TSA compton backscattering exposes body to non-negligible radiation (2010)

This article is from 2010. These days the TSA is using millimeter wave scanners (with frequencies around 30 GHz).

With radiation, I always recommend people study page 6 of this DOE radiation dose range pdf [1] to put dose rates in context. The spectrum of radiation doses spans many orders of magnitude and a single atom decaying is readily detectable.<p>Note in particular that there are places on Earth like Ramsar, Iran that have natural background dose rates above 50 mSv&#x2F;year and no one has been able to show definitively that dose rates at or below that level do or do not cause harm (or benefit!).<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.energy.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;prod&#x2F;files&#x2F;2018&#x2F;01&#x2F;f46&#x2F;doe-ionizing-radiation-dose-ranges-jan-2018.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.energy.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;prod&#x2F;files&#x2F;2018&#x2F;01&#x2F;f46&#x2F;doe-ioni...</a><p>Another fun data point is the longitudinal studies of flight crew who spend a good part of their career exposed to higher-than-normal natural cosmic radiation (while flying they are above much of the Earth&#x27;s protective atmosphere) [2]. We should compare how much dose we get from the scanners at airports to how much we get from intergalactic protons raining down from the cosmos while we&#x27;re up in the air.<p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bmj.com&#x2F;content&#x2F;325&#x2F;7364&#x2F;567" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bmj.com&#x2F;content&#x2F;325&#x2F;7364&#x2F;567</a><p>One time I took a geiger counter on a flight just for fun [3]. It really was clickin&#x27;!<p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;whatisnuclear.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2014-05-17-radiation-on-flights.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;whatisnuclear.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2014-05-17-radiation-on-fligh...</a>

The open letter from biophysicists at UCSF _at the time_ outlined many of these concerns [1]. It was clear that the way these machines were being assessed was not scientifically rigorous, and were likely dangerous. The DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff had an interest in the company selling the scanners [2]. The damage done to the public’s trust and the public’s DNA by forcing these machines on people was awful.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.thestranger.com&#x2F;images&#x2F;blogimages&#x2F;2010&#x2F;11&#x2F;17&#x2F;1290049297-ucsf-jph-letter.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.thestranger.com&#x2F;images&#x2F;blogimages&#x2F;2010&#x2F;11&#x2F;17&#x2F;129...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Michael_Chertoff" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Michael_Chertoff</a>

Has anyone seen these recently? I saw one in Boston many years ago, but every airport I&#x27;ve been through since uses the mm-wave ones, distinguishable by their rotating action

If everyone opted out of the scanners, they would quickly disappear.

I really don&#x27;t worry about the low levels of radiation or not.<p>What I worry about is trusting the TSA to keep these machines operating correctly and within spec. The care they give the machines cannot be greater than the care they give to the employees, and we know how well they treat employees.

This article is a little absurd. They are talking about uSv (10^-6) than give the big warning<p>&gt; Scary thing, what happens if scan jams and fail-safe mechanism fails -- local dose very high of order a few Sv<p>We can do this with anything. I&#x27;m not so concerned about these machines failing in a region that typically has radiation monitors. Sure, we should be concerned with machinery failing, but the amount one should worry isn&#x27;t proportional.

It’d be fascinating to know how many products, or entire businesses, are able to exist or even thrive through broad ignorance (whether willful or naïve) of their true nature.

.emf files on a web site?<p>There&#x27;s a reason that the scanner manufacturers got exemptions so they wouldn&#x27;t have to report measured radiation.

Needs to be retitled (2010)

Looking forward to the epistemological study in my 70’s after I’ve had my prostate ripped out, wherein we find men who traveled frequently post 9&#x2F;11 were at increased prostate cancer risk from millimeter wave tech.

I can’t recall the name of the principle, or the exact dose, but isn’t 1 Sv enough to cause a 50% death probability from radiation sickness, and 3 Sv enough to cause a cancer? There is a good youtube series (IIRC nuclear policy course at MIT) I was watching when the Chernobyl show was on last year.<p>So 0.25 mSv is enough to cause a cancer for every 12,000 people they scan. That’s a lot of people considering the throughput of airports. Lovely. I’m glad this was shit-canned.