Front Page  »  

Full-body scanners to stay at SLO airport despite possible risks

September 24, 2012

Despite growing privacy and safety concerns over airport body scanners, the Transportation Security Administration has no plans to replace the existing devices at San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport.

The TSA awarded two contracts last week as part of a $245 million program to test new scanners before they enter airports [California Watch].

TSA spokesman Nico Melendez said the agency installed full-body scanners at the San Luis Obispo airport eight months ago and that the new program does not indicate those devices will be replaced.

“We are testing the next generation,” Melendez said.

While critics argue that the current body scanners invade individual privacy by allowing screeners to see underneath clothing, Melendez said all of the privacy issues were resolved by getting rid of remote screening rooms and making scans viewable by passengers.

Melendez also said full-body scanners pose no safety risks.

Yet, the European Union recently banned the X-ray body scanners due to concerns that they could cause cancer [Daily Mail]. And, a ProPublica investigation determined that radiation from the full-body scanners could indeed lead to cancer.

“Research suggests that anywhere from six to 100 U.S. Airline passengers each year could get cancer.[ProPublica] Still, the TSA has repeatedly defined the scanners as ‘safe,’ glossing over accepted scientific view that even low doses of ionizing radiation — the kind beamed directly at the body by the X-ray scanners — increases the risk of cancer.”

Melendez said repeatedly that the scanners are safe.


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

There are several makers of scanner-proof underdrawers that keep your private parts private when going through the scanners.


0

Two things:


1) There are two types of these machines: Backscatter X-ray and Millimeter wave scanners. The Backscatter X-ray machines use a very small dose of ionizing radiation, and the millimeter wave scanners do not use any ionizing radiation at all.

2) The amount of ionizing radiation that you are exposed to by the backscatter x-ray scanner is less (usually much less) than the ionizing radiation you are exposed to on your flight from being at a high altitude. So if very small amounts of ionizing radiation worries you, you shouldn’t fly. I’m sure some people are going to dislike this comment because it goes against the “all scanners are bad” attitude that is apparently in fashion right now, but it is a scientific fact.


I wish this article would say what types of machines are installed in SLO. Since some people are clearly worried about ionizing radiation no matter what the dose, I don’t know why the TSA didn’t use just the millimeter wave scanners and then we wouldn’t be having this debate.


0

The Israelis don’t even use body scanners. They consider them useless.


0

That is true, the Israelis do consider them useless because in Israel, every passenger has to submit to an intense interrogation before even checking in. And if you match the racial profile of what they consider to be a terrorist, you get to grab your ankles for a body cavity search. Israeli-style security would NEVER fly in this country. 1) everyone would complain about having to get to the airport hours earlier 2) people would freak out about the interrogation and the profiling and 3) good luck finding the money to fund any new expense these days.


0

Where did you get your information about the dosage from the Backscatter machines? What you stated is basically the TSA official line, but it is not the whole story. There are two reputable studies, one of them from Johns Hopkins University that shows that these machines emit higher levels of radiation when measured at the entrance and exit points… DANGEROUSLY high levels of ration.


0

sorry, typo, radiation.


0

Talk about government intrusion. Can it get much worse?


0

The unfortunate answer to that is “Yes”. I could see this happening anywhere at any chosen time by the police state into which we are evolving. It will start first with other forms of public transportation (trains, buses) and public events attracting large numbers of people (concerts, sporting events, political rallies) and finally, once we passively accept these, it will become an option for any official at any time.


This is what happens when the media encourages a climate of fear and politicians scapegoat large groups of people because of the actions of a few that appear to be from those groups. It happened with the Nazi’s in the 1930’s and it is starting to happen again in the US today.


0

Two questions:


1) How does making the scan viewable by the PASSENGERS (i.e. everyone in the screening area) remove the invasion of personal privacy?


2) If the devices are safe, why are the TSA buying up dosimeters for their employees, after feverishly denying for years that there are any safety concerns?


0

Remember that fellow named Michael Chertoff? Homeland Security Chief under GW? He likes, and is a lobbyist for, the scanner crowd (along with several other connected cronies).


The Israeli post-flight interview system is only feasible due to a relatively small number of flights/passengers involved, versus the massive cattle call that U.S. airports demand.


It’s all about not slowing/killing the airline industry (and making people feel ‘safe’).


0

I’d almost rather have my eyes torn out than have to see the majority of SLO travelers naked. Maybe we don’t pay the TSA enough.

TSA Motto: “Ten thousand toenail clippers will not clip our freedoms!”


0

Lets try this….With so many hard working Americans unable to afford health care, replace the TSA scanners with an MRI machine and we can get two things accomplished at once! Sir, the good news is, you may board the plane. The bad news is, you have a tumor and you will not be able to take that bottle of wine on board. Have a nice day!


0

Just get a hip or knee replacement with metal components and, bingo, you have a special, one-on-one search every time. Don’t have to worry about scanners…just let them know you’re bionic, and you’ll get a personal pat-down.


0

It AMAZES me that the morons over at the TSA continue with this arcane bullshit of theirs. Here is an article I read about two years ago how the Israelies do it. Israelification is what they call it. Who better to deal with terroists than the Israelies?


Notice how they don’t worry about Politically Correct. Notice how they use blast areas and notice how they have had only ONE instance in 2002. And yet we keep following the morons at the TSA. I say lets fire all at the TSA and hire Israel security.


http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199—israelification-high-security-little-bother?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4ce0361af7973d2e,0


0

Wouldn’t it interesting for the TSA to have to “prove” that their scanners are safe? From what I have read on the subject, there is absolutely no “safe” amount of radiation; any amount can trigger the onset of cancer. The TSA is gambling with the health and safety of the flying public by continuing to use these invasive machines; when the cause of cancers can be traced back to the use of these machines, there may be enough of an outcry to get the TSA to either give up on the folly of using such an invasive technology, or they may have had enough research finished up to roll out the next generation of potentially less dangerous technology. The machines in use at the San Luis Airport is just another reason I do not use this airport; don’t get me started on the outrageous parking fees …..


0

There is a lot of money to be made


0

Yeah, and ex-Bush-Administration security guru, Michael Chernoff, is in on it. While working in the Bush Administration, Chertoff backed the purchase of the TSA scanners. Now TSA is one of Chertoff’s clients.


/www.politicolnews.com/chertoff-lobbyists-and-airport-scanners/


0

“Pose no safety risks”…


What if someone has recently had 2 MRIs, a full gallum scan, a tagged white cell scan, 2 full body ultrasounds, and 2 sets of chest Xrays? Perhaps the additional radiation for that person would prove to be unsafe. They do not know everyone’s medical history to make that “pose no safecty risks” statement.


0
1 2