scanners seems like such a waste, especially given the irradiation and strip searching of common Americans (not criminals).
I also read that funding for FBI will decrease because of funds the TSA needs to increase their staffing because of these scanners. Seems like backwards logic!
SOON... YOU WILL REALIZE BY A RUDE AWAKENING WITHIN YOUR RANKS... AND BY THAT POINT. IT WILL BE TO LATE TO TURN AROUND. GOOD LUCK. THE PUBLIC IS VERY AWARE OF THE UNDERHANDED DEALINGS. A CORRUPT GOVERNEMNT ONLY EXISTS IN MOMENTS IN HISTORY AND THOSE MOMENTS ARE SHORT LIVED INCLUDING THOSE WHO SUPPORT IT. AS A LASTING PRESIDENTS WORDS HISTORICALLY PRESIDE "THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO GIVE UP ESSENTIAL LIBERTIES AND FREEDOM FOR TEMPORARY SAFETY DESERVE NEITHER FREEDOM NOR SAFETY". SADLY,... YOUR PERCEPTION IS THAT THAT SPEECH WAS MADE FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, BUT NOT TRUELY THE CASE. IT'S YOU (THE GOVERNEMENT PUBLIC SERVANTS) WHO HAVE CHOSEN THAT PATH. AND IT WILL BE YOU ALL WHO DESERVE NEITHER. NOR SAFETY NOR FREEDOM. GOOD LUCK. I FEAR YOU ALL HAVE FALLEN INTO A HOLE TOO DEEP FOR ANYONE TO HELP. AND YOUR ENTIRE ENTITIES WILL SOON FEEL THE WRATH OF AMERICAN DISCONTENT. FOR EVERY ACTION, THERES AND EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION. WORD TO THE WISE- YOU ALL HAVE FORGOTTEN WHO YOU WORK FOR AS RECIPENTS OF A TAX PAYER PAY CHECK- YOU PEASANTS HAVE FORGOTTEN YOU PLACE IN SOCIETY -VET.USMC
Maybe TSA should take all of the machines out of the airports and physically pat down everyone and thouroughly search their belongings. You would not have to worry about radiation or terrorist. You might have to arrive at the airport 4-6 hours early though to wait your turn. There's the solution for all of you bandwagon complaintants. :)
Bob-Because I work around these machines daily, I believe I have a vested interest in how safe the radiation levels REALLY are. If the machines are safe, have been declared safe, and are known to be safe, then why not give TSA employees peace of mind and allow us to wear radiation exposure badges even if only during a test period to show that radiation levels are too low to cause harm to us? Also, the cabinet x-ray systems used in many airports (Rapiscan systems) are old and mostly outdated, plagued with maintnance issues, and so the exposure levels of those machines cannot possibly be known without radiation exposure badges. If TSA is truly concerned about the occupational safety of its employees and the safety of the traveling public at large, then why not provide these badges to show that a study has been conducted to disprove any claims that exposure levels are high and or unsafe? It's just the right thing to do Bob.
So we can trust TSA to write contract specs like they did for the Puffer ETP machines, those machines that TSA could not make work.
Then the post talks mainly about baggage xray systems, and to be truthful I don't care how many TSA employees you guys fry.
Studies from 2006 certainly don't cover Backscatter Human Xray Devices so have no purpose in this discussion.
TSA has posted nothing that demonstrates Backscatter safety. Nothing.
TSA cannot be trusted except to line the pockets of Chertoff by buying deadly Backscatter Human Xray Devices.
Why would you publish information about radiation with information supplied by a TSA Director? The TSA does not get it - you have lost your credibility with a large percentage of Americans. Any information supplied by the TSA needs to be verified and supplied by an independent third party, especially when it comes to privacy and health concerns.
Trust and respect have to be earned and cannot be commanded. It seems like people who have spent their careers in the government forget, or never learn, that very important fact.
The negative reactions that many Americans have toward the TSA originate by the interactions that frequent travelers, like myself, observe across the country at TSA checkpoints. Start treating the taxpayers like people who deserve respect - you might be surprised how public perception improves.
I've seen conflicting claims of the exact dose of radiation per scan. Could you clear this up for me please?
How many mrems are emitted (or absorbed) during the average scan, or at least what is the target calibration in terms of mrems per scan?
You can say over and over that ionizing radiation is "safe", but with no metric of accumulated radiation, how can that be a valid claim? The fact is that ionizing radiation emits particles that can damage or kill cells, with the potential for mutagenic results. How is that "safe" in high doses?
People can make this decision for themselves if you'd only publish how many mrems of radiation is emitted (or absorbed) per scan. For a reference point, it is said the national average absorption, per person, is 360 mrems.
Why aren't your employees allowed to wear dosimeters?
Dental x-ray machines aren't used as frequently as body scanners, and can hardly be used as an adequate comparison. We are talking about hundreds and millions of scans - the TSA's goal.
Plus, body scanners scan your entire person, skin, eyes, breasts, genitals, etc., and a dental x-ray scans your mouth while you wear a lead blanket.
They are hardly comparable.
For those who suggest removing all security, or separate unsecured planes, etc., in response to Americans "complaining" re the new scanners and "enhanced" pat-downs, are really the ones that come across as unreasonable and generally flippant.
Please understand no one is asking for no security, just security that considers privacy, health, and the constitution(!). The American Public at large is not a terrorist group. Yet this is what the TSA believes and this tone trickles down to the TSO's at check-in.
There are cheaper more effective methods, and these scanners don't even detect bombs.. they just show your naked image and anything that might be attached to your body or in your clothes.
So in that case, a general frisk + metal detector makes more sense.
Seeing "TSA" and "Facts" in the same sentence is a bit of a laugh!
You just carry on with your kabuki theater boys, nobody is buying it but hey, Chertoff is making a mint.
Over 12 years in military service and this is what things are reduced to? The TSA is in complete violation of the constitution of the United States with both the x-ray machine and pat-downs. I swore to defend the constitution not allow you to tear it to shreds. Having worked in nuclear power production I can tell you that the machines are NOT safe.
I will NOT fly commercial so long as this unconstituational policy remains and will continue to argue against it.
It DOES NOT make anyone safer in ANY way shape or form! The only things that are effective at this are behavioral profiling and dogs.
Congratulations to the TSA by the way on effectivly becoming the enemy of the United States through the destruction of the constitution. Have fun with that one TSA.
Thromby's new scanner is a WIN-WIN device... get a nice tan or a soothing automated grope. Air travel has never been so much fun!
In Touch With Security
If these x-ray machines are so safe, as you oft claim, then, then why can't any TSO wanting to wear their own personally bought, self-monitored and self-paid for radiation detecting dosimeter at TSA?
Why the utter hypocracy when your own annual employee surveys repeatedly reveal that your TSOs don't trust officials?
TSA says one thing, but shows no real compassion to all its TSOs to alleviate their dedicated concern about being radiated. SPIN BABY SPIN!!!
But your TSA employees don't need a union nor collective bargaining contract, also according to you at TSA. Lol!
So...TSOs routinely forced to work these new not so scientifically tested full body X-ray scanning devices for a full 6 to 7 hours each shift, 3 to 5 days per week, are also only getting one incrementally tiny does of unharmful radiation.
Is TSA's eternal spin mission one of it trying to routinely sell its employees swampland in some far off mysterious place?
All jerking of our chain aside on TSA's part, if there really is absolutely nothing for TSOs to fear, why do your STSOs and managers all bully TSOs [without any written TSA policy telling them they can't] into not being allowed to buy a radiation detecting dosimeter, wear it and self-pay to have medical experts test it...as a daily part of any desiring TSO's worn uniform?
WHY?...Because you are afraid of being sued for forcibly harming them, making them sick, and/or,
incidentally killing them in the line of duty as they bravely serve their nation. Way to go TSA!!!
This is Example 1 in how not to
try inspring an employee to a) trust you and b) want to make TSA their career. Lol!
Remember even with the machines in the dentist office the techs LEAVE THE ROOM when the machine is in operation..
I don't think I would want to be around an active x-ray machine for 8 hours a day 5 days a week even if it is at very low levels.
TSA has refused to allow employees to wear dosimeter badges, claiming the technology is safe and the badges are not needed. The American Federation of Government Employees OFFERED to buy the badges and supply them to TSOs free of charge, but TSA refused to allow Officers to wear "non TSA issued" equipment. Why?
Wow Bob, the “tin-hat” crowd is really out in force on this one.
The information on these systems is available for those who can be honest enough to actually go look for it. Much of it has been posted to this blog, with links to the relevant data, but as usual the tin-hatters have no interest in the facts but only in the hyperbole that they enjoy so much. These systems may be fairly new, but the components that actually emit the x-ray beams have been around since the 90’s. If you had actually read the information, you would know this.
If you folks can’t take the time to look for the information (very little of it from TSA and most of it from independent sources) when its provided by the bloggers here, then stop whining. Your ignorance is your own fault, and its curable, if you take the time to cure it.
Well, Bob, it seems you approved posts I made later and either rejected or held up a post I made earlier in this very subject.
Which is it?
Anonymous said...
TSA has refused to allow employees to wear dosimeter badges, claiming the technology is safe and the badges are not needed. The American Federation of Government Employees OFFERED to buy the badges and supply them to TSOs free of charge, but TSA refused to allow Officers to wear "non TSA issued" equipment. Why?
---------------------
Because AFGE is a UNION, and TSO’s are not currently represented by a union. TSA can not appear in any way to be endorsing one union over another, or even endorse a union of any kind.
But you already knew that.
Care to comment on this article Bob?
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-12-06-tsa-xray-inside_N.htm
Is it true that TSOs can turn up the power to get "extra detail" and increase the death risk to CAT-scan levels for subjects you consider disrespectful?
@Anonymous: TSA has refused to allow employees to wear dosimeter badges, claiming the technology is safe and the badges are not needed.
1. Why should we believe this? How does the public know you're not wearing concealed dosimeters?
2. You don't walk through the machines. When you or your families travel, you just flash your DHS badge to get past the line anyway. So, why would you be at any risk of exposure anyway?
Of course, I don't expect that Officer Blogger Bob will approve a comment critical of DHS, so why would I bother to write this?
Submitting millions of people to low doses of X-rays will generate disease in a few of them, even if the doses are below the levels considered safe for medical equipment.
And that does not even start to address the problem with maintenance issues (every 12 months is not enough).
And that does not even start to address privacy issues. No one should be seen naked to board a plane.
And that does not even start to address effectiveness issues (detects personal objects that can´t be resolved by image alone, does not detect anything inside body cavities).
is this in response to the washingtontimes article reporting Leon Kaufman and Joseph W. Carlson, both former professors of physics at the University of California, San Francisco's findings?
That article is no longer available on the washingtontimes website despite it only being 2 days old!
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:uH0KhYk_X7EJ:www3.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/exposed-tsas-x-rated-scanner-fraud/+http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/exposed-tsas-x-rated-scanner-fraud/
"the X-Ray machine dentists use are only inspected every 3 years in Virginia."
My dentist has one chair with an x-ray machine and 3 chairs without. After taking an x-ray, the staff usually moves me to one of the other chairs for the rest of the appointment. I usually spend at least 30 minutes at the dentist. At full capacity, working an 8-hour day, my dentist can irradiate 64 patients maximum per day.
How quickly can the TSA scanners irradiate passengers? If we assume that a scan takes 5 minutes, that's 12 passengers per hour, 24 hours a day: 192 passengers per day.
Note that my estimates are generous in both directions. I doubt that my dentist sees 60 patients per day, and he definitely doesn't x-ray all of them. 5 minutes per screening scan is a long time; TSA probably x-rays more than 200 people per scanner per day.
But even based on these generous estimates, the TSA machines irradiate 3 times as many people as the dental machines, and should be inspected at least 3 times as often.
"· After deciding to use new technology that has proven to be safe and meets applicable standards, the manufacturer then will conduct validation tests on each individual unit in the factory during their quality assurance process before the unit is shipped to TSA."
Outright lie. It is impossible to show this technology as "proven to be safe" in such a short period of time. When dealing with radiation and potential cancer issues, a long-term study is required. In effect, this policy is the long term study and we are the test subject.
TSORon said... Anonymous said...
TSA has refused to allow employees to wear dosimeter badges, claiming the technology is safe and the badges are not needed. The American Federation of Government Employees OFFERED to buy the badges and supply them to TSOs free of charge, but TSA refused to allow Officers to wear "non TSA issued" equipment. Why?
---------------------
Because AFGE is a UNION, and TSO’s are not currently represented by a union. TSA can not appear in any way to be endorsing one union over another, or even endorse a union of any kind.
But you already knew that.
***********************************
Ron, please explain to me HOW accepting an offer from anyone, even a union, an offer that would afford employee safety, and by the way, the UNION does and has represented employees at all levels accept collective bargaining in front of management...but please explain to me how allowing TSOs to wear dosimeters that were purchased by an independent organization would be "endorsing a union"? There is no explanation, Ron accept that TSA does not want us to wear the dosimeter badges, period.
Let me begin by saying that I'm sure my post is going to be attacked. It does not agree with what appears to be the majority opinion. That's ok. I'm not here to really debate the issue. I'm just offering another perspective that maybe has not been thought of.
I understand people's concerns about safety. I also understand the mistrust of the government. It often seems that the government has it's own agenda and that agenda doesn't always seem to have the public welfare in mind.
However, after looking up the facts, I've found that every study conducted shows backscatter technology to be safely within every single standard given. Millimeter wave doesn't even use radiation of any type. I'm not saying that there is no risk posed at all. I'm saying that every single indication shows that the risk is minimal. Nothing is without risk. At one point, metal detectors were considered a possible health risk. Now, they are integrated into most places as a minimal point of security.
Let's not forget the real objective. The real objective is to minimize the chance of a terrorist attack. Is it possible to eliminate that? No. However, the TSA is just trying to use the technology available to perform their sole function as best they can. We should stop complaining and accept this as the next logical step in security screening technology.
Rafael said: However, the TSA is just trying to use the technology available to perform their sole function as best they can. We should stop complaining and accept this as the next logical step in security screening technology.
---------------------
Haven't you heard, there's such a thing as securing our 4th amendment rights and having "security" BALANCED with those rights. What's being done now is not balanced nor logical. TSA can't just provide for their "sole function" and trash the rest of our rights.
Also, its been proven that these naked scanners don't serve their actual purpose, and that the real terrorists have most likely adapted to them.
The next "logical step" will be profiling (according to an interview with the TSA), which will be layered on top of these naked scanners anyway. Wouldn't it have been more logical to start with that and reconfigure + improve the BDO program for what it was supposed to be doing rather than push out technology that doesn't work, wasn't adequately tested, and trashes our rights in the process.
Rafael wrote: "We should stop complaining and accept this as the next logical step in security screening technology."
Why should we accept that technology that simply does not work operated by people who aren't trained to use it properly in the first place is a "logical step?"
http://bit.ly/eoDLvc
Excerpt:
"Even if exposure were to be increased significantly, normal anatomy would make a dangerous amount of plastic explosive with tapered edges difficult if not impossible to detect. "
And what does the TSA have to say about this paper by Leon Kaufman and Joseph W. Carlson published in the Journal of Transportation Security, exposing a number of shortcomings for the X-Ray Backscatter machines?
Selected quotes include: "[...] the machines have glaring blind-spots and have difficulty distinguishing explosives from human tissue" and "[...] an object such as a wire or a boxcutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible."
Curious in Kansas said in part
As a skin cancer survivor, I refuse to go through the body scanners at my doctor's recommendation. As he said, there has not been long-term studies done on the new scanners to show if they present a danger or not. (I'm a frequent flyer.)
December 8, 2010 10:10 AM
-----------------------------------
But i'll bet you take every pill he prescribes to you without question. It's not like the side effects of most medication won't kill you. But since most Dr.s get kickbacks from the Pharma Co.s they must be ok.
Anonymous said...
But i'll bet you take every pill he prescribes to you without question. It's not like the side effects of most medication won't kill you. But since most Dr.s get kickbacks from the Pharma Co.s they must be ok.
--------------------------------
This comment doesn't make much sense. Dr.'s have years upon years of education and training and the industry is fairly regulated. TSO's have just about 1-2 weeks of training. People quite often get second opinions from their doctors. If a passenger has for a supervisor to clarify anything, retaliation is usually feared (or occurs).
And the TSA has stated that they don't follow the 4th amendment because they are not law enforcement. That basically means the TSA feels its apparently above the law even though it operates like a sub-law enforcement organization.
While I understand the govt does want to ultimately keep us safe, thinking of short v. long term is necessary. Instilling confidence with passengers that procedures and operations are reasonable and will indeed keep us safe without harming us at the same time, is indeed a reasonable expectation.
Going to the airport and expecting to be irradiated and/or sexually assaulted is not a reasonable expectation with respect to security safety.
"This is a lot of information to read through, but after reading, I’m sure you’ll find that TSA is doing its part to ensure the safety of its employees and the traveling public."
Nope, I don't find that, not even remotely.
Most of the information cited relates to carry on screening. My laptop and clothes have a high tolerance to radiation. My children, not so much.
There is absolutely no reason for the TSA to not release its data on radiation levels, TSA dosimetry, etc. Citing national security is laughable on its face.
Recall when Americans were unknowlingly exposed to syphillis, radiation and other toxins. These monstrous acts were justified on what basis? Not surprisingly, it was national security.
Man up, TSA: You've been assessed and found to be deficient. Stop playing at security and get good at it.
We're waiting and running out of patience. It's rapidly becoming obvious that the adults need to come in and take over.
Simple Science said:
"
4) There have been no studies of the effect of this type of radiation on mass numbers of people, especially children. Isn't TSA conducting a vast experiment here?
Answer: FALSE. This kind of radiation is common in nature, particularly in space. In fact, flying in planes exposes passengers to the same part of the energy band by putting you above 35,000 feet of protective air."
Completely, totally misleading. The problem is that concentrated radiation exposure has been shown to have totally different effects than radiation "found in nature."
As for the suggestion that flying at 35000 ft exposes someone to the same radiation found in space, not a word of that is true. The space environment - not that it has anything to do with the discussion at hand - is completely different and casts a pall on everything in this post.
Only a stupid person would let him/herself go through such procedure.
Of course the chance of getting cancer is negligible, but nevertheless nonzero.
So go on, perhaps you'll be the lucky person who hits the jackpot ;)
I am an MD/PhD, and recommend that my patients keep away from these machines. The mutagenic effects of backscatter rays from them have not been tested even on bacteria (not even a simple Ames test!). Why should I risk them on my patients?
The chances of the backscatter X-ray causing cancer are apparently higher than the chances of the backscatter X-ray catching an actual terrorist.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/9/exposed-tsas-x-rated-scanner-fraud/
Bob, exactly how many years of accumulated studies has TSA amassed on the safety of Backscatter Strip Search Machines?
How many of these studies were conducted by groups not associated with TSA or not from TSA requests?
Are any of these studies in the public domain?
I am extremely worried about the X-ray machines and will not subject myself to be scanned every time I travel, which is at least twice per week. I'd like to see an independently conducted scientific study on whether these machines actually are safe. A mere assurance from TSA will not suffice for me. This study would have to go on for many years before I'd trust it. Decades ago, I'm sure there were people thinking that Asbestos was harmless as well…
Anonymous said...
I am extremely worried about the X-ray machines and will not subject myself to be scanned every time I travel, which is at least twice per week. I'd like to see an independently conducted scientific study on whether these machines actually are safe. A mere assurance from TSA will not suffice for me. This study would have to go on for many years before I'd trust it. Decades ago, I'm sure there were people thinking that Asbestos was harmless as well…
December 15, 2010 3:46 PM
......................
I can guarantee 100% safety from TSA Backscatter Strip Search Machines.
Turn them all off and tell Chertoff the American public demands its money back.
I don't understand how backscatter x-ray radiation can be compared to air travel radiation. This is the example that the TSA has put forth, but backscatter concentrates on the skin, eyes, genitals... air travel radiation doesn't concentrate on anything, and moves around the whole body. So how is that comparable? Too many doctors and scientists have put forth information to site this, plus we have no independent studies of these machines. Since there doesn't seem to be a concern with strip-searching the general public, it seems like a few casualties to radiation cancer is deemed an acceptable risk! craziness.
i won't fly anymore
OK, let's try this again. I wrote comments about the recent reports that the AIT machines DO NOT DETECT THE EXPLOSIVES THAT THEY WERE INSTALLED TO DETECT. They regularly miss thin pieces of plastic explosives.
So........ Why are they being used? Because CHERTOFF is making MILLIONS off of the machines, and when Napolitano leaves office she will makes MILLIONS as a lobbyist too.
We are getting lied to and propagandized about all of this every day from the TSA and the media.
I seriously doubt that the TSA censor squad will allow this message to be seen, but I hope that they at least have the intellectual honesty to publish it.
What about the study by Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory?
Article:
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/17090/56/
Abstract:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010PhLA..374.1214A
From the article: Alexandrov and his team discovered is that the resonant effects of the THz waves bombarding humans unzips the double-stranded DNA molecule. This ripping apart of the twisted chain of DNA creates bubbles between the genes that can interfere with the processes of life itself: normal DNA replication and critical gene expression.
It kills me that some people walk around with a bluetooth strapped to their head all day -- a devise that hasn't been around long enough to really see the effects of -- and those same people are up-in-arms over the very brief radiation exposure they receive when they walk through security.
"Curious in Kansas said in part
As a skin cancer survivor, I refuse to go through the body scanners at my doctor's recommendation. As he said, there has not been long-term studies done on the new scanners to show if they present a danger or not. (I'm a frequent flyer.)
December 8, 2010 10:10 AM
-----------------------------------
But i'll bet you take every pill he prescribes to you without question. It's not like the side effects of most medication won't kill you. But since most Dr.s get kickbacks from the Pharma Co.s they must be ok."
It's safe to assume that a doctor has the patient's best interest at heart. The TSA does not. Questions?
The simple facts are that the AITs use radiation, and according to several university studies, these machines will cause cancer in a small minority of the flying population. And since some of those people will die as a result of their exposure, the TSA is essentially picking people at random and killing them in the name of safety. Since we all know by the GAO and media accounts that TSA security is ineffective at stopping the teroist threat, this small group of victims will have died for nothing. That there is a 100 percent chance that people will develop cancer from these machines is not a fringe rant but verifiable fact. Please respond Blogger Bob.
J. Avalokitesvera
Seems these "Facts on TSA X-ray Safety" may not be so factual.
...
"But that's not the case, Fran Szrom, a certified health physicist with the Army Health Command, told AOL News.
Two-person teams from the Army unit performed surveys of the Advance Image Technology X-ray scanners at just three airports -- in Boston, Los Angeles and Cincinnati, she said. And that was all that the TSA asked the Army to do this year.
"They found no problem with excessive radiation exposure, but none of the 15 machines examined had the required warning label 'Caution: X-Rays Produced When Energized,'" added Szrom, whose command has physicians, nurses, veterinarians, toxicologists and other public health specialists with scientific expertise in 60 different health and safety areas."
and the story continues with multiple remarks that TSA is not telling the truth (again!)
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/20/aol-investigation-no-proof-tsa-scanners-are-safe/
With the 113th Congress soon to be seated, write your Representative and Senators to demand more tansparency from the TSA. So much information that is kept from the public could be revealed with ZERO impact on security. As leaked information suggests, much of this information is kept classified (or the TSA cop out, "SSI") to avoid bureaucratic embarassment.
I suspect John "flying is a privilege" Pistole's days are numbered at TSA.
"It kills me that some people walk around with a bluetooth strapped to their head all day -- a devise that hasn't been around long enough to really see the effects of -- and those same people are up-in-arms over the very brief radiation exposure they receive when they walk through security."
Yes, don't you just *hate* it when Americans exercise their own judgement on what risks they care to take? I used BT technology because it makes my life easier. I reject the AIT because it exposes me to radiation but doesn't make me safer.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013733774_scanners22.html?syndication=rss
What about this article? It claims that there is no actual independent verification of device safety and that TSA is misrepresenting the so-called independent studies performed by APL.
Excerpt/
But the Hopkins work did nothing to ensure consistent safety of those exposed to radiation from the scanners.
"APL's role was to measure radiation coming off the body scanners to verify that it fell within [accepted] standards. We were testing equipment and in no way determined its safety to humans," said Helen Worth, the lab's head of public affairs. "Many news articles have said we declared the equipment to be safe, but that was not what we were tasked to do."
Moreover, the study said APL scientists were unable to test a ready-for-TSA scanner because the manufacturer would not supply one. Instead, tests were performed on a scanner cobbled together from spare parts in manufacturer Rapiscan Systems' California warehouse.
"The system evaluated may be configured different than the system deployed to the operational environment," the report said. APL found two areas in the mock-up where escaping radiation could cause exposure to the public that exceeded annual safe limits.
/end
And there's A LOT more complaints about the safety screening that this post does not address.
I would like to see an official response to the claims made in this article:
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/20/aol-investigation-no-proof-tsa-scanners-are-safe/
If true, it invalidates nearly every point made in this blog post.
Johen said:
I would like to see an official response to the claims made in this article:
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/20/aol-investigation-no-proof-tsa-scanners-are-safe
---
As would many others, I presume. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), for example.
I really could care less about the radiation issue.
The bigger issue here is the fact that American airports are now 4th Amendment free zones.
As long as you people are being paid to give AMERICAN CITIZENS the humiliating choice between being nude models and being sexually assaulted, radiation is the least of our concerns as citizens.
I hope you're all being paid well to sell out your countrymen.
Hey Blogger Bob, why won't the TSA require all TSO's to wear docimeters? What is the agency afraid of? If the machines are safe, prove it by showing you are not afraid of the results, which may or may not suit the purposes of the agency. Put your money where your mouth is.
MIT says ionizing radiation rips apart the DNA.
I find it ironic that these machines which are supposedly there to "protect the people" are instead hastening death on a massive proportion in excess of dozens and dozens of planeloads of people by causing and/or helping diseases form in the bodies of the air traveling population.
Instead of defending a indefensible position (I can hardly wait till 60 minutes doe an expose in a few years) get rid of these early-death causing machines.
"No amount of radiation s safe."
"Radioactive damage is cumulative."
"The DNA unraveling is irreversible"
So stop using these killer machines!
Machines should narked radioactive materials signage to keep us harm!
I really could care less about the radiation issue.I hope you're all being paid well to sell out your countrymen.
Post a Comment