NAS finally tested scanners

According to this USA Today article, the National Academies of Science have finally been asked to evaluate the safety of x-ray backscatter naked scanners. This seems a bit of putting the cart before the horse since the scanners were already used on millions of travelers before being pulled. (And, remember, they were pulled because Rapiscan didn't come up with a software upgrade for "privacy" quickly enough.)

I haven't had a chance this week to look at it more closely, so I am posting it here without further comment. If these machines were truly safe, then that is, of course, a good thing that people were not made ill by government ineptitude in this case.

The next generation scanner

Good news! The next generation full-body scanner, now in use in prisons, does away with privacy concerns because, "There are no soft tissue images created by the SecurPASS System eliminating privacy concerns."

SecurPASS image from Mikron
Digital's website

The operator can't see genitalia, breasts, and other private areas, because the machine looks right through the skin. Like an x-ray.

No privacy concerns there. Feel free to not only virtually undress me, but look what's under my skin.

And, of course, it's safe. Trust us.

       Q: Is the SecurPASS Scan safe?

       A: Yes. The exposure received is less than the average            amount of background radiation that a person receives              standing in the sun for about 1 hour.

Why would you even wonder if wardens (and future TSA administrators?) don't have each prisoner's (passenger's?) best interest at heart? We can't just have scientists and doctors given unfettered access to such an important piece of national security equipment!!!

How many years have you been x-rayed without consent or knowledge?

If you live in New York, you may soon find out. It could be that NYPD has not used van-mounted x-rays to view inside occupied buildings or vehicles, and has not used them near pedestrians. But, they have been stonewalling Pro-Publica for the past three years on even being transparent about their safety procedures. Furthermore, NYPD may have databases of x-ray images of vehicles and buildings (yes, the radiation can penetrate metal and concrete) - and perhaps nude images of people - since they apparently have no privacy protection policies in place. But a judge is requiring NYPD to release documentation regarding how these x-ray vans are used.

(Do you suddenly feel like you have entered a science-fiction novel?)

Furthermore, these vans have been in use by the US military in the countries they occupy (yet more trampling on the natural-born freedoms of foreigners), by US Customs at borders (at least they have a policy in place that requires vehicles are not occupied at the time of the scan), and by other law enforcement agencies at conventions and sporting events;

The most extensive reference to the vans came in a book written by two ABC News reporters who chronicled a year inside the agency's bomb squad.

Describing the security around the 2004 Republican convention in New York, they wrote that every vehicle entering a street in front of the convention hotel was ordered to drive between two white vans, which X-rayed each vehicle for explosives.

Aside from the totally outrageous violations of civil liberties that have been going on right under our noses with almost no public awareness, we could delve (once again) into the issue of whether the government can ever be expected to use technology like this responsibly.

Research I missed: Radiation doses of the old naked scanners

I'm currently going through the recent paper by Mowery, et al on the effectiveness and security of the "old" (x-ray backscatter) naked scanners. Along the way, I came across this paper by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) [pdf], which was given access to the same machines by TSA and Rapiscan in order to assess radiation doses.

Their findings (in brief):

ANSI and the HPS have issued a standard (ANSI/HPS N43.17 2009) that “applies to the manufacture and operation of security screening systems that are intended to expose humans to primary beam x-rays, gamma radiation, or both.” Our measurements indicate that the effective dose from a single screening exam is well below the screening limit of 0.25 μSv per screening for a general use, full-body scanner.5 The standard also states that the effective dose (computational adult model) shall not exceed 250 μSv over a 12-month period. For our stimated effective dose of 11.1 nSv to a standard man from a single screening, an individual would need to go through more than 22,500 screenings in a year to reach this limit.

Which is to say, the effective dose (akin to an overall radiation dose) is quite small and is, indeed (as TSA and Rapiscan said), well below the safety standards that were already in place for medical radiation exposure. It is also well below the threshold of what has been advanced for acceptable levels of non-medical radiation exposure - specifically for the purpose of security screening, commissioned by the FDA post-9/11 - which largely draws on the medical standards. However, it is not as if there is a quantifiable individual health costs vs health benefits that can be made for mandatory screening as a condition of air travel. Of course, such a calculation can statistically be made in medicine, the cost/benefit analysis can be presented to the patient by a doctor, and medical scans are voluntary. I'm not saying it's unsafe, rather that it ought to be up to the individual to weigh the risks with benefits without having to forfeit such fundamental rights such as freedom of movement and freedom of contract.

A glimmer of 10th Amendment hope...

...then the hope us extinguished by a Republican politician. According to this news article, Ohio has laws on the book that prohibit the use of x-rays except as prescribed by a doctor. This means that, technically, the TSA can't legally irradiate people in Ohio airports. But a more winnable test case has arisen with the recent spate of jails using naked scanners on inmates (Tuskeegee, much?).

A sheriff in Ohio bought a scanner similar to, but more powerful than, the airports' naked scanners. It is made by a subsidiary of Canon, and is designed to see inside of people to stop smuggling and theft. Well, the Ohio state health department has shut it down (sanity, at last!).

But, of course, a GOP state senator is doing his best to get the ban lifted. Shameful.

Comment submitted (finally!)

Here is the comment that I just submitted to the feds (better late than never!). (Disclaimer: It's not my finest work.):

I would like to direct my comments for Docket No. TSA-2013-0004 towards two areas of the AIT rule. First, I object on privacy grounds, and, second, I object on safety grounds to the implementation of AIT screening. My recommendation is that the AIT screening program be stopped immediately.

In part IB of the NPRM (Summary of Major Provisions), it says, “AIT currently provides the best available opportunity to detect non-metallic anomalies concealed under clothing without touching the passenger…” followed by, “TSA implemented stringent safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers undergoing AIT screening when AIT units were initially deployed and enhanced privacy further by upgrading it millimeter wave AIT units with ATR software.” As a modest woman who also chooses to raise her children to be modest, I strongly feel that these two statements are contradictory and can not be reconciled. If you are viewing anything under my clothing, or the clothing of my daughter or son, then you are not protecting my privacy. It does not matter to me that the area under my clothing is not seen directly with the naked eye of an individual that I can see, or if a machine is viewing the area under my clothing and transmitting that image either to an individual in another room or to a software program that interprets the image.

This goes to a very fundamental aspect of humanity and, in particular, to a prevalent strain of modesty in America culture bridging across people of various faiths, ethnicities, and backgrounds. Humans wear clothes not only for decorative reasons, but also, and, in some cases, especially, in order to be modest. Anything under the clothes is intentionally hidden, not intended to be viewed by man or machine without express consent (that is, uncoerced undressing). It is, in practice, impossible to take protect passenger privacy while simultaneously forcibly viewing anything that is under passengers’ clothes.

FDA is selective in regulations

Is it any wonder why I beat up on the FDA? They have basically washed their hands with regulating naked scanners to any significant extent because it is mostly outside of their jurisdiction to - I don't know - make sure no one is going to be killed by these machines. But, tanning beds? The FDA simply has to make sure that everyone knows how bad they are. And they must protect the children! (But not the children going through TSA security.)

Illegal, hazardous searches - and inhumane to boot!

This video showing a sales pitch by a government supplier is amazing for its bluntness. I blogged about these vans when I first started this blog and again last summer. Two years ago, it was something that was being used covertly, and in other countries. Now, it is being promoted openly as a device for use on American soil.

These vans do not use the backscatter radiation of the airport naked scanners - they are penetrating through metal to find contraband and thus are using x-rays more similar to that used by a doctor to view a broken bone. There is not - and can not be - a claim that they are safe for humans.




I have suspected that these devices have already been used on American soil by VIPR teams when they search trucks. I now have no doubt. It is unclear to me whether they ensure that drivers and passengers of the vehicles (all commercial trucks, to my knowledge) are clear of the x-rays. I certainly hope so, but any truckers out there should be aware of the physical danger these machines could expose them to and protect themselves in the event of a VIPR trap. I also doubt that TSA agents operating these x-rays are wearing dosimeter badges, as the TSA agents in airports do not don such badges.

What really bothers me about the use of these x-ray vans (and which is glossed over by the sales rep in the above video) is that one of the uses of the vans is to examine cargo at border crossings. What is smuggled across borders? Drugs, guns, and people. These vans have been used (at least in other countries) to see inside of trucks to find illegal passengers (leaving jails). In what world is it humane to knowingly expose prisoners, illegal immigrants, or anyone else to large doses of ionizing radiation without their consent or knowledge? It sickens me that this practice is even considered by the US government, and I fear that it has been or will soon be implemented at the Mexican border without consideration of the very serious human rights violation involved.

The LA Times and the scanners-are-safe interpretation

As soon as I read the LA Times' take on a new scientific article on naked scanner radiation study, I knew they had misrepresented the findings. I have now read the original research article in full, and my hunch holds.

The article, by Hoppe and Schmidt in the Biomedical Engineering Department at Marquette University, seems solid to me. The introduction nicely summarizes what studies have been done at this point. Two that were done in conjunction with the TSA (by the FDA and by Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab -- which is functionally a government research lab doing a lot of work requiring security clearances) had access to some form of naked scanner technology, although not necessarily the exact models used in airports. They both were assigned the task of determining whether the scanners met radiation guidelines specified by an ANSI, which is suspect. So this is where Hoppe and Schmidt take off. They note the shortcomings of these earlier studies, and also reference the "scanners aren't safe" articles from 2010.

Nonetheless, as the scanners have not been made available to anyone outside of the TSA for testing, Hoppe and Schmidt were left to use TSA-provided data for their analysis. They created a computational model for measuring radiation doses in various organs of the body. They replicated the radiation from the x-ray scanner by correlating it with the TSA-provided data first, then running the simulation on their human organ models. It is true, as the LA Times reports, that they find that the effective dose of radiation that passengers receive is below the ANSI standard, as has been claimed by the TSA.

They do not claim the scanners are, therefore, safe. Indeed, they make no judgement on this at all. They note the caveats that they did not have access to an actual machine several times throughout the paper, which means that they can not independently verify the radiation levels coming from the scanner. They also had to make some assumptions and simplifications with their computational model. Although I can't find fault with their methods, it is not the same as testing the real thing, or even a physical model, with an actual scanner, as the authors are well-aware.

Finally following their own laws

All employers have to provide dosimeters to any employers working near radioactive sources. This requirement comes from OSHA . Now the TSA is finally following the law. I'm interests to see the results, as are many scientists, since independent testing of exposure has been repeatedly blocked.

Egregious violation of safety and privacy at American borders

Around the time I was warning that unseemly practices of other countries could come to the US if we weren't, Obama's DHS was purchasing the very technology that I was worried about: scanners that were capable of seeing through the metal bodies of cars and trucks. I knew that DHS has been using these for VIPR inspections of trucks, but I did not know that any had been installed at the border. They have and CNET has the story.

Florida is paying attention to the naked scanner controversy

This is a well-researched article summarizing the controversy of the health risks of backscatter naked scanners.

Americans don't want cancer

As you know, I think the health aspect of the scanner controversy is secondary to the argument from natural rights. Nonetheless, I think the fact that the government wants to irradiate everyone who flies without any concern for health effects is a valuable lesson in whether the government is benevolent. Because it's not, and that's my point.

But, there's a new poll out that specifically links the risk of cancer and the "security" of x-ray scanners. It's nice to know that,

Even if X-ray body scanners would prevent terrorists from smuggling explosives onto planes, nearly half of Americans still oppose using them because they could cause a few people to eventually develop cancer, according to a new Harris Interactive poll conducted online for ProPublica.

It's unfortunate that a third of Americans still strongly support the scanners.

Bureaucrat reads fellow bureaucrat's report, Concludes 'independent' report unnecessary

Under heat from Congress after the ProPublica/PBS expose on the TSA's scanner-related practices, Pistole said he would consider having an independent study of scanner safety conducted. But, then, fellow DHS bureaucrat (TSA is part of DHS), Charles Edwards, said the scanners meet all of the standards they are supposed to meet. Shockingly, Pistole agreed, and now he says there is no reason to figure out if it is safe to irradiate 100% of the flying American public (as they are planning to do within the next few years). Edwards' role in DHS is described on the DHS website as follows:

The [Office of Inspector General] serves as an independent and objective inspection, audit, and investigative body to promote effectiveness, efficiency, and economy in the Department of Homeland Security's programs and operations, and to prevent and detect fraud, abuse, mismanagement, and waste in such programs and operations.

Even if you believe that a bureaucrat paid a salary by the very department that is the epitome of the police state can be "independent and objective," there is still a glaring problem here. Nowhere in the mission of the DHS Inspector General does it say that he is to "prevent and detect" health and safety issues. This guys job is to make sure that all the t's are crossed and all the i's are dotted on the procedural and maintenance forms for these scanners. And this is pretty much what he said he did. He is not checking to see if these machines can adversely affect the health of individuals - particularly the frail. It's not his job and he did not say that he audited that aspect of the scanners.

Washington Post Joins the TSA Propaganda Parade

The Washington Post carried another TSA propaganda statement over the holiday weekend, serving up creampuff questions for the corrupt administrator. The article attempts to praise Pistole for reigning over this criminal workforce and violating the basic rights of travelers.

Under his “leadership” over 60,000 people a day are harassed and molested at his direction. Of that 20,000 are subjected to his groping at random, without any rational security basis for this harassment.

He has presided over a criminal workforce that has had 62 screeners arrested for serious offenses so far this year.

His "professional" employees include 10 screeners that have been charged with child sex crimes this year including four child rapes.

Over a dozen of his vaunted screeners have been jailed for stealing over $800,000 from passenger baggage this year alone.

He has lied in testimony to Congress over ten times this year. He claimed that TSA would stop molesting children on four separate occasions, in November 2010, again in April, then again in May and November 2011 yet their invasive groping of children continues.

He lied about Congress and the public saying that the scanners produced a chalky, cartoon like outline, but in August Denver TSA Director, Pat Ahlstrom admitted that the images were indeed “very graphic”. So millions have been digitally strip searched despite the propaganda earlier this year.

He has deliberately misled the public into believing that the privacy software exists at all checkpoints. In reality, they continue to have male workers view the nude images of men, women and children. TSA has not added the privacy software on the 250 x-ray scanners installed at many major airports, including LAX, JFK, O’Hare, Orlando, Boston and Phoenix and has not said when, or if, this will be installed.

He has told Congress three times since January that the scanners would be independently tested yet again reneged on the latest promise he made in October, saying that he deems the scanners safe. Meanwhile, millions of passengers continue to be digitally strip searched and irradiated by these dangerous devices. He continues to expose passengers to these dangerous scanners despite expert testimony that these will cause over 100 cancer deaths a year.

TSA has been adamantly refused to allow independent testing. He has not explained what TSA is afraid the tests will reveal or why they are so willing to sacrifice passenger privacy and health other than to protect private manufacturers’ products and their profits. There is clearly an implication of corruption in the deployment of these scanners and demands investigation by Congress.

Under his “leadership”, complaints about TSA screening have increased dramatically. According to an article in WSJ on 9/1/11 complaints about TSA screening jumped this year. TSA logged 1,975 screening complaints in June alone, more than double the 814 received in June 2010.

Since Pistole assumed control and instituted these Draconian procedures air travel has declined. The US Travel Association reported this month that “We can reduce the hassle of flying without compromising security” and estimated that TSA is costing the travel industry $85 billion in lost revenue and 880,000 additional jobs.

TSA can plant all the stories they want saying that people like TSA but the fact remains that the vast majority of travelers despise this agency and want it dismantled.

FDA responds to ProPublica story

You can read it as well as ProPublica's response here. The takehome message?

ProPublica takes seriously our responsibility to correct mistakes and clarify misstatements. But while the FDA may prefer different terminology, we believe the way we conveyed the facts was accurate.

Whitehead on the ProPublica report

Whitehead is a lawyer who has been working to fight the TSA on its policies. In case you haven't seen him, you can read Whitehead's comments on the ProPublica report here.

What's a little cancer among friends?

The recent ProPublica/PBS report detailing the shady background to scanner installation at US airports has been making the rounds. I like the New American's take on it:

None of this is to say that government standards and inspections are a guarantee of safety or even that scanner manufacturers are deliberately making unsafe products. It does, however, suggest that while the government likes to portray itself as the one thing standing between Americans and certain harm from unscrupulous companies, that same government will not let a little thing like safety prevent it from imposing its will on the people.

Update on the science on scanners

Lew Rockwell published my column today. An excerpt:

A brief background

In advance of the publicity of the installation of naked scanners at US airports, some activists and scientists were already making some noise. A group of UCSF scientists – John Sedat, David Agard, Marc Shuman, and Robert Stroud – sent a letter to the President’s science advisor, John Holdren, in April 2010 expressing their concern about the scanners. I have written about this elsewhere.

The Republican wing of the mainstream media picked up on a peer-reviewed article published in between the holidays last December that ran some simulations of the x-ray backscatter scanners. Recall that this followed shortly on the heels of the protests of last fall – when the TSA was rolling out more and more scanners, and also stepping up the invasiveness of their so-called pat-downs (known as custody searches by law enforcement). The authors, Leon Kaufmann and Joseph Carlson (again of UCSF) concluded that the reported capabilities of the scanners and the reported safety of the scanners were not consistent with each other. That is, either they don’t work as well as advertised, or they are more dangerous than advertised. There are also a number of other results in their paper that should be of interest to travelers, and I summarized them at that time on my blog.

I also wrote up a summary of Dr. Sedat’s second letter earlier this summer, this time to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). But my purpose here is to discuss a couple of peer-reviewed articles addressing the safety of the backscatter scanners that were published recently.

Why does any of this matter? I am of the opinion that even if the naked scanners are 100% safe and effective, they are still an egregious violation of individual rights. I oppose the use of the scanners on this basis. However, it is instructive of how negligent government is, by its very nature, to look at the case of the lack of scientific evidence showing these scanners to be safe and effective. The use of these scanners has been implemented in an incredibly stealthy manner. If you are a student of economics, history, government, or common sense, then this is not a surprise, but it is easy to ignore. I want to make it harder to ignore how the TSA has acted and harder to excuse those actions.

Separating you from all of your belongings

When I travel, I want to make sure I don't lose some key items. My phone, a credit card and/or cash, maybe a key to my house or car, my ID, and maybe a ticket for whatever transportation I'm taking. In the past, when I've gone through airport security, the magnetometer requires that I depart with my cell phone and purse, but I'll often keep my ID, maybe a credit card, and my boarding pass in my pocket or hand. I think this is totally normal behavior, and, to be honest, I'd be much more comfortable if I didn't have to part ways with my cell phone and wallet. And I feel naked without my watch. I avoid(ed) wearing a belt and jewelry when I would fly, and some women even avoid underwire bras (which can definitely make the woman "feel naked") But, the way magnetometers and carry-on x-ray machines are set up, you put things down on the belt, walk alongside the x-ray machine, and - often times - your items come out of the machine after you have made your way through.

I haven't been through a naked scanner, and I haven't seen a checkpoint with one in person. However, in all of the pictures and videos I've seen, the x-ray belt is not directly adjacent to the scanner, and the passenger is standing still, facing sideways, and looking at the inside of the scanner. In one of the numerous stories about the software upgrade, the TSA rep is bragging about how a piece of paper was identified in a man's pocket by the naked scanner.

But wouldn't it be entirely normal for a person to have a $20 in their pocket? Or their ID? Or their boarding pass?

What planet do you live on where you feel safer being visibly and physically separated from all of your belongings, including the various security blankets that you carry with you every other waking hour?