Body scanners in Aus... No option to opt out?

[anat0l]

It's like when people laugh at the irony of someone buying 2 KFC burgers and a diet coke. Well, fair enough, but it's still better than 2 KFC burgers and a normal coke

Off topic, but actually having normal coke is better than diet coke. The latter accelerates the onset of cancer more than the former.


The only thing is that there is a lot of conflicting evidence about there about just how much radiation one receives from these machines. I don't know whether something like the current Nude-o-scopes in the US will appear in AU, and what are the actual radiation emissions from these and then how does that translate to a risk to human health.

Of course, there may be more than enough people here, just like in the US, that may object to the Nude-o-scope treatment not on health grounds but on "privacy" grounds.

 

[SeaWolf]

I gotta ask though, is it a very small dose? I mean, the manufacturers keep telling us it is, but they're hardly a neutral observer in this, of course they're going to say it's safe. Where are the independent tests by accredited laborartories?
I would have expected that any product that doles out X-Rays would have had to undergo rigerous saftey testing by an independent authority, but I just don't see any evidence of that.

 

[gumpy]

i hear that it's not because it's all concentrated on the skin as oppose to the whole body...

but I really don't know much about this...

All I know is less the better... I feel it's unnecessary and I'm more than happy to be groped to avoid it...

what annoys me is right at this moment it's fine to use metal detectors... if the risk is that bad they should stop all flights right this minute and wait until the full body scanners come in...

 

[simongr]

I gotta ask though, is it a very small dose? I mean, the manufacturers keep telling us it is, but they're hardly a neutral observer in this, of course they're going to say it's safe. Where are the independent tests by accredited laborartories?

Remember if the companies say it is safe and they know it isnt then Directors will go to jail - and they don't like that.

 

[SeaWolf]

Remember if the companies say it is safe and they know it isnt then Directors will go to jail - and they don't like that.

I don't know if I'd trust that as a strong incentive to get them to do the right thing. After all the tobacco companies did it for decades, even going so far as to stand up before congress and swear it. All the while knowing that it was false. Same with James Hardie and absestos.

They don't like the idea of going to jail, but the chance of it actually happening by the time the company laywers get done is so remote that I think for most of them they'd consider it a trivial risk of doing business. Add to that the current "security panic" mood and I'm quite certain that any issues later on down the track wouldn't result in any criminal charges.

Personally I would think that when it comes to products designed to emit radiation you would expect there to be at least some level independent scrutiny. We don't simply trust airlines and their directors to do the right, we have oversight and audits and enforcement. I'd have hoped that something like this would attract at least some sort of verification.

 

[medhead]

Where is medhead when we need him?

I was on a plane

Funny thing is I had a conversation with someone on this topic a matter of weeks ago. The basic thing is that the Australian government via the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is making them do the full justification process (justification being a principle of radiation protection to show the benefit justifies the risk). This process should deal with questions of whether it is better than existing technology and what is the real dose, this varies greatly depending on how deep the radiation penetrates. It seems that it does go deeper than just the other layer of skin.

My big objection the first time these things were suggested for Australia was the total lack of justification. Concerns that I raised with various authorities. (looks like this will be addressed, now) back then I did a very rough calculation and the number of deaths from terrorist events ever was more than the theoretical number of deaths from the reported doses for the US traveling population over 50 years.

In terms of risk yes all radiation dose adds coughulative life time risk. But the risk from an individual scan is vanishingly small. No one can ever prove that such a small dose will cause a given cancer. The numbers I worked out was something like a few 100 extra fatal cancers over millions and millions of scans. Now the fact is that 25% of people will die from cancer. So you run 1 million people through a scan, we know that 250000 of them will die from cancer in their life. I can't remember the dose but it is so low that I will guess the extra predicted cancer deaths are no more than 1 or 10 if I make a massive overestimate. Again that is over a lifetime. Anyone who claims they can pick those, at most, handful of deaths out of 250,000 is a liar.

Without proper justification I would always object to the scans on principle as it offended my professional sensibilities. With justification, I can not object on the basis of risk.

i hear that it's not because it's all concentrated on the skin as oppose to the whole body...

what annoys me is right at this moment it's fine to use metal detectors... if the risk is that bad they should stop all flights right this minute and wait until the full body scanners come in...

 

[Moopere]

I've been reading this thread with some interest.

The thought occurs ... why the hysteria over air travel? Look at the security and loss of liberties and the cost .. its unbelievable. Where has all this come from? Surely if the boogey men we're calling terrorists today wanted to cause maximum damage and fear they'd target more then simply a few hundred plebs in a metal tube in the air.

Trains come to mind, as do ocean liners, never see any sort of security worth sneezing at before you get on a train and the general carnage and death would be powers of magnitude greater. Likewise ocean cruisers, there is a moderate security surrounding the boarding of such vessels as a passenger (and far more for staff and maintenance), but still a lot lot less than that which surrounds air transport.

So whats going on here? Some sort of collective phobia?

Alternatively, it may well be that planes are targeted more often which is then good cause and reason for all the spending and general trouble surrounding air travel and security - but why would this be? Again, anyone wanting to cause maximum damage, confusion, cost and death wouldn't be choosing air transport as the top 5 picks I wouldn't have thought.

 

[medhead]

Well terrorist do cause maximum damage by causing fear and confusion. That's why you hear lots of talk about dirty bombs, which cause very little actually damage from radiation. But look at the needless fear around the Japanese reactors.make that a dirty bomb in martin place and Australia's financial hub will be shut down for months and months.

Regarding train security look at Spain, they have significant train security. It seem that people do target trains in Spain.

 

[pshepvic]

I've been reading this thread with some interest.

The thought occurs ... why the hysteria over air travel? Look at the security and loss of liberties and the cost .. its unbelievable. Where has all this come from? Surely if the boogey men we're calling terrorists today wanted to cause maximum damage and fear they'd target more then simply a few hundred plebs in a metal tube in the air.

Trains come to mind, as do ocean liners, never see any sort of security worth sneezing at before you get on a train and the general carnage and death would be powers of magnitude greater. Likewise ocean cruisers, there is a moderate security surrounding the boarding of such vessels as a passenger (and far more for staff and maintenance), but still a lot lot less than that which surrounds air transport.

So whats going on here? Some sort of collective phobia?

Alternatively, it may well be that planes are targeted more often which is then good cause and reason for all the spending and general trouble surrounding air travel and security - but why would this be? Again, anyone wanting to cause maximum damage, confusion, cost and death wouldn't be choosing air transport as the top 5 picks I wouldn't have thought.

Don't give them any ideas - the frequent flyer forum is probably the first place they go for information!

 

[opusman]

Trains come to mind, as do ocean liners, never see any sort of security worth sneezing at before you get on a train and the general carnage and death would be powers of magnitude greater.

Security is basically a reactionary rather than an proactive science. If you look at pretty much all the changes in airline security, they're all closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Some countries do have security for trains; luggage is x-rayed on Spanish trains (presumably as a reaction to the Madrid bombing).

 

[Misha]

Some countries do have security for trains; luggage is x-rayed on Spanish trains (presumably as a reaction to the Madrid bombing).

Yup that's right, before the Atocha Station attack, train luggage was not scanned except for the high speed AVE to Seville.

I was unfortunate enough to be at Atocha Station that day (one of the catalysts for my moving back to Australia) and though I hate red-tape and security delays, the scanning at train stations was one initiative I was happy to see.

I don't mind queuing at security in airports if it means there is less incentive for some nut job to try and get on to the evening news.

My dos centimos

 

[Moopere]

I don't mind queuing at security in airports if it means there is less incentive for some nut job to try and get on to the evening news.

I'm not keen on additional radiation. To be perfectly honest, I don't look forward to strangers fondling me either - outside of that though, time delays and waiting due to security measures don't bother me.

Just seems strange how such a large amount of emphasis is placed on the front end of air travel when in so many other aspects of ours lives the same level of caution/inconvenience/cost is apparently not warranted.

I won't make a big list here and I don't want to completely disrupt this otherwise really interesting thread, but I'm sure we can all think of dozens of high population density, high cost and therefore (presumably) high risk areas ranging from mass volume public transport to very dense inner city accommodation ... yet for one reason or another the perception of risk is low and the countermeasures for any perceived risk is also low. By comparison with so many other targets of opportunity, individual flights have a relatively few people directly affected and the cost and disruption of the loss of an aircraft is also, relatively talking, reasonably small.

It feels like a form of mass panic which is in excess of the actual dangers presented.

Anyway, my apologies, I've swayed way of track for this thread which has a very worthwhile topic and an interesting discussion.

 

[simongr]

I think the reason aircraft are such a focus is that a relatively small device can cause catastrophic damage whereas you would need a much larger physical device to cause as much damage to a building.

 

[medhead]

It feels like a form of mass panic which is in excess of the actual dangers presented.

Yes, this is exactly how people react to the risk from radiation. With massive encouragement from anti-nuclear groups.

Of course with radiation the panic is vastly in excess of the actual danger

 

[Berlin]

Why would you want to?

Guys- I think it's time to put a bit of realism into this discussion. I recommend this excellent skepdoid episode which tells you exactly WHY the radiation you are exposed to by these machines is negligible (sorry- system doesn't allow me to post the link to original article as I haven't been posting enough on my account):

Few people have an adequate understanding of what these machines actually do. The technology you're referring to is backscatter X-ray. Unlike a medical X-ray, which shines X-rays through your body to produce a shadow image on a photographic plate, backscatter X-ray uses far lower intensity that cannot penetrate your body. Instead, it reads the X-rays reflected back off of the person, or "backscattered".

The concern is because X-rays are ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is that which is at a high enough energy level that it can strip electrons and change chemistry, which is one potential cause of cancer. The dosage of radiation from X-rays is measured in microsieverts. To put a medical X-ray into perspective with an airport backscatter X-ray, a chest X-ray delivers 100 microsieverts; an airport scan delivers .02 microsieverts. You'd have to get scanned 5,000 times to equal the radiation dosage from a single chest X-ray. 10 microsieverts, or about 500 airport scans, is considered a negligible risk.

Why negligible? Just existing on the Earth, we're all being exposed to ionizing radiation constantly. You're being hit by cosmic gamma rays right now, and other natural sources, to the tune of some 3,000 microsieverts per year, equivalent to some 150,000 airport scans.

Flying in an airplane, you have less atmosphere to protect you, so you're exposed to more; about 20 microsieverts on a coast-to-coast flight. One backscatter X-ray airport scan gives you the same radiation you'd receive by flying in the airplane for four minutes. It is so small it's not even worth counting.

But if 1/500th of negligible is still too much for you, try the competing airport scan technology: Millimeter wave scanning. These use radio waves. Radio waves are not ionizing radiation, so they pose no plausible threat to health at all.
[QUOTE END]

On another note, I prefer anything that might (and I say "might" as this is pretty much speculation) help prevent my airplane from blowing up in flight. And, personally, I much prefer some security monkey in an observation room seeing an image of my private parts than having same monkey fumble in my croch :shock:

Thanks a lot- bring it on, those scanners!

 

[simongr]

On another note, I prefer anything that might (and I say "might" as this is pretty much speculation) help prevent my airplane from blowing up in flight. And, personally, I much prefer some security monkey in an observation room seeing an image of my private parts than having same monkey fumble in my croch :shock:

Thanks a lot- bring it on, those scanners!

I think the point is whether we need more scanning/security at airports - is there too much already? I don't think the choice should be between scanner and molestation - it should be between the current level of paranoia (Scanner/grope free) and a heightened state of paranoia (scans or gropes for all).

 

[JohnPhelan]

I think the point is whether we need more scanning/security at airports - is there too much already? I don't think the choice should be between scanner and molestation - it should be between the current level of paranoia (Scanner/grope free) and a heightened state of paranoia (scans or gropes for all).

I doubt the relatives of those on board the AA and UA aircraft that were hijacked on September 11 would regard this as "paranoia".

Yes, some of the security measures were over the top (the removal of metal cutlery, for one) but the concept of scanning for knives or explosives is very sound. The practical application of this may leave something to be desired, but the concept is one that is vital to aircraft safety in the age of the suicidal jihadist terrorist.

 

[simongr]

So will these body scanners pick up metal knives better than the metal detectors?

Also will these scanners pick up explosives that are not currently blocked by the liquids rule or by the swabbing?

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Digging up an old thread.

There seems to be a little bit of chit-chat going over on the FT, BA forum about the introduction of scanners and no opt-out option. If you opt-out, you don't fly.

I don't mind going through the scanners, it's the radiation from the machines that has me confused.

Medhead has also gone into great depth about these machines. If these machines aren't so bad, why do we have doctors and professors still raising questions about them????

"Four UCSF scientists sent a letter last April to the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, expressing concern about the health risks of full body scanners being implemented at U.S. airports."

 

[rechoboam]

Well if you work closely with doctors you'll work out that a handful in any entire country will believe in various non-mainstream ideas.

My view is that it is probably less risky than actually being 30k feet in the air. But it's still insulting, undignified and I would have thought unconstitutional but what do I know.