TSA scanners: They're hiding and lying

[boutons_deux]

OBL and his 72 virgins are ROFL.


How Safe Are TSA's Porno Scanners

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/05/why-secrecy-airport-scanners



Scientists Cast Doubt on TSA Tests of Full-Body Scanners

http://www.propublica.org/article/scientists-cast-doubt-on-tsa-tests-of-full-body-scanners

[Agloco]

OBL and his 72 virgins are ROFL.

How Safe Are TSA's Porno Scanners

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/05/why-secrecy-airport-scanners


Scientists Cast Doubt on TSA Tests of Full-Body Scanners

http://www.propublica.org/article/scientists-cast-doubt-on-tsa-tests-of-full-body-scanners


lol porno

The good doctor needs to review his Health Physics in some more detail. Annual dose limit for public to skin is 50mSv. He's also forgotten that beam penetration does not equate to image penetration. :lol

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/11/tsa_scanner_controversy_ucsf_r.php

We'll start with what the clinicians have to say. Two quotes from Fergie and Ronnie:


"The conclusions are wrong," Ronald Arenson, professor of radiology, tells SF Weekly of his own institution's letter. "People who are totally unrelated to radiation wrote it. ... It was senior faculty at UCSF. They're smart people and well-intended, but their conclusions, I think, were off-base. They don't understand how radiation translates to an actual dose in the human body."



"The airport scanner thing is totally bogus," says Professor Fergus Coakley, chief of the abdominal imaging section at the UCSF radiology department. When you fly, you're "closer to the sun, there's less shielding from cosmic radiation, so being worried about the scan on the way to the plane ride where you're getting extra radiation is bogus."


http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/SecuritySystems/ucm231857.htm


Regarding the specific “Red Flag” issues raised in the letter:

First, the letter is correct to note that the TSA-deployed product is a recent model. However, the specification for the x-ray tube for the deployed model is almost identical to the original 1991 product. The stated concern was, “The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue.” We agree. However, the concern that “the dose to the skin may be dangerously high” is not supported. The recommended limit for annual dose to the skin for the general public is 50,000 µSv. The dose to the skin from one screening would be approximately 0.56 µSv when the effective dose for that same screening would be 0.25 µSv. Therefore the dose to skin for the example screening is at least 89,000 times lower than the annual limit.

Second, radiation safety protection quantities are stated as ‘effective dose’. NCRP Commentary No. 16 says, “The purpose of effective dose is to place on a common scale the radiation doses: (1) from different types of ionizing radiation that have different biological effectiveness, and (2) in different organs or tissues that have different radiation sensitivities.” Comparing effective doses from different sources is appropriate. The comparison between the effective dose from cosmic ray exposure or a medical diagnostic chest x-ray and the effective dose from a security screening is intended to be a clear means of risk communication.

The third point relates to a concern “that real independent safety data do not exist.” In fact, independent safety data do exist. Independent measurements have been made on various versions of this product and all results are consistent with the dose specified by the manufacturer. Examples include:

Sandia National Laboratories, measurements made July 1991. Published as Sandia Report: Evaluation Tests of the SECURE 1000 Scanning System (1992), National Technical Information Service, DE92013773
FDA, dose measurements re-verified via computational evaluation, September 15, 1998
N43.17 working group, measurements made at Folsom State Prison on November 15, 1999
FDA & NIST, Assessment for TSA, July 21, 2006
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU APL), Assessment for TSA, October 2009

Fourth is the concern that “the relevant radiation quantity, the Flux [photons per unit area and time (because this is a scanning device)] has not been characterized.” We disagree that flux is the appropriate quantity. The air kerma (or skin entrance exposure) for one screening can be determined by a direct measurement of the total charge produced in the air contained in an ion chamber during one complete screening when the meter is correctly calibrated. Additionally, measurements to determine the amount of material required to reduce the intensity of the x-ray exposure by half are necessary to convert air kerma (or exposure) to effective dose. These measurements can most practically be made —and indeed have been repeatedly made— at locations where these products are installed and can be made without altering a scanner’s normal operation. These are the same sorts of measurements made to characterize the output of medical x-ray systems.

Fifth is the assertion that “if the key data (flux-integrated photons per unit values) were available, it would be straightforward to accurately model the dose being deposited in the skin and adjacent tissues using available computer codes [. . .]” In fact, we have done better. FDA and NIST used software called PCXMC to estimate the individual organ doses and to calculate effective dose. This analysis was part of an evaluation performed under contract for TSA. The input information required by the PCXMC program required considerably more information than simply the x-ray flux. Its parameters include 1) the x-ray tube anode angle, 2) anode voltage, 3) total filtration, 4) x-ray field size, 5) location of the field on the body, 6) focus-to-skin distance (FSD), and 7) entrance skin exposure. Every parameter was measured, calculated, or verified by indirect measurement. The modeling results revealed that the dose to the skin is approximately twice the effective dose.

http://www.tek84.com/downloads/Holt-Letter2010-12-2.pdf


I am writing to you because of continuing misinformation about the safety of these devices. This is typified by the comments made by Dr. Brenner that you reference in your recent letter to the TSA. Similar comments have been made by professors at UCSF and other universities. In particular, these professors argue that the body scanner radiation only penetrates a few millimeters into the body, resulting in the radiation dose to the skin being far higher than the average dose to the entire person. This line of reasoning has lead to a variety of inaccurate claims:

- The FDA has seriously miscalculated the radiation safety of these devices.
- The skin dose is 20 times higher than the effective dose to the entire body.
- It is inappropriate to use the techniques of medical radiography to regulate
body scanners, since the x-rays used in medical imaging penetrate deep
into the body.
- It is inappropriate to compare background radiation to body scanners, since
background radiation also penetrates deep into the body.
- The radiation from body scanners is blocked by clothing, resulting in most
of the exposure being to the skin of the face and head. This presents an
elevated risk of skin cancer.

All of these claims are incorrect, a result of misunderstanding the physics involved. In particular, Dr. Brenner and the other professors have confused Dose Penetration with Imaging Penetration, which are two completely different things. In the attached figures I show measurements taken on a body scanner to help explain this difference.

Dose Penetration is a measurement of how deeply the energy from the x-ray beam is deposited into the body. A simple way to define and measure this parameter is illustrated in Figure 1. As shown, a radiation meter is placed at the subject location within the body scanner. A certain thickness of plastic,
simulating overlying body tissue, is placed in front of the meter and the radiation measurement taken. This procedure is then repeated with other thicknesses of plastic. Figure 4 presents the result of such an experiment, which I conducted a few days ago in preparation for this letter. As shown by the solid curve drawn through the data points, placing 5 mm of plastic in front of the meter reduces the intensity of the x-ray beam from 100% to about 95%. In other words, only about 5% of the total energy of the beam is
deposited in the first 5 mm of depth into the body. Likewise, the curve drops to 50% with a total plastic thickness of about 50 mm. This means that about one-half of the body scanner radiation is deposited within 50 mm of the skin, and one-half is deposited deeper than 50 mm into the body. In comparison, Imaging Penetration describes how deep into the body the acquired image can detect objects. This depends highly on the imaging configuration, that is, where the x-ray source and detectors are placed in relation to the subject. Airport body scanners use backscatter imaging, meaning that they create an image from x-rays that reflect from the first few millimeters of the surface of the body. Only a small fraction of the x-rays that strike the body are used to form this image, with the remaining x-rays being deposited into the body. Figure 2 shows a photograph of a test object used to explain this concept.

This consists of 16 small squares of copper, placed between 16 sheets of 1.588 mm thick plastic. The upper-left copper square is on the surface of the test object. The copper squares immediately to the right are behind 1, 2, and 3 sheets of plastic respectively. On the second row the copper squares are behind 4, 5, 6 and 7 sheets of plastic, respectively, and so on.

Figure 3 shows an image of this test object taken on a body scanner. The key feature is that a copper square is less visible in the image as it is placed deeper into the phantom. The lower curve in Figure 4 shows a graph of these data. The upper-left square, having no overlying plastic, is assigned a darkness value of 100%. The upper-right square, covered by 3 sheets of plastic (4.76 mm), is 77% as dark. About 10 mm (6-7 sheets) of plastic is required to reduce the darkness of the copper square to 50%.


http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/jh_apl_v1.pdf

This is a 60 page PDF from Johns Hopkins regarding assessment of the scanners. The important synopsis begins on the bottom of page iii (last paragraph above the two bullet points) and goes to page vi

[TeyshaBlue]

lol @ bouton's rss feed.

[boutons_deux]

lol @ bouton's rss feed.

To your excellent comment, I'll add my excellent content: G F Y

[TeyshaBlue]

lol @ the bot content.

[boutons_deux]

There have been several cases in big hospitals and radiation clinics were the machines were badly regulated by certified radiation technicians, with the resulting being that 100s or 1000s of paitients were over-radiated.

Looking at the low-wage losers TSA losers and probably the equally low-wage techs who tweak the machines (but probably not too much, gotta save preventative maintenance costs), what are the chances of over-radiation, esp at the high-volumes of "patients" going through the machines, with women in the early states of (yet unknown) pregnancy, with young children?

Of course, the pretext is that we are being radiated and patted down "for our own good". They can all GoFuckThemselves.

[TeyshaBlue]

Looking at the low-wage losers TSA losers and probably the equally low-wage techs who tweak the machines (but probably not too much, gotta save preventative maintenance costs), what are the chances of over-radiation, esp at the high-volumes of "patients" going through the machines, with women in the early states of (yet unknown) pregnancy, with young children?

And on cue, the strawman. http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/fack.png

[boutons_deux]

Gfy

[TeyshaBlue]

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

There have been several cases in big hospitals and radiation clinics were the machines were badly regulated by certified radiation technicians, with the resulting being that 100s or 1000s of paitients were over-radiated.

Looking at the low-wage losers TSA losers and probably the equally low-wage techs who tweak the machines (but probably not too much, gotta save preventative maintenance costs), what are the chances of over-radiation, esp at the high-volumes of "patients" going through the machines, with women in the early states of (yet unknown) pregnancy, with young children?

Of course, the pretext is that we are being radiated and patted down "for our own good". They can all GoFuckThemselves.

Given that the machines are pretty low intensity it seems that even a mis-calibrated or malfunctioning machine would burn out before it subjects anyone to anything dangerous. This is my laymans take on it.

[LnGrrrR]

Thanks for the info Agloco. I think the ethical/liberty concerns over full-body scanners far outweigh any medical argument.

[Agloco]

Thanks for the info Agloco. I think the ethical/liberty concerns over full-body scanners far outweigh any medical argument.

Agreed. Taking the medical/safety part out of the equation ensures that the disagreement is over the correct principle.


There have been several cases in big hospitals and radiation clinics were the machines were badly regulated by certified radiation technicians, with the resulting being that 100s or 1000s of paitients were over-radiated.

Looking at the low-wage losers TSA losers and probably the equally low-wage techs who tweak the machines (but probably not too much, gotta save preventative maintenance costs), what are the chances of over-radiation, esp at the high-volumes of "patients" going through the machines, with women in the early states of (yet unknown) pregnancy, with young children?

Of course, the pretext is that we are being radiated and patted down "for our own good". They can all GoFuckThemselves.

Much lower actually given that the exposure time is necessarily less due to the high throughput.

Read what I posted above. The machine is fundamentally limited as to the intensity of the x-ray fluence and energies that can be produced. If those energies or exposure times were to climb to an unacceptable level, then image quality would be substantially degraded. Your TSA monkeys are in tune with that one parameter more than anything.


Given that the machines are pretty low intensity it seems that even a mis-calibrated or malfunctioning machine would burn out before it subjects anyone to anything dangerous. This is my laymans take on it.

RG gives a much clearer and easier to digest version than I can. :lol

Indeed, the anode would melt long before any harmful exposure levels could be reached.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.gadling.com/2011/05/20/the-tsa-pokey-pokey/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+weblogsinc%2Fgadling+%28Gadli ng%29

[ElNono]

Sandia National Laboratories, measurements made July 1991. Published as Sandia Report: Evaluation Tests of the SECURE 1000 Scanning System (1992), National Technical Information Service, DE92013773
FDA, dose measurements re-verified via computational evaluation, September 15, 1998
N43.17 working group, measurements made at Folsom State Prison on November 15, 1999
FDA & NIST, Assessment for TSA, July 21, 2006
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU APL), Assessment for TSA, October 2009


The problem, as I understand it from the article(s), is that a lot of these 'independent' findings have been redacted, which makes comparing methodology and results pretty much a problem, not to mention it bastardizes the scientific method of being able to verify the claims.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.gadling.com/2011/05/20/the-tsa-pokey-pokey/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+weblogsinc%2Fgadling+%28Gadli ng%29tl;ds

[Winehole23]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=europe-bans-x-ray-body-scanners

[boutons_deux]

EU has much stronger privacy standards (eg, google was forced to allow wireless router owners to opt out of google's invasive harvesting of wireless routers and their locations), bans lots of chemicals that cause cancer or endocrine disruption but are allowed in USA.

TSA airport security is nothing but bullshit theatre. Any casual observer of TSA gate staff shows TSA is clearly an employer of last resort.

[Agloco]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=europe-bans-x-ray-body-scanners

Well, an RF scanner won't work as well as a backscatter scanner. That much I can guarantee. The physics here is quite basic.

Also, you're obligated to use active RF scanners for resolutions sake which imparts energy to the target. While not necessarily harmful in terms of cancer induction as far as we know, it's just as nascent as backscatter tech for these uses. So the same problem exists as with the backscatter scanners: Lots of folks jumping onto a boat that hasn't been deemed seaworthy yet.

Just my two cents.


EU has much stronger privacy standards (eg, google was forced to allow wireless router owners to opt out of google's invasive harvesting of wireless routers and their locations), bans lots of chemicals that cause cancer or endocrine disruption but are allowed in USA.

TSA airport security is nothing but bullshit theatre. Any casual observer of TSA gate staff shows TSA is clearly an employer of last resort.

Well, it's still a large matter of conjecture as to how well the backscatter technology was tested before being implemented. It's quite disturbing to see so many different views on what should really be a simple, streamlined method of safety testing.

My guess: The RF tech hasn't been properly researched and tested either.

[boutons_deux]

TSA Puts Off Safety Study of X-ray Body Scanners

The head of the Transportation Security Administration has backed off a public commitment to conduct a new independent study of X-ray body scanners used at airport security lanes around the country.

Earlier this month, a ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation found that the TSA had glossed over research that the X-ray scanners could lead to a small number of cancer cases. The scanners emit low levels of ionizing radiation, which has been shown to damage DNA. In addition, several safety reviewers who initially advised the government on the scanners said they had concerns about the machines being used, as they are today, on millions of airline passengers.

At a Senate hearing after the story ran, TSA Administrator John Pistole agreed to a request by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, to conduct a new independent study of the health effects of the X-ray scanners, also known as backscatters.


http://www.propublica.org/article/tsa-puts-off-safety-study-of-x-ray-body-scanners

[Agloco]

Earlier this month, a ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation found that the TSA had glossed over research that the X-ray scanners could lead to a small number of cancer cases. The scanners emit low levels of ionizing radiation, which has been shown to damage DNA. In addition, several safety reviewers who initially advised the government on the scanners said they had concerns about the machines being used, as they are today, on millions of airline passengers.

Just an observation:

I find it interesting that folks will line up to get a CXR or CT without question, but remain in a tizzy over a modality that imparts around 1% of CXR dose and .01% of a typical CT dose. People need a clear, definitive voice to clarify the risks. It's a god dammed three ring circus tbh.

Might want to advise people to avoid bananas as well until this investigation takes place. :lol

The real concern should be for the operators. That's where the risk is.

[mouse]

Trying to get Agloco to take the dangers of radiation seriously is like trying to get the Octomom to use birth control.

http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/c2c/share/27/277/737/2773735_370.jpg

[boutons_deux]

"I find it interesting that folks will line up to get a CXR or CT without question, but remain in a tizzy over a modality"

medical scans are a choice (and the medical predators are infamously guilty of over-prescribing diagnostic imaging, like they are guilty of very treatment in general)

security scans before are forced, nobody likes to be forced.

[Agloco]

Trying to get Agloco to take the dangers of radiation seriously is like trying to get the Octomom to use birth control.

http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/c2c/share/27/277/737/2773735_370.jpg

Ah yes, it was only a matter of time.

I support your diagram mouse: I firmly believe people should avoid bananas laced with Pu239, I131, and Cs137. Happy?

[mouse]

Might want to advise people to avoid bananas as well until this investigation takes place. :lol

.


You and your banana fetish, trying to down play radiation you wont be happy till everyone has Cancer. And to think your salad tossers in here still claim you bring "wisdom" to the forum?

http://www.earthtimes.org/newsimage/japanese-radiation-fears-greatly-exaggerated-213.jpg

[mouse]

Ah yes, it was only a matter of time.

I support your diagram mouse: I firmly believe people should avoid bananas laced with Pu239, I131, and Cs137. Happy?

I don't seek happiness I seek out people who lie to others for personal gain. And expose them before they can do anymore harm to others.

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_full_width/hash/ec/a0/eca09618978c2225a1918fdf0be1d0e6.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

To your excellent comment, I'll add my excellent content: G F Y

He has a point. Its as deplorable as what Darrin does.

[Agloco]

security scans before are forced, nobody likes to be forced.

Two comments err, questions:

So is this really about the radiation boogeyman or about a perceived curtailing of freedoms? One has to wonder, no?

and

Isn't there something else offered to those who cannot or won't be scanned?

[boutons_deux]

both

and we presume the TSA is lying about radiation until independent (if such exists) verifies.

[Agloco]

I don't seek happiness I seek out people who lie to others for personal gain. And expose them before they can do anymore harm to others.

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_full_width/hash/ec/a0/eca09618978c2225a1918fdf0be1d0e6.jpg

Ok then. Why don't you explain how 1 microsievert of exposure causes the deformities in your picture? We eagerly await your synopsis. No links or you-tubes please. Just you and your keyboard.......google away.

[Agloco]

both

and we presume the TSA is lying about radiation until independent (if such exists) verifies.

I definitely buy the second. As for the TSA lying? I don't know as they've come out with a hard and fast figure on exposure yet. For the record, I do believe that the risk to operators is substantial. The scatter dose is a major problem. I don't need to conduct any surveys or studys to see that.

[boutons_deux]

"with a hard and fast figure on exposure yet."

.... which is a kind lie, not divulging the truth, a lie of omission.

[mouse]

So is this really about the radiation boogeyman

Tell your boogeyman stories to this child.
http://www.earthend-newbeginning.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/small-child-Chernobyl.jpg

[Agloco]

"with a hard and fast figure on exposure yet."

.... which is a kind lie, not divulging the truth, a lie of omission.

I don't know that they're obligated to issue specific figures to the public. I'd like to think that they are, but there are stranger rules in place.

I'm not trying to defend the TSA, I'm just not convinced that these arguments aren't intimately linked.


[QUOTE=Agloco;5473690]

So is this really about the radiation boogeyman[/QUOTE

Tell your boogeyman stories to this child.
http://www.earthend-newbeginning.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/small-child-Chernobyl.jpg

Sure thing. I'd also include a little side story about how the Russian governments secrecy played an infinitely larger role in determining her fate than any airport backscatter scanner ever could.

[Cry Havoc]

I'm sure that Agloco would be hesitant to admit that Chernobyl ever had any negative effects on the local population. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

That little mutant girl is made of straw.

[mouse]

Due to the heavy traffic at the airport I may have to lay off the iPhone but I will return to educate this lifeless Agloco on the effects of Radiation.

[redzero]

I don't think 50-year-old homeless security guards should be educating anybody.

[Winehole23]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-glossed-over-cancer-concerns

[ElNono]

Robin Kane, the TSA’s assistant administrator for security technology, said that no one would get cancer because the amount of radiation the X-ray scanners emit is minute. Having both technologies is important to create competition, he added.

“It’s a really, really small amount relative to the security benefit you’re going to get,” Kane said. “Keeping multiple technologies in play is very worthwhile for the U.S. in getting that cost-effective solution — and being able to increase the capabilities of technology because you keep everyone trying to get the better mousetrap.”

Just wow... it's not even about safety... "as long as we can cut costs, health be damned"

[ElNono]

You would hope this will end with a massive class action lawsuit... because I don't see it ending any other way.

[mavs>spurs]

TSA is a huge crime against the American people in general..Alex Jones was reporting about this long before anyone wanted to admit it, just like nobody believed him when he said they were sticking their hands down our pants and now it's common knowledge.

[Winehole23]

Alex Jones doesn't get much run here. I expect most folks have already had enough passive exposure.

[Agloco]

Due to the heavy traffic at the airport I may have to lay off the iPhone but I will return to educate this lifeless Agloco on the effects of Radiation.

Be sure to step through the backscater scanner a few hundred times.

[Agloco]

Because of a regulatory Catch-22, the airport X-ray scanners have escaped the oversight required for X-ray machines used in doctors’ offices and hospitals. The reason is that the scanners do not have a medical purpose, so the FDA cannot subject them to the rigorous evaluation it applies to medical devices.


Ahhh yes, I have my answer. Amazing......amazingly idiotic.

smh.

[mouse]

I don't think 50-year-old homeless security guards should be educating anybody.

I am a Security "Officer" so it doesn't apply to me.


If ^ this wannabee koriwhat is going to be in here unsupervised and treat this topic like a MC Donald's color balled paly center then consider the topics ruined.


Unless he wants to meet me in the TRoll forum for a real smack off and see what dis bitch has.

5Nhcv6Ho3ic

[mouse]

Be sure to step through the backscater scanner a few hundred times.

Are you wishing Cancer on someone?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/th_miners-dig-under-reactor.jpg (http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/?action=view&current=miners-dig-under-reactor.mp4)

[redzero]

:lmao Your dumbass still pretending that you want to have a serious conversation.

As soon as somebody starts making you look like an idiot, you make unfunny jokes then disappear.

[Winehole23]

Court Demands TSA Explain Why It Is Defying Nude Body Scanner Order

By David Kravets (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/author/davidkravets/)


A federal appeals court Wednesday ordered the Transportation Security Administration to explain why it hasn’t complied with the court’s year-old decision demanding the agency hold public hearings concerning the rules and regulations pertaining to the so-called nude body scanners installed in U.S. airport security checkpoints.


The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s brief order came in response to the third request by the Electronic Privacy Information Center for the court to enforce its order.


A year ago, the circuit court, in a lawsuit brought by EPIC, set aside a constitutional challenge (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/court-approves-body-scanners/) trying to stop the government from using intrusive body scanners across U.S. airports. But the decision on July 15, 2011 also ordered TSA “to act promptly” and hold public hearings and publicly adopt rules and regulations about the scanners’ use, which it has not done.


The public comments and the agency’s answers to them are reviewable by a court — which opens up a new avenue for a legal challenge to the 2009 agency decision to deploy the scanners. Critics maintain the scanners, which use radiation to peer through clothes, are threats to Americans’ privacy and health, which the TSA denies.


The three-judge appellate court, which is one stop from the Supreme Court, said that the Transportation Security Administration breached federal law in 2009 when it formally adopted the Advanced Imaging Technology scanners as the “primary” method of screening. The judges — while allowing the scanners to be used — said the TSA violated the Administrative Procedures Act for failing to have a 90-day public comment period, and ordered the agency to undertake one.


The appellate court has twice denied motions from EPIC to order the TSA to get going.


But on Wednesday, the three-judge circuit court panel ordered (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/08/EPIC-v.-DHS-No.-12-1307-8-1-12.pdf) (.pdf) the TSA to respond by August 30. Last month, TSA spokeswoman Lorie Dankers told Wired that hearings — and the agency’s response to those hearings — aren’t expected until “next year.”http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/08/nude-scanner-order/

[Winehole23]

When Savannah Berry went through Salt Lake City International Airport, she told Transportation Security Administration screeners that she was a Type 1 diabetic and wears an insulin pump. She showed them a doctor's note saying the pump should not go through a body scanner (http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/TSA-diabetes-salt-lake-insulin-savannah/Az-QjubuEUeXMX7LAbC1Xw.cspx) and told them that she is usually patted down by airport security. They sent here through the scanner anyway and the pump broke.http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/14/brickbat-broken-pump

[CosmicCowboy]

TSA is a huge crime against the American people in general..Alex Jones was reporting about this long before anyone wanted to admit it, just like nobody believed him when he said they were sticking their hands down our pants and now it's common knowledge.

They damn sure stuck their hands down MY pants in San Antonio. The guys says "now I'm going to stick my hand inside of your shorts, but I'm only going to use the BACK of my hand..."

Like...big fucking deal...why is your hand INSIDE my pants to start with?

[boutons_deux]

Unpopular Full-Body Scanners to Be Removed From Airports

After years of complaints by passengers and members of Congress, the Transportation Security Administration said Friday that it would begin removing the controversial full-body scanners that produce revealing images of airline travelers beginning this summer.


The agency said it canceled a contract, originally worth $40 million, with the maker of the scanners, Rapiscan, after the company failed to meet a Congressional deadline for new software that would protect passengers' privacy. Since going into widespread use nearly three years ago, the scanners have been criticized by passengers for being too invasive and are the subject of lawsuits from privacy groups.


The T.S.A. began deploying the scanners in 2010, after an attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian citizen, to blow up a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight by setting off explosives hidden in his underwear. The T.S.A. said that 174 of the machines are currently being used at airport checkpoints around the country. Another 76 are housed at a storage facility in Texas.


Rapiscan will be required to pay for removing the scanners. In a statement, Deepak Chopra, the company's president, said the decision to cancel the contract and remove the scanners was a "a mutually satisfactory agreement with the T.S.A." The company said that scanners would be used at other government agencies.


The removal of the Rapiscan scanners does not mean that all full-body scanners will be removed from airport security checkpoints. A second type of full-body scanner does not produce revealing images. Instead, it makes an avatar-like projection on security screens.


The T.S.A. said those machines, which should be in airports by June, will allow quicker scans than those using X-rays.


"This means faster lanes for the traveler and enhanced security," the agency said.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/us/tsa-to-remove-invasive-body-scanners.xml?f=19

dubya's Chertoff still pocketed $Ms for his lobbying effort.

And virgin-fucking OBL has another huge laugh at provoking America into paroxysms of self-terrorizing paranoia. The Terrorist That Keeps On Terrorizing.

[The Reckoning]

Rapistscan? lmao

now i can tell my grandchildren about how i was full body scanned at the airport and gave them a thumbs up after they gawked at my package.

[ElNono]

So we can add a waste of money on top of any health concerns... great!

[Wild Cobra]

You should note, that only one type of body scanner is being removed. Body scanners are still in use, but just the ones that don't give the graphic details of our bodies.

[Clipper Nation]

Rapistscan? lmao

I legitimately thought it said "Rapeiscan" for a second before I did a double take, what a poor choice of name tbh :lol

[Winehole23]

The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (http://topics.bloomberg.com/transportation-security-administration/) will remove airport body scanners that privacy advocates likened to strip searches after OSI Systems Inc. (OSIS) (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/OSIS:US) couldn’t write software to make passenger images less revealing.

TSA will end a $5 million contract with OSI’s Rapiscan unit for the software after Administrator John Pistole (http://topics.bloomberg.com/john-pistole/) concluded the company couldn’t meet a congressional deadline to produce generic passenger images, agency officials said in interviews.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-18/naked-image-scanners-to-be-removed-from-u-s-airports.html