Utter Crap Reporting By The LA Times On Porno Scanners
Hugo Martin is the LAT "reporter" responsible for the pile of turds under the lie of a headline, "TSA scanners pose negligible risk to passengers, new test shows":
Full-body scanners used for security screening at the nation's airports do not expose passengers to dangerous levels of radiation, according to a new independent analysis of the security devices.The study by the Marquette University College of Engineering concluded that radiation from so-called backscatter scanners passes beyond a passenger's skin to reach 29 different organs -- including the heart and brain. But the radiation levels are considerably lower than those of otherX-ray procedures such as mammograms, the study said.
The findings will be published in the next issue of Medical Physics, an international journal of medical physics research produced by the American Assn. of Physicists in Medicine.
The study, believed to be the first independent review of the scanners, is not likely to put to rest years of heated debate over the health risk of the machines operated by the Transportation Security Administration.
The TSA has submitted the scanners for testing by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and the U.S. Army Public Health Command. The tests concluded that the scanners posed no significant risk to passengers, but TSA critics have called for more independent studies.
The author of the Marquette study, assistant professor of biomedical engineering Taly Gilat Schmidt, did not test the actual machines. Instead, she based her conclusions on scanner radiation data released publicly by the TSA. She ran the numbers through simulation software that modeled how X-ray photons travel through a body.
Hi, we're the government and you should believe everything we say -- even though there's proof Janet Napolitano previously lied about the scannners being safe.
Medical scanners are tested daily. These scanners, which are in constant use, all day, every day, maybe get looked at once a year. Maybe.
I think it's possible we'll see massive cancer claims from TSA workers against the government (and thus, we taxpayers) in coming years. The morons manning the porno scanner in Detroit told me something along the lines of "Duh gubermint says they're safe."
(We're the government, and we're here to bend you over, and radioactively fuck you -- and screw you if you want your 4th Amendment rights or a lead apron in the process.)
Bill Fisher from TSA News Blog gets it right in the comments:
This is blatant TSA propaganda at its worst. A sample size of one data set is too small to be statistically significant and would not pass a middle school science class.This is the same bogus test they tried to peddle in March, 2011 from Smith-Bindman and no one believed that one either. She was even criticized by members of her University and professional associations for falsifying the results.
Further, the tests by NIST and APL did not say the scanners were safe, they concluded that the scanners met engineering criteria set by the manufacturer.
In fact Dr. Michael Love at the Department of Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine doesn't think the backscatter x-ray full body scanners are safe. He said "They [TSA] say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these [backscatter] x-rays."
A valid test will need to use real scanners needed to be randomly selected from operating scanners.
The fact that DHS/TSA made the data available to Marquette University confirms it is simply another attempt at a cover up in an effort to defy a Congressional mandate that the agency allow independent testing. The head of TSA agreed to testing six months ago and reneged. He should be held in contempt of Congress and jailed until a third party organization conducts test of operating scanners.
I'm going to qualify this statement by saying that I am NOT familiar with the data in question - at all.
That said, I must disagree with the statement, "A sample size of one data set is too small to be statistically significant and would not pass a middle school science class."
A data SET refers to a collection of data. For instance, you toss a coin in the air 20,000 times and record heads/tails for each toss. That's a data SET, and it can be used to compute the probability of heads (or tails) and test if the coin is fair (50/50) WITH STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
I *think* the author meant "one data point," which would indeed be significantly insignificant (like saying, "I tossed the coin once, it came up heads, so clearly it never comes up tails!").
Also note that a data SET does not have statistical significance. A set is a set and it just sits there - just like a set of objects.
One tests a null hypothesis (e.g. the probability of heads/tails are equal) against an alternative (e.g. heads is MORE likely than tails, or heads happens 52.6% of the time). One gets a probability (assuming the null) that the data set you actually GOT would be happen under the null. If it is really improbable (usually less than 5% probability) then it is considered "significant" (as in, it is significantly unlikely this would happen if the null is true, so we go with the alternative). Note that the particular alternative you are testing against does impact the way the computations are done, but I'll not go into detail here. Also, note that "significance" is rather an arbitrary number -not a magical place. It is convention.
Even THEN, this neither proves nor disproves anything. It's all probabilities. I COULD toss a coin 20,000 times and get heads by chance (not very likely, but it COULD happen).
All that said, I don't have a problem with the thinking behind this. Even if something is significant, it could still be random chance. Given the number of passengers traveling and individual susceptibilities to cancer, I would want several independent data sets examined individually to make sure it wasn't just "hey, 2 million heads in a row? That's weird!" I'd probably also want somebody to do a meta-data analysis over all the independent studies, but that's just me. I'd ALSO probably want them to do something like test pregnant mice... but then again, I'm opting for not going near the things myself... and I've been to a nuclear power plant.
Again, not disagreeing with the general premise. I won't go through one of those machines until my child-bearing ability is ancient history (X-rays are BAD for zygotes - why else would the dentist cover me in lead aprons and make me sign an affidavit saying I'm not pregnant just to take a bite-wing film?). I won't tell you what happens if you are a 30-something woman and need a sinus CT....
Shannon M. Howell at June 11, 2012 12:54 PM
So in essence, a study of a unknown computer simulation based on unverifiable numbers provided by the TSA "proves" the scanners are safe?
How do we know the numbers provided by the TSA are true?
How do we know the computers software accuratly tracks the level of radiation?
Why does it matter as the scanners havent found a god danm thing anyway?
lujlp at June 11, 2012 6:12 PM
Amy, I've already posted on this, and what I said stands. This is hysteria that simply does not stand up to a full minute of Web surfing. I'll link back for those who are susceptible to this fearmongering once I get back to the box with the bookmark in it.
Short story: fight for your rights. The scanner isn't killing you.
Radwaste at June 11, 2012 6:12 PM
It has been obvious from the beginning that the invasive assaults TSA makes in the name of security are nothing of the sort.
They are instead an attempt to get Americans accustomed to putting up with that sort of abuse ALL THE TIME.
TSA is openly discussing the same sort of security checksat bus stations, and even shopping malls.
Archaeopteryx at June 11, 2012 9:09 PM
During tests of TSA airport security the majority of guns, fake bombs and other contraband the testers attempted to take through TSA screening actually made it through. So if, during the past several years, more than one terrorist had attempted to carry a bomb onto a plane probably at least one of them would have succeeded.
During the past several years TSA has never caught a terrorist boarding a plane. No planes have been blown up or hijacked. So apparently no terrorists have attempted to carry bombs or weapons onto planes.
I haven't heard of any terrorist attacks on malls, sports events, trains, buses, highways, high school proms, or any of the other places TSA is eager to start protecting either.
Ken R. at June 12, 2012 12:55 AM
Radwaste:
You're a bright sort, and I like your posts.
This is hysteria that simply does not stand up to a full minute of Web surfing.
So surely, then you'll agree, that if it's "hysteria", then we can simply fix it by having these machines under the same sort of (required by law and regulation and insurance) inspection, calibration, and monitoring that we do for medical imaging devices?
Unix-Jedi at June 12, 2012 12:12 PM
U-J, the point is really that the machines are a waste of time and a violation of every American's rights under the 4th Amendment, however much Patrick apparently wants to bend over and spread 'em.
Here's the earlier post, in which I demolish claims essentially ignorant of the instrumentation.
The annual sticker on your dentist's x-ray machine doesn't make it safer. That's a tax stamp.
Physics. Natural laws determine what does and does not happen in the real world, and it is easy to learn about these scanners.
But they're a red herring. The argument is really whether you should be presumed guilty of something because of what criminals do.
Radwaste at June 12, 2012 5:12 PM
Radwaste:
Remember it, was too busy to retort at the time.
I demolish claims essentially ignorant of the instrumentation.
Based largely on press releases and the manufacturers claims.
And eliding past that the machines have to be tuned - carefully - to get those "safe" levels. The "research" that the TSA keeps using to promote keeps getting yanked back as the researchers say "wait, what, we didn't say that, don't use us".
*If* the machines are properly set up *and if* they're properly maintained, they're "safe". Sure.
We're talking about the freaking TSA. What are the odds those Ifs are If?
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/radiation/xray/registrant.html
(Quick google, just for a good case.)
"Completion of calibration and performance evaluations are the responsibility of the registrant and the required tests must be those listed in 4732.1100. The results of these tests must comply with the minimum performance specifications of the equipment manufacturer, Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, or MDH Chapter 4732.1100. If the manufacturer does not have equipment specifications, or the equipment specifications are unknown, the registrant must comply with the minimum performance criteria in 4732.1100.
These evaluations must be performed at the time of installation prior to the use of the equipment, when there is any change or replacement of components that could cause a change in the radiation output of that system, and at the following frequencies:
All radiographic equipment must be calibrated within 24 months of the previous evaluation
Computed and radiographic tomography, stereographic mammography, and fluoroscopic equipment must be calibrated within 12 months of the previous evaluation"
There's exacting requirements for that dental X-ray, and - probably more importantly - a HUGE liability if they expose you to far too much radiation.
The TSA's exempted from both the former, and the latter. And we know that quite a few of those machines were set up horribly incorrectly. Oops, yannow, whaddya expect, perfection? Fahgettaboutit.
Sue the TSA? Yeah. Right.
So that's my point. In theory, you're correct. But the way to prove it is testing and calibration and liability.
None of which exists, so I'm going to say "Nope, they're not safe. If they were, there wouldn't be specific exemptions from all the requirements we put on all the other (private) systems."
(And we both agree on the principles of the scanners, so we don't have to keep disclaiming that.)
They're unsafe. If they weren't, the TSA wouldn't be screaming so loudly, and using so much propaganda that's blatantly bad to promote their use.
The TSA needs to be abolished, but given the unlikelihood of that, we need to stand up and call their BS when they assert it.
Unix-Jedi at June 13, 2012 5:02 AM
Or, let me try and be clearer than I perhaps was.
If the scanners are so safe, then the TSA wouldn't have acted as it has.
Since they are acting as they are, it indicates to me that they are not personally assured of the safety as they tell us to be.
IOW: It's OK for you proles, but we're not gonna take responsibility. We'll be over here bheind the lead shielding, but trust us, it's safe. And if it's not, well, I'll be retired, and well, sucks to be you.
Unix-Jedi at June 13, 2012 10:36 AM
No, do the physics.
You cannot cause exposure in the millirem range - ~40 or so of which you will get from the flight itself, LAX to NY - no matter what you do to a Rapiscan.
Period.
Radwaste at June 13, 2012 2:23 PM
If TSA was sure the scanners were safe it would be easier to prove it than to keep contriving all these obviously bogus "studies" and propaganda.
Ken R at June 14, 2012 12:37 AM
Ken, read my link. U-J didn't.
Then, ask yourself: what next? Assume that the scanner turns out to BE exactly what NIST and the FDA have found.
Does a sticker on the Rapiscan mean it's all right to search you for wanting to get on an airplane?
1) The Rapiscan is not killing you, and it cannot be made to expose you to more radiation than you get merely by traveling.
2) That's not the point.
Radwaste at June 14, 2012 2:09 AM
Rad:
cannot be made to expose you to more radiation than you get merely by traveling.
If properly set up and calibrated.
And run correctly.
here's the promo blurb from their .pdf
the promo blurb from their .pdf.
Yes, it keeps coming back to "Trust us". When they don't deliver working samples for testing, well, my BS-meter starts registering.
So then you quoted the FDA.
Which was...
Relying on the promo materials.
Rad, I don't know what the hell dose you will get from those scanners.
But I do know I don't trust the company making it when they're acting this damn shady, and the government running it is exempting itself like mad from the requirements it puts on everything else.
The Rapidscan *can* - and there are pictures of - penetration and reflection from the bone.
In theory, and according to their promo materials, this is impossible.
So, yes, let's do the math. And stop taking the companies unverified word for it.
I read your links, and I noted where you got your information from. Be polite enough to deal with that, and stop throwing insults gratuitously.
Unix-Jedi at June 14, 2012 11:43 AM
U-J, do the physics. Please.
And somehow you've missed the NIST link.
Allegation: no one has tested these scanners. FALSE.
Now, go turn your microwave up to one megawatt, your home stereo to 100 KW, or step out to your car, which now makes 200+ thousand horsepower.
Because it doesn't have an inspection sticker showing it's "properly calibrated".
I suggest that if you cannot recognize a difference in magnitude of a thousand, there isn't any way I can set you straight without insulting you. Sorry about that.
And everybody: please go on arguing about the caliber of the gun the thug is holding on you. That's SO much more important than whether you are being robbed!
Radwaste at June 16, 2012 9:05 AM
Allegation: no one has tested these scanners. FALSE.
Strawman.
Radwaste, normally, you're a fine sorta fellow, but you're totally off base here.
I agree with you on the base premise.
But, this is what I keep telling you, if what you say is true - then why in the hell isn't it easy to verify, and why are the exemptions being put in place pell-mell? Why aren't we holding them to the standards that we hold other similar imaging devices?
If it's that simple, Radwaste, then explain that to me. Because I sure as hell don't understand that.
Unix-Jedi at June 16, 2012 8:56 PM
It's been a while, but the explanation is actually THIS SIMPLE: the machine is a package, like a 12-gauge shotgun. It ONLY shoots 12-gauge ammunition.
There is no way to make it shoot 12-inch artillery shells, and this is so OBVIOUS to anyone who has been to any sort of electrical/electronics school that they think it's on the order of explaining lunch.
Why explain the OBVIOUS to people who cannot, by their own behavior, SEE that?
Radwaste at May 6, 2015 5:59 PM
Leave a comment