Napolitano's Lies
Steve Watson writes at Prisonplanet that the TSA and Janet Napolitano "publicly mischaracterized" the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, claiming that NIST had tested and confirmed the safety of full body scanners:
Internal emails between NIST and the DHS, obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), show how NIST was "a little concerned" by a USA Today article published November 15, 2010, in which Janet Napolitano, the head of DHS, claimed that NIST had "affirmed the safety" of the airport scanners.In the private email response, NIST stated that the Institute had not, in fact, tested full body scanners at all for safety, and that the Institute does not even undertake product testing.
The email (below) states that the director of NIST was "not looking for corrections", but wished to "offer clarification", that the agency "doesn't want any mischaracterization of their work continued."
Redacted emails at the link.
Napolitano also claimed that the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory had also affirmed the safety of the scanners, but another EPIC obtained shows that the Johns Hopkins study actually found that radiation zones around body scanners could exceed the "General Public Dose Limit":
At the time we pointed out that Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at the Johns Hopkins school of medicine had publicly stated two days previously that "statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays"."...we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner," Love said.
In addition, several other scientists have continued to speak out over the health hazards associated with the x-ray technology, noting that the body scanners are far from safe.
It is now even more clear that Napolitano's statements to the public regarding the body scanners were misleading at best, and at worst were outright lies.
All those who've been going through the scanners on the government's word they're safe, aren't you feeling a little scammed now? Maybe you can turn this into a good thing, and come to understand that bureaucracy's job is promoting and strengthening bureaucracy, not looking out for little old you.
There are so many women to hate in public life (just as so many men)... Lord knows Pelosi has cost more money. But there's something about Napolitano that puts her at the top of my list every time. She's so obviously just an unprincipled, careerist monster...
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2011 12:50 AM
It's not as though we weren't warned. When she was governor of Arizona, she installed spy cams on the freeways, the first state to do so. And she was in favor of spy cams and plate recognition and face recognition at the borders.
No, not the border with Mexico, the borders with California, New Mexico, and Utah.
I called her Spy Cam Jan, and her behavior only has grown worse.
jerry at July 7, 2011 1:43 AM
Annnnd once more: look up the "General Public Dose Limit".
THINK about what "dose" means. It's actually a dose rate times time. The tactics for avoiding exposure all involve Time, Distance, Shielding. I hope those are obvious, but let me know if not.
If this is not mentioned, your reading is not complete.
Now, part of this is reason for gibbering fear: you cannot know if that new cancer case was the result of exposure to a scanner, the result of exposure flying across country or of living in Denver, and fear of the unknown is alwasy good for Kleenex sales.
Actually, chemicals have a better chance of causing cancer in your very own precious body, but if you're like the public, you don't care about that. Read the ingredients in shampoo, mouthwash, cereal, cigarettes...
Oh yeah. There would be some irony for ya - a smoker complaining about the scanner...
Better to remember what I've said before. The ALARA principle is that radiation workers NEVER be exposed without measurable gain.
And that's the WORKERS. They are further commanded NOT to expose the public whatsoever, and in fact our safety analyses at work are based on boundaries between us and the public.
When there is no benefit, there shalt be no exposure. That's the real reason for eliminating the scanners.
Think about this, too: if the scanners were really off, but a program was installed to display a video resembling the person in the scanner, the deterrent would be the same even when detection - what there is of it - is turned off. I could change the scanner to an infrared detector and adjust the imager to look like an x-ray, and nobody but me would know. You don't carry an Electronic Personal Dosimeter, do you?
Radwaste at July 7, 2011 2:57 AM
On such matters, I trust you precisely as far as I can throw you.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2011 3:31 AM
I've never considered the relative safety of the scanners to be significant. Far more important is that submitting to a strip-search is beneath the dignity of a free man, and it needs to stop.
Bill McNutt at July 7, 2011 6:22 AM
Napolitano is a piece of work, isn't she? The more I look into it, the more she looks like this administration's version of Janet Reno.
And while I'm here, I want to vouch for the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab guys. The APL is every bit as renown in the astrophysics and aerospace field as the medical school is in the medicine field, and deservedly so. I did a bit of work with APL some years ago on characterizing the effects of ionizing radiation on commercial microprocessors, and I can say that the APL folks are top notch.
Cousin Dave at July 7, 2011 7:46 AM
It's the incompetence.
Pelosi, for all her faults (and they're many), was a brutally effective Speaker of the House (at least in getting her agenda passed).
Palin (equal time for those of you that hate her) was a competent governor of Alaska.
Boxer, although one of the dimmest bulbs in the Senate, manages to get her voice heard and wields significant influence.
Napolitano, however, projects no air of competence. Her ineptitude is as seemingly limitless as her appetite for power and self-glorification.
Conan the Grammarian at July 7, 2011 8:58 AM
"On such matters, I trust you precisely as far as I can throw you."
Fortunately - if you're talking to me - you don't have the means to determine anything about this, possibly because you lack the temperament. I've been straightforward about everything to do with exposure, and my workplace's practices are a matter of public record.
Radiological exposure is firmly in the realm of physics. It does not rely on your opinion of either it, me or the industry, my part of which is trying to immobilize it so it doesn't get to...
...my house. Which is not all that far from yours for this sort of thing.
Dudgeon you may have, but it is not all that high.
Radwaste at July 7, 2011 3:40 PM
> I've been straightforward about everything
If impenetrable, which is part of the problem. There's this sense that dick-swinging is your highest priority.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2011 4:42 PM
Impenetrable?
You need me to explain what radiation is - again? Or are you complaining because you got it the first time and you're mad that I'm busting people for publishing only part of the story - again?
You have chastised others for "there's this sense" pretension. Basically it means your um, role, isn't big enough for you, right?
Gee. I didn't think you'd pout because I didn't gush about your return. I was getting around to it, but now...
I'm not your enemy. You're just stuck in this situation. Really. Look stuff up.
I'm not sorry for you at all because you've generated your own problem, and I didn't do anything whatsoever to rate such a comment, because everything I comment on can be researched and thus checked.
Radwaste at July 7, 2011 8:54 PM
> everything I comment on can be researched
> and thus checked.
They're the same thing. See what I mean?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 7, 2011 8:57 PM
"They're the same thing. See what I mean?"
Okay. You write beautifully, but you're not picky. Research is more than just checking what others say, which is why I made the distinction.
I hope the extra syllables didn't hurt you.
And work on that trust thing. If you go look it up, and I'm right, then I'm not the one the doubt's coming from.
Radwaste at July 8, 2011 5:48 PM
No, these are flatly matters of integrity. It would be fun to have someone in your business who could be trusted... Alas.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 8, 2011 8:26 PM
Well, notice one thing right away. You've made lots of posts with nice things to say about matters of opinion, but you don't post about your work or the industry.
Maybe it's top secret?
"Secret" means "they're trying to screw me over", doesn't it?
So, why haven't I seen a lot about your profession? Hiding it, are you?
I don't have a job where my opinion counts. Physics does. In every case, when people ignore the physics, they suffer, either physically or economically.
Then, some manufacture suffering. You simply don't know how radiation works, and though you can point at people trying to hide what they do in the field, that's not me. Actually, only the laziest of crotch-grabbing couch potatoes would fail to notice that there isn't anything at all secret about any nuclear process - only two things are protected: the location of Significant Nuclear Material and the current state of the arts.
Hollywood people are useless, moneygrubbing panderers who steal the ideas of others and employ flashy tricks to distract the public from their civic duty. It would be nice to find one of them I could trust, but alas...
If you have a trust problem, I suggest again that it emanates from your location, and you are projecting.
You should stop that, regardless of the result, because it's an attempt to shift responsibility to others.
Radwaste at July 14, 2011 4:28 PM
Leave a comment