Full Body Scanners - Who has an issue being scanned?

[medhead]

It's efficient and effective and if it makes my flying experience safer - i'm all for it.

Given the rate of false positives with the trial of these things in Australia, it is hard to agree they are efficient and effective. But the real question is whether it is more efficient and/or effective than existing security measures. Answering that question will tell us whether it makes flying safer. Introducing something that is only as good as the existing technology is not going to give us an improvement.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[beardoc]

I personally go with the millimetre-wave scanners in the US, because they're non-ionising radiation, whilst I go with a pat-down when presented with a backscatter X-Ray machine. I already have a background ionising radiation dose through work, and I don't need to be exposed to any more.

 

[Princess Fiona]

The "random selection" was operating beautifully in UK airports during my recent visit. 70 and 80 year old women being subjected to the full groping pat down.:shock: This airport pantomime seems such a farce. Surely the intel on known security threats could help shape a less intrusive and more targeted approach to security.

I couldn't agree with you more. LHR is a dreadful place to negotiate.
The problem I think is that the universal screening process is still regarded as safer than pre-screening /profiling passengers and it is of course much more palatable to the Political Correctness Police

 

[medhead]

I personally go with the millimetre-wave scanners in the US, because they're non-ionising radiation, whilst I go with a pat-down when presented with a backscatter X-Ray machine. I already have a background ionising radiation dose through work, and I don't need to be exposed to any more.

Of course the dose from a backscatter scan is about the same as the dose from eating a banana (radioactive potassium). So worth keeping in perspective.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[v8Statesman]

Of course the dose from a backscatter scan is about the same as the dose from eating a banana (radioactive potassium). So worth keeping in perspective.

Not that I am doubting you, but you have any credible scientific links to show this?

 

[medhead]

Not that I am doubting you, but you have any credible scientific links to show this?

The radiation dose from a banana was much discussed at a scientific conference I attended a couple of weeks ago. Will have to find a reference.

Dose from backscatter FBS, I would suggest starting with ARPANSA, www.arpansa.gov.au They'll have the information there somewhere.

Ok not on the phone now here is a link to FBS dose http://www.arpansa.gov.au/RadiationProtection/Factsheets/is_AirportScreening.cfm

0.02 - 0.1 microseivert. A banana is 0.5 microseivert. Now to find a source.

I didn't have to look far and I was wrong, banana is 0.1 microseivert. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

 

[harvyk]

Well that will teach me to read the poll question and not just rely on the thread title...

To correct it, yes I have been scanned once (which is what I thought was the question)... I didn't care too much either way for the scaning (to me it "felt" no different than the metal detectors) but I hated the TSA person at LAX barking orders at me. Talk about a "you will respect my authoritah" type person.

In terms of if they are introduced here, I won't seek them out per say, but if I go through one it's no big loss.

 

[risky]

I left LAX on Friday with Mrs risky and the kids in tow, and the security check-point included a full-body scanner.

• I went through the FBS (can't recall any option to bypass it either)
• apart from the usual US requirement of shoes and belt [btw, I have never had to remove either elsewhere unless I have my steel-caps on], you also have to take off all top layers of clothes (jumpers, jackets, hats, etc) and empty your pockets (wallets, keys, handkerchiefs, etc)
• I still had a few papers, tissues, lollies, lip-balm in my pockets and nobody said anything
• I had to stand in the FBS for ~30-60s
• kids less than 12yo bypass the FBS, along with 1 supervising adult (Mrs risky on this case). They went through the regular metal detector.
• Kids less than 12yo are also allowed to keep their shoes on (at least 2 officials in each of the 3 US checkpoints we passed through made a special effort to point that out!)

The whole process was definitely slower, and appeared to me to be less efficient. Hopefully it will speed up as people get used to it.

There seems to have been little thought put into making the process run smoothly or better integrating it with other airport activities. Even small things like making sure there is enough physical room and hopefully bench space at the beginning and end of the processing stations to unpack and repack. Just for me, there was a backpack + 3 plastic trays (notebook [surely we don't still need to do this, especially since all the pads and smart devices are exempt], shoes + belt, jacket + pocket contents). The rest of the family probably had another 4-6 trays + 4 backpacks.

Anyway, I don't really care if we have to go through FBSs so long as the health impact truly is negligible as previous posters have discussed. I would prefer that it takes no more time and no more effort than the current system, but based on my one experience so far, unfortunately that seems unlikely!

 

[harvyk]

There seems to have been little thought put into making the process run smoothly or better integrating it with other airport activities.

Not to sound “conspiracy theorist” or anything, but no I expect there is little real desire to make the process smoother.

General public complain loudly and bitterly about the security process, but very few complain that it’s not tight enough.

By making it an annoying process, the general public believes that the powers that be are tough on security. If all the security work was done behind the scenes the average people would be likely to say “they are not taking threats seriously”, because we’re now so used to jumping through hoops as a matter of course when getting onto a plane.

 

[JohnK]

I am totally against the use of full body scanners and I do not believe they will improve throughput of the security queues or make airports more secure than what they are now.

 

[Hvr]

Providing they're safe to use I don't care.

And this is the big question. Are they really safe? If so let's prove it by insisting that all politicians, senior executives etc who would otherwise be given dispensation are forced to use it all the time.

Naturally the airport staff will have to go through it several times a day and they to must not be able to avoid it. We'll soon find out if it really is safe.

Also the efficacy of the equipment must be proven 100%.

And if anybody captures images and unlawfully releases them then a criminal prosecution must be put in place with severe punishment.

I don't believe the stories that images cannot be captured.

 

[medhead]

After a wonderful dinner meeting a mod as well as an excellent Pinot Noir, I saw this thread had a couple of more posts and I just had to pull out the computer. Firstly, I read a story in The Australian today that these machines have been approved for use in Australia. I'm not including a link as I'm having a bit of a protest about The Australian's pay model website.

I am totally against the use of full body scanners and I do not believe they will improve throughput of the security queues or make airports more secure than what they are now.

I agree, I have trouble believing they are more effective or efficient for screening.

And this is the big question. Are they really safe? If so let's prove it by insisting that all politicians, senior executives etc who would otherwise be given dispensation are forced to use it all the time.

Naturally the airport staff will have to go through it several times a day and they to must not be able to avoid it. We'll soon find out if it really is safe.

As a professional in radiation safety, my short answer is yes. This is independent of the other issues you raise about efficacy or privacy.

The longer answer is that it is all about risks. I've already mentioned that the dose from one scan may be considered equivalent to the radiation dose from eating 1 banana. 1 banana equivalent dose (BED). There is a theoretical risk associated with the dose due to one full body scan. This risk is based on studies of atomic bomb survivors who had doses of 200,000+ FBS. If we look at that risk factor and extend it down to the dose of a FBS then the risk is 1 in 200,000,000. So out of every 200 million people who have a full body scan in the next year, 1 person will theoretically die from cancer (the only known risk is cancer) sometime in their lifetime.

Now to put that risk in perspective - 50,000,000 of those 200 million people will die from cancer in their life. We also need to remember that 200 million of those 200 million people will die in their lifetime. So FBS is vastly safer than all the other risks that we face in our life.

There is an even longer answer, but I need much more pinot to get into that.....

Edit: yep got the number wrong 1 in 200 mil not 2 mil.

 

[Vinny]

The European Union has issues with being scanned.

Europe Bans X-Ray Body Scanners Used at U.S. Airports - ProPublica

 

[SeaWolf]

I had to go through one in Boston back in August (I guess I could have opted out) and while I viewed them negatively before, my experience with them strongly enforced that opinion.
Frankly, the whole process was somewhat creepy, especially the instruction to "spread your legs and put your arms in the air". I found security in general in US airports to be somewhat paranoid and fearful. They really are constantly scared of every little thing. I didn't find the introduction of the scanner to be especially inefficient, but then security at US airports is massively inefficient anyway, so it's hard to judge.

I do find it interesting that countries with more transparent and open processes than the US are rejecting the scanners on the basis that they're ineffective and have numerous false positives.
Germany decides against use of full body scanners
U.S. Airport Full Body Scanners Too Unreliable to Use, Germany Says - ABC News

 

[dfcatch]

I have no problem with them. And as far as TSA goes..... You get used to them after a while.

 

[medhead]

The European Union has issues with being scanned.

Europe Bans X-Ray Body Scanners Used at U.S. Airports - ProPublica

If you read the story, the issue is not with being scanned, as they still allow scanning using millimetre wave scanners. It is just with x-ray based scans, totally rediculous from a safety POV.

 

[Fantic125]

After a wonderful dinner meeting a mod as well as an excellent Pinot Noir, I saw this thread had a couple of more posts and I just had to pull out the computer. Firstly, I read a story in The Australian today that these machines have been approved for use in Australia. I'm not including a link as I'm having a bit of a protest about The Australian's pay model website.



I agree, I have trouble believing they are more effective or efficient for screening.



As a professional in radiation safety, my short answer is yes. This is independent of the other issues you raise about efficacy or privacy.

The longer answer is that it is all about risks. I've already mentioned that the dose from one scan may be considered equivalent to the radiation dose from eating 1 banana. 1 banana equivalent dose (BED). There is a theoretical risk associated with the dose due to one full body scan. This risk is based on studies of atomic bomb survivors who had doses of 200,000+ FBS. If we look at that risk factor and extend it down to the dose of a FBS then the risk is 1 in 200,000,000. So out of every 200 million people who have a full body scan in the next year, 1 person will theoretically die from cancer (the only known risk is cancer) sometime in their lifetime.

Now to put that risk in perspective - 50,000,000 of those 200 million people will die from cancer in their life. We also need to remember that 200 million of those 200 million people will die in their lifetime. So FBS is vastly safer than all the other risks that we face in our life.

There is an even longer answer, but I need much more pinot to get into that.....

Edit: yep got the number wrong 1 in 200 mil not 2 mil.

Another good reason to ban banana's.

"Scan's don't kill people, banana's kill people!"*

*(Slight modification of the US Gun lobby slogan there - hopefully I won't get shot for using it!)

No disrespect intended to Medhead nor am I questioning his knowledge - I just don't like banana's!

 

[medhead]

Another good reason to ban banana's.


No disrespect intended to Medhead nor am I questioning his knowledge - I just don't like banana's!

My wife does like them either.

How do you feel about brazil nuts?

Of course, I would say that living is the most dangerous thing we do.....

 

[ethernet]

I like medhead's logic, but the 'assuming the base numbers' are correct, and they round to the nearest 50 million is just suspect. We know new things now, that prove old studies incomplete. The smallness of the decimal points means numbers could be out a bit. Life expectancy has improved a lot for starters, and we have more hormone disrupters in out environment. I like the Banana index, but would a Crayfish trump that?
I also believe Hunter Valley Coal mining is turning out unexpected cancer results in that region.

Ref: Schneier on Security: Full Body Scanners

I also strongly agree with the logic - does it have a cost/risk benefit - if so, show us the numbers.
I suspect avoid all unnecessary ionizing radiation is also valid.
I also suspect bodybuilders/ roid users have a higher risk, and we are measuring deaths here, not birth deformities or survivors of cancer chop operations. They you have to overlay different cancer for different nationalities, and make assumptions that if they can afford to fly, they probably have better health care options

I am thinking it is a plot to boost American exports of scanning gear, that also has other indirect trade benefits.

In my thinking, this expensive white elephant should be used for people who signal at a drug swab, or to allow duty free liquids to pass. It really looks like a drug detection thing and nothing to do with safety.

 

[medhead]

I like medhead's logic, but the 'assuming the base numbers' are correct, and they round to the nearest 50 million is just suspect.

Actually it is not suspect. It is well known that approximately 25% of the population die due to cancer. That doesn't vary with life expectancy. However, old people get more cancer, so perhaps that percentage will increase as people live longer.

There is also a theoretical risk factor for ionizing radiation exposure it is fairly simple to multiple that to work out how many people would have to be scanned to get 1 theoretical dead. 200 million. One quarter of that is 50 million. If you like my logic then you must realise that spotting that 1 person is impossible. And it doesn't matter if it is 50 million exactly or 50323876.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.