Compulsory use of Full Body Scanners in SYD and MEL

[yohy?!]

Are you a physician? Are you a radiologist? A physicist? How do you know his medical condition is of no relevance?

medhead is qualified in this area and as you can see from others who have posted his knowledge is trusted.

 

[factcheque]

Well I'm going to hide behind my title. Why? because you also seem to have trouble telling the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation. These are 2 different types of radiation with different wavelengths and energies.

You are so full of assumptions. Like you, I am a physicist by training. I now work in gene research. So this really cuts across my fields. You just kept saying 'type', not ionisation potential. I know millimeter waves are non-ionising.

Anyway, my job title includes the words Safety, LASER, and Radiation. Not in that order.

I will also say that you're analogy about Lasers is completely false. The government does, in fact, ban the importation of lasers and there are, in fact, regulations to do with their use.

Right, so you're not a physician, and have no right to question the posters medical condition.

You completely missed the meaning of my analogy. I know the govt bans certain lasers. Im not saying the government ACTUALLY thinks those lasers are safe. Sheesh. Im comparing and contrasting, and showing how when you isolate one piece of information (the amount of energy) and base all your analysis on that, errors are made. Things are more complicated than just comparing these waves to mobile phones and going 'see, 10,000 times less'. The devil is in the details. And I feel you may suffer from what many intellectuals suffer from. God Complex. I can tell this because you constantly state opinion as fact. If it were actually fact, there would be evidence. And you would have linked me up with it.

Your analogy also because Miilimeter wave scanners have to illuminate the whole body surface and hence are extremely unlikely to be focused onto a spot.

Unlikely? Do you know the details of how these machines work? Is it scanning? Again, where is the evidence that these machines will never cause a focus of the energy? How unlikely is 'extremely unlikely'? Does that mean there is a chance they will? If it is scanning, there will be a point of time (dt) were the beam is focused at any spot. Has this exposure level been tested physiologically?

A modelling study that has not be verified experimentally and that, as I posted, has been subject to an analysis

Yes. I said it was modelling. The same kind of approach used in studies of anthropogenic global warming, no? This study says to me that more research needs to be done. There needs to be follow up studies to see if this modelling result is correct. This is exactly my point. You assume them safe. But you don't actually KNOW. If you did, you would have linked to some citations and not just a link to the governments own spiel with a rude and disingenous 'google is your friend'.

What's your point? Testing a machine is not that hard. Setting up a QA/QC program is not that hard. There are thousands of x-ray machine in operation all around Australia everyday. Do you have the same concerns? They have to be tested. Do you say what if they occasionally malfunctioned? Do you say the same thing about baggage x-ray units? They're not medical, but they get tested.

So have these things been done with the scanners? Not to my knowledge. There is no information anywhere about such tests. Just a government's faith in L3 Communications Corporation. Your comments about xray machines are a straw man. Yes I have concerns about medical xray machines, but Im not forced to go through one every time I fly.

Edit: BTW Google is your friend. Airport Bosy Scanners

Well now, that is fluff. Google is not your friend. They are a corporation. Your friends are real physical people who you like.

Im curious as to why you didn't address all my points? You have cherry picked the ones you can address and then finish off as if you've proven your case. You completely avoided the 'Lack of evidence of effect does not constitue evidence of lack of effect.' No comment about machine malfunctions.

And heres a video I would like you to watch. I cant link to it cause this forum web software is coughpy and tells me I need 10 posts before I can post a link. What a retarded idea! So please, put it in your browser bar and watch it. You may learn something new. www . ted . com / talks / tim_harford.html

 

[medhead]

You are so full of assumptions. Like you, I am a physicist by training. I now work in gene research. So this really cuts across my fields. You just kept saying 'type', not ionisation potential. I know millimeter waves are non-ionising.

If you had of bothered to maintain the context of my reply you would have found that the OP compared non-ionising radiation from these scanners with IONISING cosmic radiation exposure when flying. These are 2 different types of radiation that cannot be compared in that way. ionistion potential has nothing to do with that fact. RF exposure DOES NOT add to ionising radiation exposure.

Right, so you're not a physician, and have no right to question the posters medical condition.

CONTEXT AGAIN. The OP mentioned a medical condition. There are exemptions for medical conditions. That was the purpose of my question. The OP seemed to get it. Such a shame that you made false assumptions, ignoring the context and have launched your attack on me. Might I suggest you follow your advice, read things in context and don't make assumptions.

You completely missed the meaning of my analogy. I know the govt bans certain lasers. Im not saying the government ACTUALLY thinks those lasers are safe. Sheesh.

Still it is a false analogy for what has happened in this case. What are these radiological standards that you believe were the basis for assessing the safety of these scans? You do not specific a standard. But of the standards I'm aware of they DO NOT take one bit of information in isolation. So your analogy fails.

And you would have linked me up with it.

Try making a specific claim and linking to evidence yourself and see what you get. Hand waving "radiological standards" is meaningless. I was just replying at your level.

Unlikely? Do you know the details of how these machines work? Is it scanning? Again, where is the evidence that these machines will never cause a focus of the energy? How unlikely is 'extremely unlikely'? Does that mean there is a chance they will? If it is scanning, there will be a point of time (dt) were the beam is focused at any spot. Has this exposure level been tested physiologically?

I think you're getting confused with laboratory equipment.

Yes. I said it was modelling. The same kind of approach used in studies of anthropogenic global warming, no? This study says to me that more research needs to be done. There needs to be follow up studies to see if this modelling result is correct. This is exactly my point. You assume them safe. But you don't actually KNOW. If you did, you would have linked to some citations and not just a link to the governments own spiel with a rude and disingenous 'google is your friend'.

AGW?! FFS! Ok lets go down this path. You do realise that unlike the single paper that you've mentioned, people are actually working to verify AGW models by experimentation. As I said your single paper has not been verified and later analysis of the model concludes that bubbles can not form. Also not verified, but an impasse. My conclusion about safety is based on the lack of mechanism for harm. And personal communications.

I linked to the government's information as per your request. If you didn't want it you shouldn't have asked for it.

So have these things been done with the scanners? Not to my knowledge. There is no information anywhere about such tests. Just a government's faith in L3 Communications Corporation. Your comments about xray machines are a straw man. Yes I have concerns about medical xray machines, but Im not forced to go through one every time I fly.

You know there is no ongoing QA/QC program on the performance of these machines? No?

Please remember your concerns about x-ray machines next time your critically ill in a hospital. Far from being a straw man your comment highlights my point exactly. Despite the extensive testing regime for x-ray equipment in hospitals you are still concerned. It is therefore natural to conclude that you would be concerned about whole body scanners at airports regardless of any testing regime.

Im curious as to why you didn't address all my points? You have cherry picked the ones you can address and then finish off as if you've proven your case. You completely avoided the 'Lack of evidence of effect does not constitue evidence of lack of effect.' No comment about machine malfunctions.

I've ignored most of your points because they have no substance, they ignore the context of my previous post, attack me on the basis of false assumptions, or have nothing to support them (e.g. radiological standards - which one?). So basically I couldn't really be bothered.

 

[MarkD]

Why do they need a medical exemption? Pretty sure any fair dinkum terrorist could obtain one of those pretty easily. If its going to be the norm, fine and i will go buy some bondage gear and wear that when i fly and give them something to look at.

 

[anat0l]

A bit off-topic, but:

I cant link to it cause this forum web software is coughpy and tells me I need 10 posts before I can post a link. What a retarded idea!l

Sorry, but the original motivation of the restriction was to stop people from randomly creating new accounts and then posting links to potentially willy-nilly sites (basically a form of spamming). It has had the unfortunate consequence in a case like yours, but we are hoping that you will stick around our community.

For those who are typographically challenged, here is the link by factcheque: www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford.html, of which I assume factcheque wanted to draw particular attention to the Tim Harford talk, Trial, error and the God complex.

 

[lovestotravel]

Everyone I know that opts-out of scans in USA is intelligent.

That gave me a good laugh for this evening

 

[medhead]

A bit off-topic, but:



Sorry, but the original motivation of the restriction was to stop people from randomly creating new accounts and then posting links to potentially willy-nilly sites (basically a form of spamming). It has had the unfortunate consequence in a case like yours, but we are hoping that you will stick around our community.

For those who are typographically challenged, here is the link by factcheque: www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford.html, of which I assume factcheque wanted to draw particular attention to the Tim Harford talk, Trial, error and the God complex.

I'm not sorry. That is absolutely insulting to post that video with the claim that I suffer from this so called god complex. Especially from someone who admits they have no idea about these machines and how they work yet states their opinion that there is harm as fact.

At no stage have I claimed to know how the whole world works. What I do is take in the scientific evidence from my peers, including at peak international meetings, and then interpret those findings for lay people who want to know if very specific activities are safe; Outline best practice and generally make sure they are safe in the real world. This involves a multitude of facts, to interpret the practical situation. Not just one factor taken in isolation, as claimed. It involves looking at the all the evidence.

It is highly ironic to be attacked over my "science" by someone who ignores the scientific method and demands proof of the negative. They make that demand on the basis of one article that is not supported by any other research and is contradicted by one paper, along with the lack of observed effects. That article's claim of bubble formation and hence DNA breaks is then given as evidence to claim something is carcinogenic, an opinion that seems to ignore cellular repair and death mechanisms and a multitude of other possiblities. It certainly takes more than one model to prove an agent is carcinogenic.

 

[medhead]

Why do they need a medical exemption? .

To effectively use the machine some physical actions are required. Hands above the head and such. So there is a medical exemption for people who can't do that. I'm not sure what else might be exempt.

 

[Happy Trails]

Well I have to say that after some initial scepticism I'm impressed by these new scanners. There hasn't been a single bombing or hijacking since they were introduced.

 

[shiny]

You choose to be irrated by phone and you think using speakerphone is better? The dose via speakerphone will still be higher than that of the body scanner. Their website (travelsecure) indicates it is safe for people with pacemakers and while I am unsure what your heart problem is, it would appear unlikely that the body scanner will affect your 'electrical' problem. If you are that worried, then you should stop using your mobile phone completely.

 

[Mrmaxwell]

Medhead - I do not understand why you seem to be so 'pro' body scanner?

I don't care one way or the other but I certainly would like the choice of being able to choose 'pass' if asked to be scanned. Just because something has not been proved harmful does not mean I should subject myself to unnecessary exposure right?

The issue for me is not about the science of the scanner - it is about the lack of right to refuse.

 

[medhead]

Medhead - I do not understand why you seem to be so 'pro' body scanner?

I don't care one way or the other but I certainly would like the choice of being able to choose 'pass' if asked to be scanned. Just because something has not been proved harmful does not mean I should subject myself to unnecessary exposure right?

The issue for me is not about the science of the scanner - it is about the lack of right to refuse.

I'm anti-false information about radiation. Not pro-scanner. I have raised a number of concerns about these scanners over time. I've attempted to get more information on them for my professional body from people involved with the implementation. I've clearly stated in this thread, and IIRC similar threads over time, that I don't believe they are more effective than current technology. I do actually accept the reasoning given for not having an opt out.

But I will stand by my position that radiation safety is not a reason to reject the scanners in use in Australia. There is no coughulative effect from this type of radiation.

There are a number of factors involved in the issue. I would reject the scanners because of some of those issues, I don't reject them on safety grounds as per the posts in this thread. Having adopted the scanners I agree with the reasoning of no opt out. My position is not black and white.

 

[burmans]

Scanning is a necessary part of travel - unfortunate as it is. If you don't like it, then look into other transport options.

Sorry for taking a while to respond, only just found this thread. While I'm prepared to accept scanning is an unavoidable part of scanning, have followed the TSA threads on FT over the years and there is very little evidence of the effectiveness of screening so interested why you regard as "necessary". They occassionally list the items found by TSA, it can be a funny read but very few really feel that the items listed form a real threat. As far as I know minimal real threats have ever been picked up, e.g. they did not pick up the "shoe bomber".
On the other hand there has been evidence of other more gapping holes in security, usually around airport workers identified. So what's the basis for the "necessary"?.

 

[NM]

Well I have to say that after some initial scepticism I'm impressed by these new scanners. There hasn't been a single bombing or hijacking since they were introduced.

But they certainly do have side-effects . For example, they appear to be 100% effective is also stopping Zebras, Giraffes and Camels from entering the secure area of Australian airports. I assume that was not an advertised benefit of the investment in the technology .

And as far as my research can determine, nobody has yet died as a result of exposure to the full body scanners used at Australian airports. So they must be safe.

And as far as references to the Flat Earth Society are concerned, I take offense. We all know the Earth is NOT flat at all .... its quite bumpy in the middle, and just flattens out towards the edges just before you fall off

 

[simongr]

I dont think the lack of detection means scanning is ineffective - if you know that you are going to be scanned for bombs and guns and knives before you get on board there is pretty much no point turning up to the airport carrying your weapons.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

A few obvious points...

The gov is trying to explain here how it works, and does not give a specific answer. The real answer to the question is open to interpretation by the reader. In other questions in this FAQ, they straight out say "Yes" or "No" to questions. By not going either way in the answer proves that they don't want to be liable IF there is proof that there are issues with this tech in the future.
Airport Body Scanners—Frequently Asked Questions

Additionally, this is how the TSA treated the backscatter machines (which have been removed from all airports because of serious health concerns) - Public misled on dangers of airport body scanners, watchdog says

These are not the ones used in Australia, however given the lax testing by independent organisations, how can anyone really trust ANYTHING the manufacturer or the government or a related body says?

The technology is just far too new to know how this will affect humans long term, and this is one thing we all have control over and one that we need the choice to have. Anyone who wants to use the body scanners is welcome to trust the technology, but I (and I suspect the largest majority of members here) would rather the option to opt out until there is more evidence in 10-20 years time.

 

[medhead]

A few obvious points...

The gov is trying to explain here how it works, and does not give a specific answer. The real answer to the question is open to interpretation by the reader. In other questions in this FAQ, they straight out say "Yes" or "No" to questions. By not going either way in the answer proves that they don't want to be liable IF there is proof that there are issues with this tech in the future.
Airport Body Scanners—Frequently Asked Questions

That is a valid conclusion based on that information. However, I don't think that is a correct conclusion based on having asked someone to talk about the machines in a professional context. The answer was yes, but we'll not be able to discuss specific details of their operation for operational security reasons. The person I contacted agreed that how the machines operate was not required to discuss the topic of interest but they were still under a strict prohibition from security types.

I don't have the chance to read the other TSA stuff right now.

 

[ozmille]

e.g. they did not pick up the "shoe bomber"

Wasn't Richard Reid flying from France to the US or was there another one?

 

[markis10]

Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, the nude-o-scope(gate) scandal continues to develop......

Nude-O-Scope to be X-Rayed by Science | The Gate

 

[burmans]

I dont think the lack of detection means scanning is ineffective - if you know that you are going to be scanned for bombs and guns and knives before you get on board there is pretty much no point turning up to the airport carrying your weapons.

Indeed, but Xray scanning gives you that. Given the recent drug running scam going on would suggest are there clearly other ways to get bombs and guns and knives on those planes than through the front door, whether the front door screening method is scanning or patdowns.