EPIC files lawsuit to suspend airport body scanner use

[Will]

Seriously? Sexually assaulted? Mountain -> Molehill.

Yes, seriously.

Sexual assault == intentional contact without consent to genitals/ breasts.

Consent is not valid unless informed, which it is not in many of these cases (I say that as someone who has a profesional obligation to obtain informed consent on a daily basis).

Consent is not valid if coercion is involved. Requirement (in order to fly) negates voluntariness and creates coercion.

I stand by my description. I still seethe at the thought of watching a minimally trained screener perform a coerced external genital examination of my partner. YMMV.

 

[cove]

Lifting the security level in the US since 9/11 was a necessary evil.
Now they are picking up some of the bad apples and we dont need to hear much about it.
They do need techniques to protect passengers so just relax about this process.

 

[Will]

Lifting the security level in the US since 9/11 was a necessary evil.
Now they are picking up some of the bad apples and we dont need to hear much about it.
They do need techniques to protect passengers so just relax about this process.

So whatever they say is necessary, is necessary?

Quis costodiet ipsos custodes?

And btw, telling someone to 'just relax' about something that they find offensive is counterproductive.

 

[notzac]

Now they are picking up some of the bad apples and we dont need to hear much about it.
They do need techniques to protect passengers so just relax about this process.

They are picking up bad apples? You sure about that?
I agree they need effective techniques, however I'm still sceptical that a full body scanner is actually effective...

 

[cove]

Well Will,I travel to the US a bit because I have a home there and I am not knotted up inside about any attempt to stop hijackers and bombers.
If someone has statistics on apprehensions of bad people maybe today would be good time for some numbers.All I know is it greater than zero as I have seen people being taken away for questioning.

 

[medhead]

Well Will,I travel to the US a bit because I have a home there and I am not knotted up inside about any attempt to stop hijackers and bombers.
If someone has statistics on apprehensions of bad people maybe today would be good time for some numbers.All I know is it greater than zero as I have seen people being taken away for questioning.

Just to play devil's advocate on this. But being lead away for questioning doesn't mean that someone is bad. One of the most disturbing aspects of the USA is how it will switch into guilt until proven innocent mode and then go to extremes - perhaps extremism is needed to fight extremists. But it just doesn't sit well with trying to convince the world that one is on the moral high ground.

As for catching bad people Yousef Islam springs to mind. How bad is a man who sings about the peacetrain?
Other than picking up famous singers the anti-terror security measures are actually really effective for picking up criminals. It makes me wonder if we are stopping bad people or making it so that USA police don't have to do their job. Add to that idea, that people doing these terror things are going to off the radar types. First job and all that, just to make sure they aren't on any lists. Bit hard to catch people if you don't know you should be looking for them.

 

[medhead]

And how many people realise the risks of exposure to gamma radiation just from being in the aircraft at altitude anyway?

Exactly. Not many. But the key point is justification of the risk. Flying has a perceivable benefit that outweighs the risk of the radiation exposure, ignoring that generally extra cosmic radiation is considered background and hence isn't subject to controls.

The thing with whole body scanning is that they haven't been subjected to the justification principle of radiation protection. Instead they just say the doses are very low so don't worry about it. I can point to uranium mines that have equally very low doses to the public. However, I don't see the government or the public accepting "the doses are low don't worry about it".

Bit of a weakness for me, I believe in transparency and due process.

 

[drewbles]

Exactly. Not many. But the key point is justification of the risk. Flying has a perceivable benefit that outweighs the risk of the radiation exposure, ignoring that generally extra cosmic radiation is considered background and hence isn't subject to controls.

The thing with whole body scanning is that they haven't been subjected to the justification principle of radiation protection. Instead they just say the doses are very low so don't worry about it. I can point to uranium mines that have equally very low doses to the public. However, I don't see the government or the public accepting "the doses are low don't worry about it".

Bit of a weakness for me, I believe in transparency and due process.

As mentioned, the TSA are not putting any information out on this.

In addition, it is Ionising Radiation. That, in itself, is not something you want to be exposed to if you can avoid it. It's like X-Rays you have to take for dentists/doctor visits. You want a very very minimal amount of them, and the exposure time for an x-ray is significantly less than these scanners.

Flying has its risks with cosmic radiation that's a given, but for the average flight to LAX from AU I read somewhere that it's only the equivalent of a few x-rays (don't quote me it's just what I remember, am happy to be corrected).

75 odd seconds of ionising radiation? No thanks! My skin is already cactus courtesy of a bad case of acne when I was younger and some bad drugs I took to cure it. I don't like the thought of having my already battered skin further battered by damaging radiation.

As much as it pains me, i'll take the pat down if it comes to it. I guess if the TSA agent conducting the search is attractive, it may make it more tolerable

As a side thought, what would the TSA do if there was a sudden mass boycott of the machines and everyone requested the pat down? Would they then mandate that pat downs are out and if you don't have the scan, you don't fly?

LOTFAP indeed (and AU is just following suit with their roll out next year).

 

[medhead]

As mentioned, the TSA are not putting any information out on this.

In addition, it is Ionising Radiation. That, in itself, is not something you want to be exposed to if you can avoid it. It's like X-Rays you have to take for dentists/doctor visits. You want a very very minimal amount of them, and the exposure time for an x-ray is significantly less than these scanners..

But the dose information is available. I should be able to link something tonight.

You can't compare the level of exposure in the way that you just did, based only on the exposure time. A normal X-ray is trying to imagine internal features by having the X-ray beam pas through a person with new dense things like bones blocking more radiation than tissue. So fairly high intensity radiation fields to get the penetration. Whereas backscatter X-ray doesn't need to penetrate and is much lower intensity. The dose is quoted at being less than what you get on your LAX flight.

 

[drewbles]

But the dose information is available. I should be able to link something tonight.

You can't compare the level of exposure in the way that you just did, based only on the exposure time. A normal X-ray is trying to imagine internal features by having the X-ray beam pas through a person with new dense things like bones blocking more radiation than tissue. So fairly high intensity radiation fields to get the penetration. Whereas backscatter X-ray doesn't need to penetrate and is much lower intensity. The dose is quoted at being less than what you get on your LAX flight.

Whilst you are correct in backscatter vs penetrating x-rays, many people who are experts in radiography (I, will freely admit, am not), they've stated that due to the fact the skin tends to absorb x-rays so readily when performed in the backscatter method, that your skin may be absorbing a lot more radiation than it would if it was a proper x-ray. In a nutshell, they said that whilst the dose may be safe for a 'total body exposure', the fact that the dose is only being absorbed by the skin and nothing else, may actually increase the real dose by around 20 times.

As I say, i'm no expert, but ionising radiation = bad regardless of how you look at it.

And thank you for correcting me (I live to learn and do admit my mistakes, unlike some others )

 

[medhead]

Whilst you are correct in backscatter vs penetrating x-rays, many people who are experts in radiography (I, will freely admit, am not), they've stated that due to the fact the skin tends to absorb x-rays so readily when performed in the backscatter method, that your skin may be absorbing a lot more radiation than it would if it was a proper x-ray. In a nutshell, they said that whilst the dose may be safe for a 'total body exposure', the fact that the dose is only being absorbed by the skin and nothing else, may actually increase the real dose by around 20 times.

As I say, i'm no expert, but ionising radiation = bad regardless of how you look at it.

And thank you for correcting me (I live to learn and do admit my mistakes, unlike some others )

I should mention that I am a radiation safety expert. It is true that the radiation absorbed by the skin will e higher than the rest of the body for backscatter but it is still comparable using the standard dose measurement. This is basically done by first starting with the radiation field in air, applying a radiation weighting factor and then a tissue weighting factor. This website:
www.arpansa.gov.au/radiationprotection/factsheets/is_airportscreening.cfm

(I found it) provides a dose number of 0.0001 mSv. The skin dose limit is 50 mSv for public exposure.

It is a really small radiation dose. But there is still a risk and my objection remains that they haven't justified these devices in terms of the benefits.

 

[drewbles]

I should mention that I am a radiation safety expert. It is true that the radiation absorbed by the skin will e higher than the rest of the body for backscatter but it is still comparable using the standard dose measurement. This is basically done by first starting with the radiation field in air, applying a radiation weighting factor and then a tissue weighting factor. This website:
ARPANSA - Airport Passenger Screening Technologies

(I found it) provides a dose number of 0.0001 mSv. The skin dose limit is 50 mSv for public exposure.

It is a really small radiation dose. But there is still a risk and my objection remains that they haven't justified these devices in terms of the benefits.

Right. Expect all radiation related questions to flow your way from now on (and thanks for that info, most interesting!)

 

[drron]

Well Will,I travel to the US a bit because I have a home there and I am not knotted up inside about any attempt to stop hijackers and bombers.
If someone has statistics on apprehensions of bad people maybe today would be good time for some numbers.All I know is it greater than zero as I have seen people being taken away for questioning.

Well I have been taken away for questioning at LHR and mrsdrron was led off at FRA.Oh no we really are bad people!:shock:

 

[Flashback]

Well I have been taken away for questioning at LHR and mrsdrron was led off at FRA.Oh no we really are bad people!:shock:

That's just LON for you.. I've entered on train via Paris, train via Brussels and plane via LGW now and each time get grilled:!:

 

[cove]

Well I had heard a rumour that Mrsdrron was too far ahead in shopping so I can see why she could get stopped for a few minutes....to let others catch up.
I got interviewed in Israel about the infidels being everywhere and a CROC DUNDEE knife wasted the Dead Sea bath salts I thought I was taking home.
Maybe the infidels are out there and security is trying to protect us.Any way that is what I am hoping!If scanners help then lets do it.

 

[medhead]

(I found it) provides a dose number of 0.0001 mSv. The skin dose limit is 50 mSv for public exposure.

Right. Expect all radiation related questions to flow your way from now on (and thanks for that info, most interesting!)

But then I got it wrong.

The 0.0001 mSv dose is the effective whole body dose, the appropriate dose limit of that is 1 mSv. The dose relevant to the skin dose limit of 50 mSv would be 0.01 mSv. That's because of the tissue weighting factor for skin.

You might also be able to infer from that that exposure to skin contributes 1% to a whole body related dose, which is what you were saying that skin exposure to more penetrating radiation is only a small part of the overall dose.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

But then I got it wrong.

The 0.0001 mSv dose is the effective whole body dose, the appropriate dose limit of that is 1 mSv. The dose relevant to the skin dose limit of 50 mSv would be 0.01 mSv. That's because of the tissue weighting factor for skin.

You might also be able to infer from that that exposure to skin contributes 1% to a whole body related dose, which is what you were saying that skin exposure to more penetrating radiation is only a small part of the overall dose.

What would be a safe dose per day/week for frequent travellers who would be subject to a few scans daily/weekly? How quickly can the body absorb these doses of radiation? (Is there a cut off point, ie, 4 scans per 24 hours? Could transiting in a short space of time and being subjected to multiple scans cause problems?)

 

[Hvr]

I've been in CBR too long! When I saw the headline mentioning EPIC this is what I immediately thought of.

On a serious note we really need to get smarter about security. Increasingly useless checks and poisoning travellers isn't the way to improve security. Targeting specific threats and locations will move them about.

Maybe we need to start at the root cause of terrorism (remembering that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter).

At the moment we're looking at the manifestation of the problem rather than the root cause. At this rate we'll never understand the true causes of the problem.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Well I had heard a rumour that Mrsdrron was too far ahead in shopping so I can see why she could get stopped for a few minutes....to let others catch up.

LOL
Woman + shopping go hand in hand, like man + beer.

Maybe the infidels are out there and security is trying to protect us.Any way that is what I am hoping!If scanners help then lets do it.

Problem is, it depends which side of the world your looking from. If your Jewish/Israeli, then the Arabs are the infidels, if your an Arab, then Israel/Jews are the infidels. What a world we live in people?!?!?

Me, lets throw another shrimp on the BBQ, and where is the beer? LOL

 

[Oneworldplus2]

I've been in CBR too long! When I saw the headline mentioning EPIC this is what I immediately thought of.

I've been somewhere else tooooo long, don't know where, but when l saw EPIC, l thought of other stuff, like...

Epic....fail/win
View attachment 1416View attachment 1417View attachment 1418View attachment 1419