Maine Senator Wants Independent Study of TSA's Body Scanners 335
OverTheGeicoE writes "U.S. Senator Susan Collins, the top Republican on the homeland security committee, plans to introduce a bill that would require a new health study of the X-ray body scanners used to screen airline passengers nationwide. If the bill becomes law, TSA would be required to choose an 'independent laboratory' to measure the radiation emitted by a scanner currently in use at an airport checkpoint and use the data to produce a peer-reviewed study, to be submitted to Congress, based on its findings. The study would also evaluate the safety mechanisms on the machine and determine 'whether there are any biological signs of cellular damage caused by the scans.' Many Slashdotters are or have been involved in science. Is this a credible experimental protocol? Is it reasonable to expect an organization accused of jeopardizing the health and safety of hundreds of millions of air travelers to pick a truly unbiased lab? Would any lab chosen deliver a critical report and risk future funding? Should the public trust a study of radiology and human health designed by a US Senator whose highest degree is a bachelor's degree in government?"
Re:Should of done that (Score:5, Informative)
While I agree with you, it's "should have," not "should of."
Re:Too late... (Score:4, Informative)
Magic words - "Opt Out".
I've done this about 15 times now and have yet to be pushed through one of these microwaves. It's amazing to see the others around you marvel at the fact that you do not HAVE to go through these things - most don't know. Sure, it takes more time and in one instance I had to let the TSA agent doing the search know that they skipped part of the procedure (I've done it THAT many times!) but it's not that bad and it's more thorough than the machine is anyway IMO. It annoys my travel companions that I do this and slow them down but oh well, I need more radiation like a hole in the head. Radiation is cumulative, the less the better for me given a choice...
Re:Health issue is a red herring (Score:4, Informative)
Living in Maine... (Score:5, Informative)
I have never supported Susan Collins for other issues.
But I have to ask why the OP decided to belittle the Senator's formal educational credentials? This seems like a distraction for the real question here: are these full body scanners actually safe, and, that's the question the Senator has introduced to be studied.
The Senator has asked a good question here. I praise her for asking a question in a time when the knee jerk response has been a resounding YES to police state control. The OP has held up a straw man in questioning her education.
It was done (Score:5, Informative)
As someone who works in radiation safety for the government, I can tell you that studies on these scanners have been done. There is virtually no risk from the scanners. You get far more additional radiation from flying in the airplane than you do from the scanner. The risk from these scanners is not the unknown value.
The unknown value is the benefit from the scanners. As far as I know, no study has ever shown that these scanners provide any benefit. Therefore even though risk is very small, benefit is even smaller, and the risk-benefit tradeoff is lopsided against the scanners.
Re:How independent? (Score:2, Informative)
Not very.
As an example, I've provided a link and excperts from what you get when you permit another government Administration (agency) to control its own peer review of suspect investigation and analysis.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2005-22997-0066 (sorry, you have to click through the PDF link to get meaningful information)
The short version is this. The agency in question suppressed and redacted critical data from the docket materials during the period of the peer review. Much of the redacted materials indicated that the system in question met the current standard, which the proposed Rule change did not systemically address. Needless to say the "peer review" was predisposed to produce the desired result, going so far as not even permitting peer reviewers to find the report unacceptable.
The following is one of my favorite parts, the permitted recommendations of the peer review.
"Recommendations:
Based upon your reading and analysis of the information provided, please identify and
submit an explanation of your overall recommendation for the Fuel Tanks Safety Study.
1. Acceptable as is
2. Acceptable with minor revision (as indicated)
3. Acceptable with major revision (as outlined)"
You'll note that there is no unacceptable option. To convey some element of what our tax dollars bought, here is an excerpt from one of the peer reviewers recommendations.
"This reviewer categorizes the report as Acceptable with a need for major revisions to
account for the following"...
And then there is this conclusion from another peer reviewer.
"Clarification is needed as to what the (redacted) risk level contained in the Conclusions
Section of the Executive Summary of the Sandia Report relates to. It clearly
does not reflect the probability per flight hour of a center fuel tank explosion
occurring on a western built transport category aircraft prior to AD application
which is assessed to be in the region of 10.8 per flight hour as suggested by the
ARAC Fuel Tank Inerting Harmonization Working Group.
This issue requires reconsideration since as written the Sandia report seems to
be stating that the current risk of Catastrophic center fuel tank explosion to
aircraft is of the order of (redacted) per flight hour which is not the case.
Furthermore, the Sandia report states on pages 35-36 "The overall event
probability of a tank explosion, given the limitations, may be systematically off."
On this basis it cannot be concluded by the reviewer that the assumptions used
in determining the effectiveness of SFAR 88 in reducing the potential for ignition
sources causing future center fuel tank explosions and the quantitative and
qualitative methods and analyses in this report are adequately developed."
It makes me so proud that my children, who have not even entered the work force yet, are already in debt over a $100K to pay for this quality of governance...
Re:It was done (Score:2, Informative)
This is hilariously bullshit.
They tested *one* scanner in the FIELD.
That is not representative of actual safety studies.
But yeah, way to bullshit there.
Re:It was done (Score:4, Informative)
They who? Because the Army Public Health Command has measured the dosage for dozens of the devices. Their reports are publicly available [tsa.gov].
Re:Should of done that (Score:5, Informative)
English a second (or third or fourth) language
From personal experience (and I'm not a native English speaker myself), people who learned it as a foreign language tend to make such mistakes much less often. Perhaps this is because they learn grammar and morphology of the language while acquiring vocabulary. Also, it might have to do something with the fact that e.g. in my native language, the difference between "its" and "it's", or "their" and "they're" and "there", is so big there's no mistaking one for the other.
A few years ago, when I was studying in a university in New Zealand, an old British lady who lectured us on Ethics complained in a personal conversation with me about horrendous grammar and spelling she sees in essays written by local kids, compared to those by foreigners, especially Europeans. She specifically mentioned the correct use "its" vs "it's" as one of the things that stood out in contrast. Judging by how it progresses on the Net, it seems that it only gets worse with every new generation.