What happens when you refuse to pose for TSA or be sexually molested to fly.

[Blind_Io]

From what I'm hearing, TSA changed their policy for today.

Also, that is what TSA is counting on - people willingly giving up their rights to avoid the inconvenience and financial loss of standing up for themselves. Most people don't know about the dangers of the x-ray machines, in fact, most people I've talked to have no idea how the scanners work at all. TSA uses the phrase "Advanced Imaging Technology" to make it sound more like science fiction. In fact, a couple people I've talked to have equated it to Star Wars/Star Trek fictional technology.

There's a reason TSA keep beating on that number of how many people approve of X-ray scanners - it's because the vast majority oppose the pat-downs and they see that as a less intrusive option. It's not less intrusive - you can't feel your tissues absorbing radiation.

The "enhanced pat-down" is closer to what prisoners entering a penitentiary undergo and is called a body search in every law-enforcement agency except the TSA. A "pat-down" is legally defined by SCOTUS as a brief, over-the-clothes procedure to ensure a person has no weapons with which to harm an officer. TSA does not perform a pat-down - enhanced or otherwise.

 

[narf]

From what I'm hearing, TSA changed their policy for today.

Thanksgiving bombers, engage?

 

[Blind_Io]

If you are interested, it's worth reading up on the 1968 case Terry v Ohio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

"whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person."

So by preventing someone from leaving security, the TSA has seized that person under the SCOTUS ruling.

Also, this is critical for the backscatter scanners:

"... it is nothing less than sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find weapons is not a 'search.' "

The scanners explore under the clothes, as do the hands-on body searches. How is this not considered a "Search?"

Also there is this from the Appeals Court case that preceded the SCOTUS case:

'We must be careful to distinguish that the "frisk" authorized herein includes only a "frisk" for a dangerous weapon. It by no means authorizes a search for contraband, evidentiary material, or anything else in the absence of reasonable grounds to arrest. Such a search is controlled by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and probable cause is essential.'

Here is an opinion from one of the Justices on the bench:

Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation."

These are from the case and consenting opinions that supported the ability of police to frisk a person they have seized for questioning. Even though these opinions supported a then expansion of police powers they remain incredibly damming to TSA's case. Then there's this pearl from the dissenting opinion which today seems oddly prophetic:

"To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment."

 

[jmsprovan]

From what I'm hearing, TSA changed their policy for today.

whatever you say.

Also, that is what TSA is counting on - people willingly giving up their rights to avoid the inconvenience and financial loss of standing up for themselves. Most people don't know about the dangers of the x-ray machines, in fact, most people I've talked to have no idea how the scanners work at all. TSA uses the phrase "Advanced Imaging Technology" to make it sound more like science fiction. In fact, a couple people I've talked to have equated it to Star Wars/Star Trek fictional technology.

Fearmongering about the scanners is just as bad as fearmongering about the risks of terrorism. Tinfoil hats all around.

 

[narf]

Tinfoil hats all around.

Flying in airplanes exposes you to a ton more radiation. Too bad your tinfoil hat may set off the metal detector

 

[Blind_Io]

^ Edit: The radiation you are exposed to at altitude is a long-wavelength (low frequency) that doesn't have the same effect on muscle, skin, and eye tissues as short-wavelength (high frequency) radiation, such as the X-ray body scanners.

Original Post:

Telling someone that the scanners use high-frequency x-rays isn't fearmongering, it's a fact that has serious medical implications for thousands of people. One person I talked to immediately sent a text to her mother telling her not to get in the scanner as she was planning due to a medical condition. She had no idea the scans used x-rays and were contraindicated for her condition (skin cancer treatment, as I recall).

TSA has said that they intentionally keep the public ignorant of the technology and procedures they follow because it "increases the risk to the terrorists." This reasoning makes no sense at all, terrorists planning to blow up a plane don't care about the risks, they're ready to blow themselves up. Why do they care if it's on a plane with 300 people or in a security line with 300 people?

TSA has no internal consistency of their logic, they have never intercepted a terrorist threat, they have no outside audit or accountability, and hundreds of stories of unprofessional - even criminal behavior.

So why is it fearmongering to demand some accountability? Some professionalism? Some method of security that doesn't wipe it's ass with the US Constitution?

 

[jmsprovan]

^ Edit: The radiation you are exposed to at altitude is a long-wavelength (low frequency) that doesn't have the same effect on muscle, skin, and eye tissues as short-wavelength (high frequency) radiation, such as the X-ray body scanners.

Original Post:

Telling someone that the scanners use high-frequency x-rays isn't fearmongering, it's a fact that has serious medical implications for thousands of people. One person I talked to immediately sent a text to her mother telling her not to get in the scanner as she was planning due to a medical condition. She had no idea the scans used x-rays and were contraindicated for her condition (skin cancer treatment, as I recall).

TSA has said that they intentionally keep the public ignorant of the technology and procedures they follow because it "increases the risk to the terrorists." This reasoning makes no sense at all, terrorists planning to blow up a plane don't care about the risks, they're ready to blow themselves up. Why do they care if it's on a plane with 300 people or in a security line with 300 people?

TSA has no internal consistency of their logic, they have never intercepted a terrorist threat, they have no outside audit or accountability, and hundreds of stories of unprofessional - even criminal behavior.

So why is it fearmongering to demand some accountability? Some professionalism? Some method of security that doesn't wipe it's ass with the US Constitution?

the effects of the scanners are negligible at best unless you are going through them countless times every day, so when you/the internet start pontificating about how dangerous they are it is fearmongering.

From what i saw going through a US airport, the scanners have the standard warning signs about x-rays and radiation that all the other scanning equipment does, and these weren't hidden - they were in prominent view and there were extra information signs alongside the queue barriers about the scanners, it was quite difficult to miss. So if someone completely misses all these warnings and then complains about being clueless to the way they work, then it is their own damn fault.

 

[nist7]

From what I'm hearing, TSA changed their policy for today.

Oh, really?!

So on one of the busiest holiday travel days...they go lax on security?! If anything, shouldn't they INCREASE security near holidays? Mandatory pat-downs for every 2nd passenger! We can't let those terrorists onto our planes!

 

[Blind_Io]

The numbers about the radiation exposure was based on the body's entire mass - which is fine for a low-frequency x-ray that penetrates the body. High-frequency rays don't and are entirely absorbed by the upper layers of tissue, greatly decreasing the total mass of tissue affected and thus increasing the exposure many times over the estimate based on total body mass.

When TSA said that Johns Hopkins said the scanners were safe Johns Hopkins had a press release out later that day saying that they said no such thing and that TSA was full of it.

Long term exposure to these machines has not been evaluated thoroughly and the FDA is using a "one size fits all" mentality and assuming that no one will suffer any complications. The FDA (run by idiots, I might add) put out a statement that pretty much said that pregnant women and kids are ok to have radiation exposure - which is contrary to pretty much every medical opinion since doctors stopped prescribing Radium. The TSA and the FDA are comparing apples to oranges in terms of the type of radiation, the two are not the same and to assume that a very high frequency radiation will have the same effect as low frequency radiation is just stupid, especially considering the different images that result from the different frequencies. Their logic makes no sense - they say the two forms are the same yet they interact with the body in very different ways.

 

[jmsprovan]

The numbers about the radiation exposure was based on the body's entire mass - which is fine for a low-frequency x-ray that penetrates the body. High-frequency rays don't and are entirely absorbed by the upper layers of tissue, greatly decreasing the total mass of tissue affected and thus increasing the exposure many times over the estimate based on total body mass.

an average american won't have a problem with low body mass.

Long term exposure to these machines has not been evaluated thoroughly and the FDA is using a "one size fits all" mentality and assuming that no one will suffer any complications. The FDA (run by idiots, I might add) put out a statement that pretty much said that pregnant women and kids are ok to have radiation exposure - which is contrary to pretty much every medical opinion since doctors stopped prescribing Radium. The TSA and the FDA are comparing apples to oranges in terms of the type of radiation, the two are not the same and to assume that a very high frequency radiation will have the same effect as low frequency radiation is just stupid, especially considering the different images that result from the different frequencies. Their logic makes no sense - they say the two forms are the same yet they interact with the body in very different ways.

Of course there has been no "Long Term Exposure evaluation", because on average most people fly maybe once or twice a year, asking for a long term exposure evaluation on something so rarely used by most of the public is like wanting a long term exposure evaluation on xray machines, even though most people will only ever get a couple during their entire lifetime.

The people most likely to be scanned often (the pilots) are already exempt from the scanners and frequent fliers are still subject to the random choice of who gets the fun of going through them, so in 100 flights they might only go through them a few times.

 

[narf]

^ Edit: The radiation you are exposed to at altitude is a long-wavelength (low frequency) that doesn't have the same effect on muscle, skin, and eye tissues as short-wavelength (high frequency) radiation, such as the X-ray body scanners.

https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2010/11/15/wikipedian_protester.png

A quick googling reveals radiation at altitude with energy levels of up to 10^18eV, x-rays typically are in the range of 10^5-10^9eV.

 

[gtrietsc]

https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2010/11/15/wikipedian_protester.png

A quick googling reveals radiation at altitude with energy levels of up to 10^18eV, x-rays typically are in the range of 10^5-10^9eV.

IANAS (Scientist) but your math doesnt differentiate between TYPES of radiation, does it?

 

[narf]

The energy level is proportional to the frequency. How to differentiate types of electromagnetic waves if not by their frequency?

To put the energy levels mentioned into layman's terms, higher energy levels than x-ray are typically called gamma rays. Common sources of gamma rays include decay of atoms, nuclear fission, the universe as a whole. Shielding against gamma rays is particularly hard, hence the thick walls surrounding nuclear facilities. Additionally, gamma rays are exceptionally harmful.

 

[settler]

In general I think it all went to far (and sadly there is a chance it will come to EU too). Many stories quoted here prove this. For me the worst part is just inconvenience. Why I have to put out my laptop, these scanner have a problem to scan through this thin case it's in?

As far as the methods are (very) arguable I can understand the reason. Although bomb in, for example, a high speed train will be as dangerous as in plane and there are no such checks.

But this:

Also, http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter

is what I just can't understand. Such checks after the flight? What for? Here, when you travel within EU you don't have any. For example in my town airport is small so it took me at most 2 minutes form the plane to the car - with only hand luggage (3 wide open doors on my way). And if a flight is from outside of Schengen Area you just have to show passport (or some ID if you are EU citizen) and that's all.
Is there any reason why they do these checks in US? It's easier to buy a knife or build a bomb after leaving an airport.

 

[narf]

In general I think it all went to far (and sadly there is a chance it will come to EU too).

The EU has been using THz scanners for quite a while. Didn't the Christmay Day Bomber fly to the US through Shiphol - where at the time they were already using those scanners?
However, THz scanners are not harmful in a medical sense. Some privacy concerns have been addressed by not displaying the image, instead marking suspicious areas on a pictogram for a hands-on-junk check.

 

[gtrietsc]

The energy level is proportional to the frequency. How to differentiate types of electromagnetic waves if not by their frequency?

To put the energy levels mentioned into layman's terms, higher energy levels than x-ray are typically called gamma rays. Common sources of gamma rays include decay of atoms, nuclear fission, the universe as a whole. Shielding against gamma rays is particularly hard, hence the thick walls surrounding nuclear facilities. Additionally, gamma rays are exceptionally harmful.

Again, and keep in mind I am not very smart(!), are you saying that an X-ray that is of a type(wavelength, whatever) that penetrates to the bone is the same as say, double the radiation that only goes to the skin?

Help me understand. To my mind its like light with a polarized lens. (But again, I am REALLY out of my territory here.)

 

[Blind_Io]

I was under the impression that power and frequency are not the same thing. Power has to do with the height of the wave form while frequency has to do with how close the peaks are together.

I'm going to get clarification on this sometime soon. I know one guy who worked on nuclear subs and knows a hell of a lot about radiation and my uncle, as I mentioned, actually makes radioactive isotopes to interact with the human body.

 

[Spectre]

Power and frequency are not the same thing. Blind more or less has the definitions correct. To that, add wavelength.

Frequency: Amount of time between peaks as it passes an observer.
Wavelength: The actual distance between peaks (often but not always the same thing as frequency - see the Doppler Effect and relativity).
Power: How much energy the wave carries - i.e., how big the peaks are.

Here is how wavelength/frequency translates into the visible and invisible spectrum.

Power is often the most important measure of how dangerous a beam of radiation is. To change frequencies in order to give you some examples:

A radio wave used for communication on what we call the FM band (yes, the kind on your stereo) can be broadcast at various different power levels, usually measured in watts. At one-quarter watt, your broadcast message could be heard farther away if you stood on top of the radio tower and shouted loudly. At 100,000 watts, sometimes they can hear you in the next country over - they have an effective range of about 100 miles or so. You don't want to stand too close to one of those, as one of the side effects of high power radio transmitters is heating of biological tissues (get to that in a minute) and potentially cancer.

That microwave on top of your kitchen counter is actually a type of radio frequency transmitter. It uses RF energy in the microwave bands to heat your food. One watt of this frequency is relatively harmless and won't penetrate the skin. 1100 watts is enough to roast a frozen turkey.

Different frequencies have different effects at the same power levels. 1000 watts of IR-frequency energy will merely keep your burgers warm (which is what those warming racks at McDonalds actually do with those heat lamps) for a few hours. 1000 watts of microwave spectrum energy will set your burger on fire after about five to ten minutes.

X-rays, which these AIT TSA scanners use, have an 'interesting' property. At even some fairly low energy levels, it can strip electrons from atoms in a process called ionization. What's left are electrically charged atoms (normally neutral, now net positive charged) called ions. The ions and the stripped electrons form something called plasma. Yes, that kind of plasma. Not real healthy to be around. I mention this to point out that this is a frequency that you don't really want to screw around with. To further demonstrate how nasty this particular group of frequencies are, outside of the atmosphere, a properly focused 10,000,000 watt X-ray source could cut through cold-rolled steel armor at a rate of about ten centimeters per millisecond.

At a distance of a full light minute. That's well over a million miles. Remember the inverse-square law and how it affects wave propagation, kids!

You don't want to know what it does to flesh.

At the other end of the spectrum, a quarter watt X-ray won't fully penetrate your skin, but unfortunately it does still raise your rad dose, which is both a yearly and annual measure - you may (relatively) safely only have a certain amount of X-ray exposure per year and in your lifetime. And it does cause some small damage to the cells it hits, which is usually taken care of by your cellular repair mechanisms. Sometimes it's not, and that may become cancer.

I am, unfortunately, entirely too aware of how this works as my mom is bumping up against her annual limits and getting quite high on her lifetime limit after her radiation therapy for cancer plus the X-ray and other scans taken to determine the progress of her disease. The radiation therapies are the only ones that have proven effective, but she can't have them again for quite a while (which is a problem when the stuff came back) and if they try again one more time, that may be the last time they can ever use it on her, plus future scans may have to be drastically curtailed in order to not kill her - which is why she's not doing radiation again for right now and having to look at other alternatives.

To go back up to the diagram I've posted, the more to the left of that spectrum you go, the nastier the effects are at a given power level, as a general rule. Gamma is worse than X is worse than UV.

 

[hajj]

Which kind of body scanners are used in the US? Millimeter wave scanners or backscatter x-ray scanners? The latter uses x-rays, although I cannot find out whether they make use of high frequency, low wavelength x-rays, as claimed earlier here. While the former uses millimeter waves which have larger wavelengths and lower frequencies.

 

[Spectre]

The controversial new AIT units (the ones producing the porn images) are backscatter X-Ray, not millimeter wave. Low power radar is a known quantity for health and is relatively harmless. Unfortunately, that's not what these use.

You also won't find me getting anywhere near them. Thank god for general aviation and cars.