'Inexcusable' delay on TSA body-scanner safety reports

[The abyss]

Source: usatoday

The Transportation Security Administration has told members of Congress that more than 15 million passengers received full-body scans at airports without any malfunctions that put travelers at risk of an excessive radiation dose.

Despite the reassurance, however, the TSA has yet to release radiation inspection reports for its X-ray equipment — two months after lawmakers called for them to be made public following USA TODAY's requests to review the reports.


Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2011-02-09-tsa09_ST_N.htm

---

Really! I am so shocked!

[KansDem]

1. We need to know...

I worked as an orderly in a hospital x-ray department during the late 1970s. Everyone wore x-ray badges. Everyone. Radiologists, nurses, techs, and orderlies.

When I flew in December, I noticed a woman in one of the scanners for what seemed like several minutes, and I wondered, "How much radiation is she getting?" No one was wearing x-ray badges.

In fact, they were taking so long with this one passenger that the TSA goon waved me through a standard metal detector in order to speed things up...

[uppityperson]

2. The scan itself is fast. They may have kept her in position, but like and x-ray, is

over and done with quickly. She wasn't getting scanned the whole time if she was standing there for several minutes.

That said, the TSA agents working the units should have badges to monitor themselves.

[CreekDog]

3. how do you know how long and how many times that person was scanned?

:shrug:

[uppityperson]

4. I guess I am speaking from personal experience. They scanned me and it

took a bit for them to position me, look at the scan, etc. It is true that they may have scanned someone over and over and over and over until they glowed.

It will be good to see what all comes of the reports and the scanners need to wear radioactive warning badges.

[The abyss]

5. How many roentgens are being generated from these "devices"?

Why is the TSA refusing to comply with the congress critters?

Better yet - why are the congress critters still funding this nonsense?

All federally funded, commercial transportation hubs need to be provided with the detailed drawings, energy sources, shielding arrangements, clock timing, min & max douse energy.

State, municipal, county engineers need to sign off on whatever is being deployed on their tax payer home ground. And they sure as hell better get some good backing from the local tax paying serfs.

My own personal rant.

Shut 'em down.

[uppityperson]

6. Those are good questions and I would like to seethe answers. eom

[dbmk]

8. Standard scan is equivalent to 15 mins in an airplane.

Theres plenty of angles to critizise the scanners from.

I would not pick this one.

[pam4water]

7. I don't believe the claim that the scanner exposure is the same as 10 minutes of flying at altitude,

when they are functioning properly. Never mind if they malfunction. The scanner operator should were radiation badges and there should be a limit on how many time a person can be scanned.

[Ford_Prefect]

9. The question to ask may not be how much exposure but rather where is the exposure concentrated.

While there may be real concerns about machine malfunctions, general exposure and operator error, I suspect it may be misdirection ploy to avoid disclosure on an important difference in how the full body machines actually work. It has been suggested that when the machines are used correctly there is risk of over exposure to the skin.

A previous thread referred to comments on the issue of how the scanner functions. It seems that the method used could produce higher levels of exposure concentrated in the skin: possibly leading to skin cancers and other disorders near the surface of the body. Standard measures of overall exposure only give a sum for the whole body without regard to effect on or concentration in a particular organ or area.

Hence asking for overall exposure values could be opening the door for obscuring the particular effect these machines may have. It is also possible to bury the particulars by averaging the exposure value over a large range of situations. The inspection reports may only tell us that the machines were operated correctly according to the manufacturer's instructions, or not, and perhaps how much deviation from correct practice seems to be common.