Well, again, Google is your friend. In this case, a "Z Portal" delivers about 5 microREM, does not store the image, and isn't a "nude-o-scope". See here.

If you use the term, "secure our borders", what do you think that means?

This equipment is already in use scanning cargo containers, etc.

If I were a conspiracy theorist I would say the government were planning to give us all cancer and then drop those treatments from our national health care. That way we die off and this Benifits both population control and the cost of the program itself. But why attribute to conspiracy what can be accounted for by incompetence.

Aren't they worried that someone might build a bomb that is triggered by X-rays?

Okay, Rad, but do we really trust the unskilled workers we hire to make sure these things are not malfunctioning? And who here (me!) predicts that the TSA workers will be suing for cancers very likely caused by daily radiation exposure?

Well, I'm not flying again until the TSA is disbanded. Or until I win the lottery and can hire a private plane.

Your arguments about unskilled workers, possible malfunctions, etc are all reasonable Amy - but John Sedat seems to be talking about the effects in normal operation. Given the hysteria generally in society about radiation, I'm not very sympathetic to scaremongers who talk up cancer risk.

Aren't they worried that someone might build a bomb that is triggered by X-rays?

I doubt it. If all you want to do is blow up the border control point, you could just wire it to a switch. Why go to all the trouble of building an X-ray trigger?

The specifications do not say...

Well, of course they don't. They're procurement specs, presumably to be included in a tender. Operational procedures are a very different thing and would typically be developed alongside in a separate process.

Ok, the TSA doesn't have a good record in this area, but expecting a technical specification to have information on notification, procedures if people refuse, etc, is just plain silly. Unless the contract is to supply and operate the machines in which case it would need to be in there.

"Okay, Rad, but do we really trust the unskilled workers we hire to make sure these things are not malfunctioning? And who here (me!) predicts that the TSA workers will be suing for cancers very likely caused by daily radiation exposure?"

One more time: The operation of an X-ray device is controlled by physics, and the power difference between microrem and millirem is a factor of ONE THOUSAND.

This is not changing. You can't get 67 THOUSAND horsepower out of your Insight by operating it improperly. You can't get 100 KILOwatts out of your 100-watt home stereo by turning a knob. Of course, you can claim anything you want in court.

But you WILL get thousands of times the exposure you get from one of these scanners by flying to France.

Once.

Don't forget Randall Munroe's chart, which is generally correct.

No exposure without demonstrated benefit is advisable. The benefit to scanning cargo containers is obvious to anyone who has seen what a car bomb does. People, not so much.

-----

Now, this is just for the "Z Portal" and Rapiscan 1000. If you have another scanner at work, just look it up and see what the output is.

Hint: higher power interferes with detector operation. The detectors fail if the "shine" is too bright.

I agree; there seem to be many "creeps" in Homeland Security.

But you WILL get thousands of times the exposure you get from one of these scanners by flying to France.

This. And your point that the source can't just suddenly jump a 1000 times in power is well made Rad.

What if they just stick your car on a conveyer and scan it while you go through a pat-down? Maybe that's the plan. Either way, John Sedat is just as much an fear-mongering idiot as the TSA.

Rad, I don't see how they're going to get that to work for X-raying a car with a microrem dose. That's an industrial X-ray, and a very large one at that. The industrial X-rays I'm familiar with require far higher doses. To do an entire car, you'd have to build a lead-lined tunnel to run the car through, with lead doors and all of that. It would take a looooooong time to run a bunch of cars through.

And they can't not have it in a tunnel because that would constitute a field X-ray, with all of the regulations that come along with it. I used to work in a facility where they occasionally had to do field X-rays. They could only do them at night, and they pretty much had to evacuate the building to do them -- someone had to go door-to-door to every room in the building, make sure no one was there, and check that room off of a checklist.

Cousin Dave, that's why I mentioned not only the two instruments by name, but that inspections of vehicles and containers occur already.

But don't think that detectors aren't better than they have been. That's the hint about "blinding" them. Better detectors let the emitter power come down. Note that a guy shipping lead pipe is still going to have to open up.

Also, I think you've missed that dose equals dose rate times time. For a vehicle inspection, I merely ask that anyone here with objections look the process up before yelling. You are partway through the explanation process, with a couple of misconceptions...

The "lead-lined tunnel" isn't necessary because of the inverse square law. All I have to do is be clear of the vehicle to not be exposed.

This isn't radiography, with an isotopic source, which is what you are calling a "field x-ray". Weld inspection, the most common use of radiography, requires more detail than detecting masses in a vehicle on carried by a person.

I posted a link up top. The associated site shows how cars and containers are actually inspected today - no tunnels, yes regulations, all met.