U.S. Government Glossed Over Cancer Concerns As It Rolled Out Airport X-Ray Scanners

[Psephos]

Source: Pro Publica

On Sept. 23, 1998, a panel of radiation safety experts gathered at a Hilton hotel in Maryland to evaluate a new device that could detect hidden weapons and contraband. The machine, known as the Secure 1000, beamed X-rays at people to see underneath their clothing.

One after another, the experts convened by the Food and Drug Administration raised questions about the machine because it violated a longstanding principle in radiation safety — that humans shouldn’t be X-rayed unless there is a medical benefit.

“I think this is really a slippery slope,” said Jill Lipoti, who was the director of New Jersey’s radiation protection program. The device was already deployed in prisons; what was next, she and others asked — courthouses, schools, airports? “I am concerned … with expanding this type of product for the traveling public,” said another panelist, Stanley Savic, the vice president for safety at a large electronics company. “I think that would take this thing to an entirely different level of public health risk.”

<snip>

Research suggests that anywhere from six to 100 U.S. airline passengers each year could get cancer from the machines. Still, the TSA has repeatedly defined the scanners as “safe,” glossing over the accepted scientific view that even low doses of ionizing radiation — the kind beamed directly at the body by the X-ray scanners — increase the risk of cancer.

<snip>



Read more: http://www.propublica.org/article/u.s.-government-glossed-over-cancer-concerns-as-it-rolled-out-airport-x-ray

[Lint Head]

1. That's because collateral damage is expected in the War on Terror.

:sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

2. Think we have to be calling this what it is ... "corrupt government" ---

the RW political coup in 1963 took not only our president but our people's

government, as well!

[cyberpj]

7. Thank you for rightfully dating the RW political coup. So many either forget or won't see. nt

[SoapBox]

3. Not to mention all those TSA that are just standing next to those things all DAY.

Here comes more cancer.

Too bad they won't have medical coverage.

[OnyxCollie]

6. I'm guessing there's an arbitration agreement in the contract.

Thanks to the Concepcion v AT&T opinion from the SCOTUS, arbitration agreements have effectively dismantled class action lawsuits.

Got cancer? Tough shit. Find another job.

[TheMadMonk]

4. Out of how many hundreds of millions of travellers?

The radiation exposure (including far more intense and energetic x-rays resulting from cosmic radiation striking the metal fuselage) during the flight is far, far higher. those estimated 6-100 are lost amongst the thousands (if we use the same methodology) who might have gotten cancer from flying alone, and those thousands fade into the background of hundreds of thousands of other non-specific cancers every year amongst people who's feet never leave the ground.

A badly tuned car's exhaust fumes are a far more potent carcinogen. Those of a motor mower running on unleaded fuel worse still.

Even whether you habitually walk on the kerb of a busy street or away from it is far more likely to affect you chances of cancer than an airport X-ray.

I'm not saying the scanners are either wonderful or desirable. All I'm saying is that this particular argument against them holds very little water.

[randome]

8. Thanks for offering a calm assessment.

Really. Thanks.

[Psephos]

9. good post n/t

[yardwork]

10. Increased risk is increased risk. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, more people will get cancer

because of the unnecessary use of these machines. How would you like to be the one?

The argument that other things are more carcinogenic is not relevant to the question of whether or not we should add more carcinogens into the environment. It's a logical fallacy. Plutonium is very carcinogenic. Does that mean it's ok to drink arsenic, because arsenic is less carcinogenic? Obviously the answer is no. The goal is to reduce the environmental burden of carcinogens, not increase them here there and everywhere.

[randome]

11. MY take on this...

...is that you are correct but the risk is so miniscule as to not be worth worrying about.

It is always a balancing act. I'm not saying Homeland Security or TSA is incapable of doing some stupid things but the idea is to protect the flying public versus (a number I'm just pulling out of my ass.) a .0001 % CHANCE that someone's predisposition to cancer MIGHT be increased.

It's not OK to drink arsenic because there is no public safety issue at stake.

[Celefin]

12. You're both right

but if I understand the article correctly, they are not very worried about the use of airport scanners as such, even if they deem them an unnecessary risk.
The problem they see is that the things become the norm because
a) people get used to them
b) they ARE convenient safety equipment

The real problem arises when you install the things at bus and train stations, receptions at larger companies, schools, any other public building.
One scanner isn't the problem. The problem would be being scanned several times every day over years.
The cancer risk from that is not negligible.
That's why they mention the 'slippery slope'.

[TheMadMonk]

14. Less negligible, but still not great. And still not a valid reason for objection.

After all you choose which side of the footpath all the time.


The valid reason is "Because it's bloody intrusive. Now fuck off out of my life."

[yardwork]

13. It sounds like our real difference of opinion is in the level of protection required.

I, personally, don't believe that any of the scanning or security improves the public's safety. I think it's all window dressing. I think it's an excuse to scare people into being compliant with a police state and make a profit at the same time.

[Matariki]

16. As if even ONE person getting cancer due to those things is acceptable

That attitude denotes a really callous attitude to human suffering - to treat a human life and the suffering as a fucking acceptable statistic.

That argument would hold a LOT of water if YOU or someone you loved got cancer due to the radiation from one of those machines.

[OnyxCollie]

5. K&R. nt

[lovuian]

15. what is REALLY Scary is putting a child through the scanner

repeatedly

and the TSA agents are going to have a short life span