TSA Karma?Follow

Via Slashdot

Johns Hopkins: http://epic.org/privacy/backscatter/radiation_hopkins.pdf
TSA cancer: http://epic.org/privacy/backscatter/radiation_cluster_dosimeter.pdf
NIST:http://epic.org/privacy/backscatter/radiation_NIST_USAToday.pdf
see also: http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/epic_v_dhs_radiation.html


Basically, those full body scanners everyone was concerned about likely do cause cancer (who would have thought?), but what's more is that they appear to be quickly giving it to TSA employees working the machines as well!

Just rewards for strip searching incontinent, cancer stricken old women?

Well, even in the community that believed the dosages for the tested to be minimal, there has been fear that the prolonged exposure to employees might be vastly more dangerous. So it's not surprising.

[EDIT]

DAMMIT UGLY.

Edited, Jun 27th 2011 6:55pm by idiggory

To call it karma I think misses the true villain in the airline security saga. I doubt the people who are actually responsible for TSA policies and regulations spend any extended amount of time next to those machines. The victims here are the pawns who are simply doing what is mandated of them by federal law.

It's easier to yell at an overweight security guard than call up your congresscritter, but which one do you think could actually do something about it?

"I vas just followink orders!" has been shown to be an ineffective defense.

TSA doesn't have much choice. Worker protection laws are pretty clear. If their machines are presenting the potential to expose workers beyond allowable levels they have to provide monitoring and/or greater protections.

Sounds like the work hasn't been done on insuring the rad release from the machines. The 100mrem/year exposure is for the general public. The occupational limits (whole body) is 5rems/year (5000mrems). But it's a whole lot more complicated as there are different limits depending on the part of the body that may be getting exposed. Consider though that some medical procedures, CT's particularly can dose the patient up to 3000 millirems - that's the excessive end but 500-1000 millirems is normal for some common medical procedures.

Still, I'm sure the machines, unless they're totally failed are not presenting enough radiation to come close to these standards - if they did, they'd have to be operating as such.

As far as a cancer cluster - I don't think they'll prove it. Cancer is risk based. There is never a smoking gun that says "I'm the cause of the is cancer". It took 50+ years of hard data before the health officials would declare cigarettes cancer causing.

edit - I just finished, and even got signed off on(!), a radiation policy for my agency...bleh.


Edited, Jun 28th 2011 6:15pm by Elinda

They already found that many of the machines were putting out 10x the radiation they were supposed to, given the focus at the time of introduction was on passenger/pilot safety and privacy; they lied about the initial tests done by the NIST; they ignored the John Hopkins findings (that there is a region that would output ~5.8x the annual public dose limit for employees under normal conditions); and the FDA just justified the radiation danger as "outweighed by the societal benefit" in this case; I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the testing done was insufficient for workers not in the expected path.

I suppose we'll see as the court case progresses though. They don't need to prove that the scans definitely caused
cancer in this situation, just that the levels of exposure were significantly higher than reported and/or presented a unsafe working environment due to lack of adequate protection.

Edited, Jun 28th 2011 2:22pm by shintasama

Yeah, that's about the size of it.

So is "But Timmy did it first!", but I fail to see how it relates.

The quote check-off box is a pain in the ***.

There are lots of ingredients in cigs that are known carcinogens. There are plenty of good tox studies that prove it. Plus we're not content to eat the buggers, we vaporize them so we can send all them toxins straight to our lungs. Still smoking a cig a day is not likely gonna cause you cancer - a pack a day will cause many cancers. Radiation causes cancer too. That's proven as well. But ya know....it's the dose that makes the poison.

Cancer clusters are tough though to find find cause. Cancer's latency combined with all the other individual but variable risk factors and demographics, the variations in tumors, etc, etc, make it difficult to really prove a cause after the fact.

I challenge to to find a single case, in the entire annals of recorded history, where cigarette smoking can be proven to be the cause of a cancer. I already know there aren't any, I'd just like to see if you feel like being that pisser looking for the corner of a round room.

I'm hating the quote check off box more and more with every quote I post.

I never claimed that you could undeniably prove a single case of cancer to smoking cigs. I did say there are many good studies that show that cigarette smoke causes cancer in animals. There are many more studies of individual compounds that show the same thing.

Then there is the population data that proves it is a strong risk factor. That's enough for me.

Are you saying you don't think smoking can cause cancer?

You don't have to use it, there is a ""Original link at the top of the reply box if you're used to that.