Rant alert - I don't find this funny anymore. I just have had several international airline trips and I must say I found the TSA some of the rudest employees of any organization ever. Not only that, I'm not impressed with their 'success' rate - or that which we are allowed to see/not see. I asked point blank how much radiation would be used for the 'scan' and they couldn't tell me. Well, after having worked in hospitals and wearing a radiation badge, I'm not too amused as the indications for radiation are lifetime lmits - a hard stop if you will. I said I'd opt out and the circus began - and no respect at all for myself having the option. The USA is the worst with Heathrow, England, a close second.
Unfortunately, we are held hostage if we wish to fly - as it is, I try to minimize any flying as much as possible anymore. I calculate the hours of hassle factor and add on the actual travel time and then decide if it's worth it. There has to be some significant mileage being traveled and a very compelling reason for the 'time savings' before I fly anymore. Very sad.
As has been mentioned by other posters, you get far more millirem at aviation altitude, from living in the Rocky Mountains, and even from dental x-rays. Skin cancer from sunshine is going to be a much bigger problem than airport x-rays.If the machines give off radiation, which they do, that really is a problem. I do not know much about this, but I was on a site last night that had an article written by a physicist saying how dangerous this can be to our health, especially for frequent flyers, children, older people. And this radiation is going into the whole body, soft tissue, bone, thyroid, lungs, reproductive organs......not good. He suggested the one way to stop it is to boycott the airlines.....said they would find a better way real quick.
So, are these people going to get on an airplane after going through this x-ray? Because if they are, they are going to get much more radiation exposure during their flight than is provided by the backscatter X-ray. (Link).Ron........Thanks for the link....."For the First Time......." It made me laugh....but this is really not a laughing matter. If the machines give off radiation, which they do, that really is a problem. I do not know much about this, but I was on a site last night that had an article written by a physicist saying how dangerous this can be to our health, especially for frequent flyers, children, older people. And this radiation is going into the whole body, soft tissue, bone, thyroid, lungs, reproductive organs......not good. He suggested the one way to stop it is to boycott the airlines.....said they would find a better way real quick.
According to the Health Physics Society (HPS), a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.005 millirems (mrem, a unit of absorbed radiation). American Science and Engineering, Inc., actually puts that number slightly higher, in the area of .009 mrem. According to U.S. regulatory agencies, 1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure. Using the HPS numbers, it would take 200 backscatter scans in a year to reach a negligible dose -- 1 mrem -- of radiation. You receive 1 mrem from three hours on an airplane, from two days in Denver or from three days in Atlanta.
0.009 mrem? That's all?!?Edit: Oops, I cross-posted with Nords.
Because our bodies contain Potassium-40, each of us emits radiation. Sleeping next to your spouse for a year results in up to 2 mrem gamma exposure. That is the same as 222 airport scans per year.
See Radioactive Human Body
But, now, to the real issue. The TSA et. Al. "swear" that the invasive pictures taken of folks using the X-ray machines won't be misused. I have one axiom to present which I believe as much as I believe in the Constitution of the United States. It goes like this: Anything that can be used can be misused. Anything that can be misused will be misused. Anyone seriously disagree with this philosophy?
Or just let the passengers inspect one another.The easiest way out of the mess is to just assign passengers to the TSA "inspectors" at random.
I'm sensing a new retirement job coming on.Whaddya bet at least one TSA guy gets in hot water for saying "turn your head and cough"...
After talking to real police officers, I got the strong impression that the Transportation Security Officers include a number of folks who were rejects from the hiring process for various police departments and sheriff positions. That is, there are folks there who wanted to be real cops, didn't make it, and settled for the $10.33 to $15.93 per hour job, because it came with a uniform, shiny badge, and the ability to intimidate people on a daily basis.
There are also good, dedicated folks in TSA, but it just takes one of these former grade-school bullies to ruin a traveler's day and an organization's reputation.
The real danger that needs to be addressed is the lavatories on the aircraft. It's the only place a passenger can be alone to mix chemicals, put together a weapon from smaller parts, etc. This is clearly an overlooked problem. If we care about security, the toilet should be out in the open, just like another seat, Once the airlines figure out that they can put a seatbelt on it and make room for a few more farepaying passengers, the idea will practically sell itself.
Wait-the flight attendants could use these seats, freeing up their foldup seats for paying passengers. They generally only sit for takeoff and landing, and that's precisely the time other folks aren't allowed to be in the lavatories anyway. A perfect solution.
In addition to the considerable cost savings, this has the advantage of at least assuring the person doing the groping has a vested interest in finding weapons. Like the cop that searches the suspect before putting him in the back of his cruiser--he's plenty motivated to assure there's no gun in the guy's britches. I'm less convinced that a TSA employee doing 30 searches an hour is going to be as motivated.Or just let the passengers inspect one another.
I think he was referring to the way of life of the Bush family...I seem to recall George W. making a speech soon after 9/11 in which he said "we will not let these terrorists change our way of life". What a crock.