Log In or Register

Follow SA

Subscribe & get Selections on Evolution FREE!

Subscribe Buy This Issue
Search ScientificAmerican.com

Subscribe to Digital Give a Gift

Subscribe

News & Features

Blogs

Multimedia

Education

Citizen Science

Topics

Magazines

Home News News | Health Tweet

ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. Glossed Over Cancer Concerns Associated with Airport X-Ray Scanners
Experts say the dose from the backscatter is negligible when compared with naturally occurring background radiation, but a linear model shows even such trivial amounts increase the number of cancer cases
By Michael Grabell and ProPublica | November1,2011| 16

Follow Scientific American

ADVERTISEMENT

Scientific American Newsletter

Share Email Print

Get weekly coverage delivered to your inbox.

Enter your email address Sign Up Now

Look for a PBS NewsHour story on X-ray body scanners, reported in conjunction with ProPublica, to air later this month.

Latest Headlines
On Sept. 23, 1998, a panel of radiation safety experts gathered at a Hilton hotel in Maryland to evaluate a new device that could detect hidden weapons and contraband. The machine, known as the Secure 1000, beamed X-rays at people to see underneath their clothing. One after another, the experts convened by the Food and Drug Administration raised questions about the machine because it violated a longstanding principle in radiation safety that humans shouldnt be Xrayed unless there is a medical benefit. I think this is really a slippery slope,said Jill Lipoti, who was the director of New Jerseys radiation protection program. The device was already deployed in prisons; what was next, she and others asked courthouses, schools, airports? I am concerned with expanding this type of product for the traveling public,said another panelist, Stanley Savic, the vice president for safety at a large electronics company. I think that would take this thing to an entirely different level of public health risk.
Mathematics - Algebra and Statistics and more - at ScienceOnline2012 Image: TSA.gov The Jolt's on You: Turn-of-Last-Century Prank Machines Reveal "Shocking" Hazing Practices [Slide Show]
Features 2 hours ago

Bigger Plates, More FoodOr Is It the Other Way Around?

Scientific American Magazine 3hoursago| 1

Does Science Need More Compelling Stories to Foster Public Trust?

Observations 16 hours ago

Most Read Most Commented

Latest Posts by SA Editors

Information, data and technology at ScienceOnline2012
STAFF A Blog Around The Clock 3 hours ago

#SciAmBlogs Tuesday - asteroid miss, GPS in court, Siri and more...

STAFF The Network Central 10 hours ago

The machines inventor, Steven W. Smith, assured the panelists that it was highly unlikely that the device would see widespread use in the near future. At the time, only 20 machines were in operation in the entire country. The places I think you are not going to see these in the next five years is lowersecurity facilities, particularly power plants, embassies, courthouses, airports and governments,Smith said. I would be extremely surprised in the next five to 10 years if the Secure 1000 is sold to any of these. Today, the United States has begun marching millions of airline passengers through

STAFF A Blog Around The Clock 18 hours ago

Understanding Your Mind Is Mission Critical

STAFF Streams of Consciousness 20 hours ago

#SciAmBlogs Monday - hobbits, baby mammoths, chimps, laughter and more...

STAFF The Network Central Nov 8, 2011

Latest from SA Blog Network

the X-ray body scanners, parting ways with countries in Europe and elsewhere that have concluded that such widespread use of even low-level radiation poses an unacceptable health risk. The government is rolling out the X-ray scanners despite having a safer alternative that the Transportation Security Administration says is also highly effective.
Email Address

YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.

A ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation of how this decision was made shows that in post-9/11 America, security issues can trump even long-established medical conventions. The final call to deploy the X-ray machines was made not by the FDA, which regulates drugs and medical devices, but by the TSA, an agency whose primary mission is to prevent terrorist attacks.

Name

Address 1

Address 2

City

Research suggests that anywhere from six to 100 U.S. airline passengers each year could get cancer from the machines. Still, the TSA has repeatedly defined the scanners as safe,glossing over the accepted scientific view that even low doses of ionizing radiation the kind beamed directly at the body by the X-ray scanners increase the risk of cancer. Even though its a very small risk, when you expose that number of people, theres a potential for some of them to get cancer,said Kathleen Kaufman, the former radiation management director in Los Angeles County, who brought the prison X-rays to the FDA panels attention. About 250 X-ray scanners are currently in U.S. airports, along with 264 body scanners that use a different technology, a form of low-energy radio waves known as millimeter waves. Robin Kane, the TSAs assistant administrator for security technology, said that no one would get cancer because the amount of radiation the X-ray scanners emit is minute. Having both technologies is important to create competition, he added. Its a really, really small amount relative to the security benefit youre going to get, Kane said. Keeping multiple technologies in play is very worthwhile for the U.S. in getting that cost-effective solution and being able to increase the capabilities of technology because you keep everyone trying to get the better mousetrap. Determined to fill a critical hole in its ability to detect explosives, the TSA plans to have one or the other operating at nearly every security lane in America by 2014. The TSA has designated the scanners for primaryscreening: Officers will direct every passenger, including children, to go through either a metal detector or a body scanner, and the passengers only alternative will be to request a physical pat-down. How did the United States swing from considering such X-rays taboo to deeming them safe enough to scan millions of people a year? A new wave of terrorist attacks using explosives concealed on the body, coupled with the scannerslow dose of radiation, certainly convinced many radiation experts that the risk was justified. But other factors helped the machines gain acceptance. Because of a regulatory Catch-22, the airport X-ray scanners have escaped the oversight required for X-ray machines used in doctorsoffices and hospitals. The reason is that the scanners do not have a medical purpose, so the FDA cannot subject them to the rigorous evaluation it applies to medical devices. Still, the FDA has limited authority to oversee some non-medical products and can set mandatory safety regulations. But the agency let the scanners fall under voluntary standards set by a nonprofit group heavily influenced by industry.

6
State

Zip

Continue

ADVERTISEMENT

Science Jobs of the Week

Research Scientist Braskem - Biotechnology Laboratory in Campinas, Brazil Scientific American Intern NPG_US Research Associate University of Glasgow Faculty Positions in Biology Cornell University Postdoctoral Research Fellows IASS, Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V. MorejobsfromNaturejobs.com
ADVERTISEMENT

As for the TSA, it skipped a public comment period required before deploying the scanners. Then, in defending them, it relied on a small body of unpublished research to insist the machines were safe, and ignored contrary opinions from U.S. and European authorities that recommended precautions, especially for pregnant women. Finally, the manufacturer, Rapiscan Systems, unleashed an intense and sophisticated lobbying campaign, ultimately winning large contracts. Both the FDA and TSA say due diligence has been done to assure the scannerssafety. Rapiscan says it won the contract because its technology is superior at detecting threats. While the TSA says X-ray and millimeter-wave scanners are both effective, Germany decided earlier this year not to roll out millimeter-wave machines after finding they produced too many false positives. Most of the news coverage on body scanners has focused on privacy, because the machines can produce images showing breasts and buttocks. But the TSA has since installed software to make the images less graphic. While some accounts have raised the specter of radiation, this is the first report to trace the history of the scanners and document the gaps in regulation that allowed them to avoid rigorous safety evaluation. Little research on cancer risk of body scanners Humans are constantly exposed to ionizing radiation, a form of energy that has been shown to strip electrons from atoms, damage DNA and mutate genes, potentially leading to cancer. Most radiation comes from radon, a gas produced from naturally decaying elements in the ground. Another major source is cosmic radiation from outer space. Many common items, such as smoke detectors, contain tiny amounts of radioactive material, as do exit signs in schools and office buildings. As a result, the cancer risk from any one source of radiation is often small. Outside of nuclear accidents, such as that at Japan's Fukushima plant, and medical errors, the health risk comes from cumulative exposure. In Rapiscans Secure 1000 scanner, which uses ionizing radiation, a passenger stands between two large blue boxes and is scanned with a pencil X-ray beam that rapidly moves left to right and up and down the body. In the other machine, ProVision, made by defense contractor L-3 Communications, a passenger enters a chamber that looks like a round phone booth and is scanned with millimeter waves, a form of low-energy radio waves, which have not been shown to strip electrons from atoms or cause cancer. Only a decade ago, many states prohibited X-raying a person for anything other than a medical exam. Even after 9/11, such non-medical X-raying remains taboo in most of the industrialized world. In July, the European Parliament passed a resolution that security scanners using ionizing radiation should be prohibitedbecause of health risks. Although the United Kingdom uses the X-ray machine for limited purposes, such as when passengers trigger the metal detector, most developed countries have decided to forgo body scanners altogether or use only the millimeter-wave machines. While the research on medical X-rays could fill many bookcases, the studies that have been done on the airport X-ray scanners, known as backscatters, fill a file no more than a few inches thick. None of the main studies cited by the TSA has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the gold standard for scientific research. Those tests show that the Secure 1000 delivers an extremely low dose of radiation, less than 10 microrems. The dose is roughly one-thousandth of a chest X-ray and equivalent to the cosmic radiation received in a few minutes of flying at typical cruising altitude. The TSA has used those measurements to say the machines are safe. Most of what researchers know about the long-term health effects of low levels of radiation comes from studies of atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By

charting exposure levels and cancer cases, researchers established a linear link that shows the higher the exposure, the greater risk of cancer. Some scientists argue the danger is exaggerated. They claim low levels stimulate the repair mechanism in cells, meaning that a little radiation might actually be good for the body. But in the authoritative report on low doses of ionizing radiation, published in 2006, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the research and concluded that the preponderance of research supported the linear link. It found no compelling evidencethat there is any level of radiation at which the risk of cancer is zero. Radiation experts say the dose from the backscatter is negligible when compared to naturally occurring background radiation. Speaking to the 1998 FDA panel, Smith, the inventor, compared the increased risk to choosing to visit Denver instead of San Diego or the decision to wear a sweater versus a sport coat. Using the linear model, even such trivial amounts increase the number of cancer cases. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a radiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, estimated that the backscatters would lead to only six cancers over the course of a lifetime among the approximately 100 million people who fly every year. David Brenner, director of Columbia Universitys Center for Radiological Research, reached a higher number potentially 100 additional cancers every year. Why would we want to put ourselves in this uncertain situation where potentially were going to have some cancer cases?Brenner asked. It makes me think, really, why dont we use millimeter waves when we dont have so much uncertainty? But even without the machines, Smith-Bindman said, the same 100 million people would develop 40 million cancers over the course of their lifetimes. In this sea of cancer cases, it would be impossible to identify the patients whose cancer is linked to the backscatter machines. How the scanners avoided strict oversight Although they deliberately expose humans to radiation, the airport X-ray scanners are not medical devices, so they are not subject to the stringent regulations required for diagnostic X-ray machines. If they were, the manufacturer would have to submit clinical data showing safety and effectiveness and be approved through a rigorous process by the FDA. If the machines contained radioactive material, they would have to report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But because it didnt fit into either category, the Secure 1000 was classified as an electronic product. The FDA does not review or approve the safety of such products. However, manufacturers must provide a brief radiation safety report explaining the dose and notify the agency if any overexposure is discovered. According to the FDA, no such incidents have been reported. Under its limited oversight of electronic products, the FDA could issue mandatory safety regulations. But it didnt do so, a decision that flows from its history of supervising electronics. Regulation of electronic products in the United States began after a series of scandals. From the 1930s to the 1950s, it was common for a child to go to a shoe store and stand underneath an X-ray machine known as a fluoroscope to check whether a shoe was the right fit. But after cases arose of a shoe models leg being amputated and store clerks developing dermatitis from putting their hands in the beam to adjust the shoe, the practice ended.

In 1967, General Electric recalled 90,000 color televisions that had been sold without the proper shielding, potentially exposing viewers to dangerous levels of radiation. The scandal prompted the creation of the federal Bureau of Radiological Health. That ultimately led to a lot more aggressive program,said John Villforth, who was the director of the bureau. Over the next decade, the bureau created federal safety standards for televisions, medical X-rays, microwaves, tanning beds, even laser light shows. But in 1982, the FDA merged the radiological health bureau into its medical-device unit. I was concerned that if they were to combine the two centers into one, it would probably mean the ending of the radiation program because the demands for medicaldevice regulation were becoming increasingly great,said Villforth, who was put in charge of the new Center for Devices and Radiological Health. As I sort of guessed, the radiation program took a big hit. The new unit became stretched for scarce resources as it tried to deal with everything from tongue depressors to industrial lasers. The government used to have 500 people examining the safety of electronic products emitting radiation. It now has about 20 people. In fact, the FDA has not set a mandatory safety standard for an electronic product since 1985. As a result, there is an FDA safety regulation for X-rays scanning baggage but none for X-rays scanning people at airports. Meanwhile, scientists began developing backscatter X-rays, in which the waves are reflected off an object to a detector, for the security industry. The Secure 1000 people scanner was invented by Smith in 1991 and later sold to Rapiscan, then a small security firm based in southern California. The first major customer was the California prison system, which began scanning visitors to prevent drugs and weapons from getting in. But the state pulled the devices in 2001 after a group of inmates' wives filed a class-action lawsuit accusing the prisons of violating their civil liberties. The U.S. Customs Service deployed backscatter machines for several years but in limited fashion and with strict supervision. Travelers suspected of carrying contraband had to sign a consent form, and Customs policy prohibited the scanning of pregnant women. The agency abandoned them in 2006, not for safety reasons but because smugglers had learned where the machines were installed and adapted their methods to avoid them, said Rick Whitman, the radiation safety officer for Customs until 2008. Yet, even this limited application of X-ray scanning for security dismayed radiation safety experts. In 1999, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, a nongovernmental organization, passed a resolution recommending that such screening be stopped immediately. The backscatter machines had also caught the attention of the 1998 FDA advisory panel, which recommended that the FDA establish government safety regulations for people scanners. Instead, the FDA decided to go with a voluntary standard set by a trade group largely comprising manufacturers and government agencies that wanted to use the machines. Establishing a mandatory standard takes an enormous amount of resources and could take a decade to publish,said Dan Kassiday, a longtime radiation safety engineer at the FDA.

In addition, since the mid-1990s, Congress has directed federal safety agencies to use industry standards wherever possible instead of creating their own. The FDA delegated the task of establishing the voluntary standards to the American National Standards Institute. A private nonprofit that sets standards for many industries, ANSI convened a committee of the Health Physics Society, a trade group of radiation safety specialists. It was made up of 15 people, including six representatives of manufacturers of X-ray body scanners and five from U.S. Customs and the California prison system. There were few government regulators and no independent scientists. In contrast, the FDA advisory panel was also made up of 15 people five representatives from government regulatory agencies, four outside medical experts, one labor representative and five experts from the electronic products industry, but none from the scanner manufacturers themselves. I am more comfortable with having a regulatory agency either federal or the states develop the standards and enforce them,Kaufman said. Such regulators, she added, have only one priority, and thats public health. A representative of the Health Physics Society committee said that was its main priority as well. Most of the committees evaluation was completed before 9/11. The standard was published in 2002 and updated with minor changes in 2009. Ed Bailey, chief of Californias radiological health branch at the time, said he was the lone voice opposing the use of the machines. But after 9/11, his views changed about what was acceptable in pursuit of security. The whole climate of their use has changed,Bailey said. The consequence of something being smuggled on an airplane is far more serious than somebody getting drugs into a prison. Are Inspections Independent? While the TSA doesnt regulate the machines, it must seek public input before making major changes to security procedures. In July, a federal appeals court ruled that the agency failed to follow rule-making procedures and solicit public comment before installing body scanners at airports across the country. TSA spokesman Michael McCarthy said the agency couldnt comment on ongoing litigation. The TSA asserts there is no need to take additional precautions for sensitive populations, even pregnant women, following the guidance of the congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements. But other authorities have come to the opposite conclusion. A report by Frances radiation safety agency specifically warned against screening pregnant women with the X-ray devices. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administrations medical institute has advised pregnant pilots and flight attendants that the machine, coupled with their time in the air, could put them over their occupational limit for radiation exposure and that they might want to adjust their work schedules accordingly. No similar warning has been issued for pregnant frequent fliers. Even as people scanners became more widespread, government oversight actually weakened in some cases. Inspections of X-ray equipment in hospitals and industry are the responsibility of state regulators and before 9/11, many states also had the authority to randomly inspect machines in airports. But that ended when the TSA took over security checkpoints from the airlines.

Instead, annual inspections are done by Rapiscan, the scannersmanufacturer. As a regulator, I think theres a conflict of interest in having the manufacturer and the facility inspect themselves,Kaufman said. Last year, in reaction to public anger from members of Congress, passengers and advocates, the TSA contracted with the Army Public Health Command to do independent radiation surveys. But email messages obtained in a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group, raise questions about the independence of the Army surveys. One email sent by TSA health and safety director Jill Segraves shows that local TSA officials were given advance notice and allowed to pick and choosewhich systems the Army could check. That email also suggests that Segraves considered the Rapiscan inspectors a valuable public-relations asset: They are our radiation myth busters,she wrote to a local security director. Some TSA screeners are concerned about their own radiation exposure from the backscatters, but the TSA has not allowed them to wear badges that could measure it, said Milly Rodriguez, health and safety specialist for the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents TSA officers. We have heard from members that sometimes the technicians tell them that the machines are emitting more radiation than is allowed,she said. McCarthy, the TSA spokesman, said the machines are physically incapable of producing radiation above the industry standard. In the email, he said, the inspections allow screeners to ask questions about radiation and address concerns about specific machines. The companys lobbying campaign While the TSA maintains that the body scanners are essential to preventing attacks on airplanes, it only began rolling them out nine years after 9/11. After the attempted shoe-bombing in December 2001, the federal government conducted a trial of a Rapiscan backscatter at the Orlando International Airport. But the revealing images drew protests that the machines amounted to a virtual strip search. The TSA considered the scanners again after two Chechen women blew up Russian airliners in 2004. Facing a continued outcry over privacy, the TSA instead moved forward with a machine known as a pufferbecause it released several bursts of air on the passengersclothes and analyzed the dislodged particles for explosives. But after discovering the machines were ineffective in the field and difficult to maintain, the TSA canceled the program in 2006. Around that time, Rapiscan began to beef up its lobbying on Capitol Hill. It opened a Washington, D.C., office and, according to required disclosures, more than tripled its lobbying expenditures in two years, from less than $130,000 in 2006 to nearly $420,000 in 2008. It hired former legislative aides to Rep. David Price, D-N.C., then chairman of the homeland security appropriations subcommittee, and to Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. It started a political action committee and began contributing heavily to Price; Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., then head of the homeland security committee; Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., also on that committee; and Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., the top Republican on the Senate appropriations committee.

In addition, it opened a new North Carolina plant in Prices district and expanded its operations in Ocean Springs, Miss., and at its headquarters in Torrance, Calif., in Harmans district. Less than a month after U.S. Senator Trent Lott and other local leaders helped officially open Rapiscan Systemsnew Ocean Springs factory,Lotts office announced in a news release in late 2006, the company has won a $9.1 million Department of Defense contract. But Rapiscan still hadnt landed a major contract to roll out its X-ray body scanners in commercial airports. Indeed, in 2007, with new privacy filters in place, the TSA began a trial of millimeter-wave and backscatter machines at several major airports, after which the agency opted to go with the millimeter-wave machines. The agency said health concerns werent a factor. But with the 2009 federal stimulus package, which provided $300 million for checkpoint security machines, the TSA began deploying backscatters as well. Rapiscan won a $173 million, multiyear contract for the backscatters, with an initial $25 million orderfor150systemstobemadeinMississippi. Three other companies American Science & Engineering, Tek84 Engineering Group and Valley Forge Composite Technologies make X-ray scanners, but none are used by the TSA.Peter Kant, executive vice president for Rapiscan, said the company expanded its lobbying because its business was increasingly affected by the government. Theres a lot of misinformation about the technology; theres a lot of questions about how various inspection technologies work,he said. And we needed a way to be able to provide that information and explain the technology and how it works, and thats what lobbying is. The lawmakers either declined to comment or said the lobbying, campaign contributions and local connections had nothing to do with the TSAs decision to purchase Rapiscan machines. The TSA said the contract was bid competitively and that the winning machines had to undergo comprehensive research and testing phases before being deployed. While the scanners were appearing in more and more airports, few passengers went through them, because they were used mostly for random screening or to resolve alarms from the metal detector. That changed on Christmas Day 2009, when a Nigerian man flying to Detroit tried to ignite a pouch of explosives hidden in his underwear. Following the foiled Great Balls of Firesuicide bombing, as the New York Postdubbed it, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano ramped up plans to roll out body scanners nationwide. Members of Congress and aviation security experts also pushed heavily for the TSA to install more machines that could detect explosives on passengers. Harman sent a letter to Napolitano, noting that Rapiscan was in her district. I urge you to expedite installation of scanning machines in key airports,Harman wrote in the letter, which was first reported by the website CounterPunch. If you need additional funds, I am ready to help. Michael Chertoff, who had supported body scanners while secretary of Homeland Security, appeared frequently on TV advocating their use. In one interview, he disclosed that his consulting firm, Chertoff Group, had done work for Rapiscan, sparking accusations that he was trying to profit from his time as a government

servant. Despite the criticism, little has been revealed about the relationship. Rapiscan dismissed it, asserting that the consulting work had to do with international cargo and port security issues not aviation. There was nothing that was not above board,Kant said. His comments about passenger screening and these machines were simply his own and was nothing that we had engaged the Chertoff Group for. A public records request by ProPublica turned up empty: The Department of Homeland Security said it could not find any correspondence to or from Chertoff related to body scanners. DHS also said Chertoff did not use email. The Chertoff Group did not respond to requests for comment. The TSA plans to deploy 1,275 backscatter and millimeter-wave scanners covering more than half its security lanes by the end of 2012 and 1,800 covering nearly all the lanes by 2014. According to annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, OSI Systems, the parent company of Rapiscan, has seen revenue from its security division more than double since 2006 to nearly $300 million in fiscal year 2011. Miles OBrien and Kate Tobin of PBS NewsHour contributed to this report.

Post a Comment | Read Comments (16)

ReprintsandPermissions

Tweet

Articles You Might Also Like

What Is the Best Approach to Airport Security?

Have Post-9 / 1 1 Airport Screening Technologies Made Us Safer?

Preventable Deaths: Is U.S. Domestic Security and Public Health Spending Out of Balance?

9/11: 10 Years Later

Radiation Levels Explained: An Exposure Infographic

Handicaps in CAPPS

16 Comments
Show All | Jump To: 1-10 | 11-20 | Next

Add Comment
View Oldest to Newest 6

1. GilZw 04:20 PM 11/1/11

The danger from backscatter goes beyond the discussion here. You can read more about the danger on Wikipedia at this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gil_Zweig
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. Jazzism 07:37 PM 11/1/11

The threat is diminished so much the TSA has to retract 4/5's of their bullshit. Enough with molesting our kids, removing any dignity our elderly have left and suspect everyone under the sun as guilty until proven innocent. They get away with almost as much human rights abuses as insurance companies and George

Bush. Disband TSA and bring in another authority that wasn't created as a kneejerk reaction and can do a better job treating people than irradiating them as though they were a cancer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. sog001 08:05 PM 11/1/11

The scanner in the photograph accompanying this article is not a backscatter scanner, but rather a milliwave scanner. The least you could do is include the right photograph with the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. bvineyard 09:37 PM 11/1/11

I can offer a real life perspective on the intensity level of the airport scanners. After being pulled aside for private pat downs 4 out of 5 times this year, following the scanner check, I became alarmed because the TSA agents told me each time they saw something concealed near my navel. After discussing with my doctor I underwent a CAT scan to find the problem. It turns out an internal birth defect, a tube connecting the navel to the bladder did not dissipate after birth and this is showing up on the airport scanners. Initially the doctors and technicians agreed the airport scanner should not be set at a high enough level to see internal organs, but without doubt that is the case. Now I request a pat down instead of the scanner, they will pull me aside anyway, and I am convinced the radiation output is set at an unsafe level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. Nagnostic 11:26 PM 11/1/11

Sciam! How could you? You seem to be advertising opposition to Janet Napolitano's Homeland Security scheme! Don't you know you're breeding dissent, concerning the Big Zero administration's policies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. Mendrys 01:10 AM 11/2/11

Hear now, it's not fair to blame Bush for the deployment of these scanners. He did not make TSA policy decisions. They would have been rolled out no matter who was president at the time and no matter who took his place in 2008.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. Atomboy 05:30 AM 11/2/11

Of course they minimize the risk. This is the country that set off one nuclear blast after another in Nevada, knowing full well that radioactive fallout was dusting the entire country and sweeping offshore to circulate the planet. Our government acted as every corporation has acted; they used advertising to refocus people away from the lethal danger. Check out "American Ground Zero..." by Carole Gallagher. For a fictional portrayal of bureaucracy run amuck see Terry Gilliam's fine film, "Brazil." Prescient and frightening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. Frank of America 01:00 PM 11/2/11

Six additional cases of cancer per 100 million or even 100 additional cases of cancer per 100 million is an acceptable risk to avoid having an aircraft with 200-500 souls on-board go down in flames. If the scanners weren't deployed and a plane was taken down by a bomb the same people who are moaning about this would be up in arms because the TSA had a perfectly good technology and didn't use it. We can't have it both ways. Should there be some more rules about their use?

Perhaps. Independent inspections if done properly might be an improvement, perhaps the TSA staff should have radiation badges. That doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. TSA finds weapons every day and many are found using this technology. Complaining about the radiation when three minutes at 30,000 exposes us to more radiation than the machine is childish. When did we become such wimps? Criminy. If we were all so concerned about cancer we wouldn't smoke, drink and eat such unhealthy food. Now 'scuse me while I go for a smoke, an Irish Coffee and a burger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. Frank of America 01:41 PM 11/2/11

And - if I may be so bold - we will always be one step behind those who wish us harm until we straighten out our foreign policy. Blind allegiance to Israel and global corporate interests is not in our national interest. We need a much more balanced approach. Being the world's policeman sets us up as a target. If we had a more enlightened policy we would a) save money b) do more good c) cease being such a reviled entity around the world and less of a target.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. Stevilton 02:35 PM 11/2/11

To put a scan into perspective the estimated dose ranges from 0.015 Sv to 0.88 Sv. While flying, the expected dose from Sv per minute. cosmic rays is approximately 0.04

Therefore, the highest dose a person would receive from a scan is approximately equivalent to 22 minutes of air time. Often a lot less than the difference in dose received if a person took a direct flight, as opposed to transferring. Further, there is no evidence for elevated cancer risk below doses of 100 000uSV. For those of a scientific nature with access to the journal Radiology I highly recommend the following article: http://radiology.rsna.org/content/261/1/330.full and you can enjoy Dr. Brenner's "brilliant" reply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

| Jump To: 1-10 | 11-20 |

Add a Comment
You must log in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

Scientific American is a trademark of Scientific American, Inc., used with permission 2011 Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Advertise Special Ad Sections Science Jobs Partner Network International Editions

About Scientific American Press Room Site Map Terms of Use Privacy Policy

Subscribe Renew Your Subscription Buy Back Issues Products & Services Subscriber Customer Service Contact Us