More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Aaron Greenspan

Aaron Greenspan

Posted: November 19, 2010 08:04 PM

Just Say No to X-Rays


In late August, I flew back to my home on the west coast on a Southwest Airlines flight from Boston's Logan International Airport. Before boarding, I encountered a backscatter X-ray scatter at the security checkpoint for the very first time. Luckily, there was no one behind me, so I asked the TSA agent nearby to confirm my fears.

"Is that an X-ray scanner?" I said.

"Yes it is," he stated.

"I won't go through it," I replied. I've already had six CT scans in my life so far, and given that each one amounts to roughly 200 X-ray exposures, I don't need any more excess radiation exposure than I already receive on the flight each way.

"You can go through it. It's safe," he reassured.

"I will not go through it," I repeated.

"We'll turn it off for you," he said. "Just walk through it."

"No," I insisted. "I refuse to walk through that. I'd like to opt-out."

"It'll be off!" he said, not seeming to understand the message. There was no way for me to verify whether the scanner was actually on or off, whether or not it had been calibrated correctly, or how much radiation I was actually being exposed to.

Finally, after a short standoff, a voice of sanity rang out: one of the other TSA agents, an elderly woman who had been listening to the exchange.

"He's opting out, he's opting out!" she said. A solution presented itself: the first agent eventually told me I could walk around the scanner by going through a small gate in front of it, which I did. I received a thorough pat-down afterward, but I didn't care and easily survived despite the temporary discomfort.

A few months later I flew again, this time from Salt Lake City, where five security lines led to metal detectors and one to a backscatter X-ray machine. I maneuvered into a line that led to a metal detector, but one of the scariest images I have ever witnessed was the line of unwitting passengers walking through the much larger X-ray machine nearby, arms raised, like a scene from Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. The woman behind me in line had no idea about the differences between the machines, let alone that she could opt-out of an X-ray scan.

You can opt-out, and you should. It may require repeating yourself four times, and it may hold up the people behind you, but it is most certainly worth it. This is not about the absolute radiation exposure you might receive from one scan, or about sexual assault, or even about airport security. This is about Government's right to subject citizens to ionizing radiation in any quantity at any time without a proper explanation of the consequences of that radiation, and without a proper exploration of safer alternatives. In the United States Constitution, this is referred to as "unreasonable search and seizure." That we have even reached this point represents a grotesque failure of our society on several levels, from Congress to President Obama himself, to the executive branch agency he controls (DHS), its subdivision (TSA), the employees it purports to train, the airports and airlines it works with, the intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA) that should be offsetting the need for such draconian measures, and the passengers who have until now put up anything but a fight.

Now is the time to put up a fight. Tell your relatives from afar that you will probably be late to Thanksgiving dinner, but when you get there, the world will be a safer place.

Aaron Greenspan is President & CEO of Think Computer Corporation and the author of Authoritas: One Student's Harvard Admissions and the Founding of the Facebook Era. He is the creator of FaceCash, a mobile payment system.

 

Follow Aaron Greenspan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/thinkcomp

 
 
  • Comments
  • 77
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
jaslyn
why can't we all just get along?
02:59 PM on 11/22/2010
THANK YOU!!! I've been talking about the dangers of the cumulative effects of ionized radiation since this all began. There are people everywhere on these sites that think it's no big deal, and think it's safe. Get a pat down if you don't have a choice. If you're a frequent traveler, your increasing your risk of cancer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
E Pluribus Unum 2010
02:31 PM on 11/22/2010
http://www.optoutday.com/
Leave early. Enjoy your turkey.
08:40 AM on 11/22/2010
Here is the bottomline - you do have a constitutional right to object to "unreasonable search and seizure", but, you do NOT have a constitutional right to fly in an airplane - so, if you want to fly, you agree to either a pat down or the x-ray or (your third option) don't fly - take a train.
09:52 PM on 11/21/2010
The American Academy of Pediatrics has made a concerted effort to limit the number of xrays children receive in their lifetimes. Each time a child receives a CAT scan their chance of developing cancer increases by 1:1000. I know this doesn't sound like much but this is a LIFETIME risk- it does not go away. Just think about all the xrays that people receive in a lifetime. This is the number 1 source of radiation exposure in this country.
We deserve to know how much radiation we are receiving during these scans and how they effect our risk of developing cancer. The younger you are, the more serious the risk of repeated exposures. I think these procedures must be stopped until this issue is answered, as it is a public health concern.
jaslyn
why can't we all just get along?
03:00 PM on 11/22/2010
keep passing the word, the dangers of ionized radiation need to be put out there.
marinade
All of the above.
12:28 PM on 11/21/2010
How often are these machines serviced? Do they ever break and emit more radiation than they are supposed to?

I'd like to have some kind of radiation badge if I went through. It seems like we have the right to know how much we are being exposed to.

Also, will "they" start keeping the images on file like fingerprints?
jaslyn
why can't we all just get along?
03:01 PM on 11/22/2010
having that picture on file is small potatoes compared to the cancerous effects that you're being exposed to , especially if you're a frequent traveler. Just say NO.
11:53 AM on 11/21/2010
Myth: AIT is not safe.

Fact: Backscatter technology is safe for all passenger and has been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, National Institute for Standards and Technology and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. All results confirm that the radiation dose is well below the standard for safety set by the American national Standards Institute. The technology is safe. A person receives more radiation naturally each hour than from one screening with a backscatter unit. In fact a traveler is exposed to less radiation from one AIT scan than from 2 minutes of an airline flight.
photo
George Hanshaw
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
02:40 PM on 11/21/2010
Fact:

There is no zero effect level for ionizing radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model
10:53 PM on 11/21/2010
take off the tin foil hat. this stuff is totally safe. I mean, I got this information from the TSA's own website. Why would they lie to us? They are just trying to keep us safe, right? We should just shut up and let them do whatever they want to do in the essence of keeping us safe!
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JStading
Trust me, I'm an attorney...
02:55 AM on 11/22/2010
Myth: "In fact a traveler is exposed to less radiation from one AIT scan than from 2 minutes of an airline flight."

Fact: Unlike airline radiation or x-ray radiation, 100% of backscatter/milimeter wave radiation is focused onto the skin, which is prone to cancer.  The result is that one scan subjects the skin to the equivalent amount of radiation that it would receive after 20 x-rays.  (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-body-scanners-deliver-radiation-dose-20-times-higher-thought.html). 

Fact - there is no way to know if a machine is functioning properly or if it is bathing you in a higher rate of radiation.

Fact - there is no effort made to protect the testes or ovaries of people while they are scanned.  This could lead to genetic distortions, an outcome we don't know the risk of, since the TSA refuses to submit the machines to peer reviewed study.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NeoLiberal
09:45 AM on 11/21/2010
Hear hear!
08:01 AM on 11/21/2010
Whatever happened to the "trusted traveler" program? It was being tested with some major carriers, in which you would pay $75 for a background check done by the FBI, and your identity would be checked at the airport by some pretty fail-safe technique like a retinal scan. I still see signs for lines like this at some airports, but never really being used. It seemed to be a very practical program. Maybe just not convoluted enough for the feds to actually adopt it.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
tabaqui
One of those weirdo hippy-dippy types.
02:38 PM on 11/21/2010
And somehow, a background check by the FBI is less 'invasive' of my privacy than a ten second 'x-ray' scan? Sheesh.....
06:29 PM on 11/21/2010
Nah, more profitable to sell Chertoff's Xray machines.
Security? Please. This is about profit, pure and simple.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sprtakis69
Shouldn't all people be entitled to Equal rights?
11:46 PM on 11/20/2010
I'd like to point out these machines were purchased before Obama became POTUS and the procedures were most likely written when the machines were ordered.

I'm just sayin....
photo
George Hanshaw
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
02:44 PM on 11/21/2010
"I'd like to point out these machines were purchased before Obama became POTUS and the procedures were most likely written when the machines were ordered.

I'm just sayin.... "

You are just blowin' smoke - THAT is what you are doing. There machines were purchased with STIMULUS FUNDS.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/1119/TSA-body-scanners-safety-upgrade-or-stimulus-boondoggle

You can't lie and blame everything on Bush (or Reagan, or Nixon) in perpetuity. Eventually you are going to have to man up and acknowledge that it's the dems that are screwing the pooch this time.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sprtakis69
Shouldn't all people be entitled to Equal rights?
04:55 AM on 11/22/2010
My bad - I was going off of what I'd heard on the teevee.

You are correct, while Bush did start it STIMULUS FUNDS did buy more machines this past summer.

The real problem with a lot of it (the purchase) is that Bush's Homeland Security Chief (Chertoff), and Obama's (until Napolitano took over), was pushing for these machines because his client was manufacturing them.

Seems Chertoff and Cheney both took advantage of the American people and bilked us for millions!

Chertoff has repeatedly talked about the need for expanding the use of the technology in airports, saying it could detect bombs like the one federal authorities say Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian, carried onto the Detroit-bound aircraft.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/200210-Ex-Homeland-Security-Chief-Chertoff-Pushes-Body-Scanners-While-His-Client-Manufactures-the-Machines

While I'm not happy with Obama at this present time I'm not about to give Bush a pass for anything!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LeftLeanWing
RightKickFoot
11:32 PM on 11/20/2010
This is about Government's right to subject citizens to ionizing radiation in any quantity at any time without a proper explanation of the consequences of that radiation, and without a proper exploration of safer alternatives.

ScannerRadition (rads) = TwoMinutesIncreasedRadition (rads) at Altitude

So if the the fear is the amount of Radition then its unfounded... 
The higher you go up in altitude the more Cosmic XRays you are exposed to.

So during your 2 hour flight you are getting 60 times more Xray exposure than these machines emit.

The privacy thang is another issue.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sprtakis69
Shouldn't all people be entitled to Equal rights?
11:53 PM on 11/20/2010
I want to opt-out just because I think it'll be fun!

I'd like to moan and say things like - yeah, that's it, that's the spot! Deeper, yeah, yeah, that's it! Go go go god YES!!!

Might as well have fun with it!
07:51 AM on 11/21/2010
TSA agents seem to be selected for notoriously having no sense of humor.
10:23 AM on 11/21/2010
The point of the new NCRP study group is that rads are not rems, grays are not sieverts.
http://www.ncrponline.org/Current_Prog/SC_1-20.html
The in-flight radiation is cosmic-rays, not low-energy X-ray photons. The in-flight radiation is delivered to single random molecules anywhere in the body, not the entire surface of the skin.
The effect on biological systems differs from the delivered energy, and the abstract of the study group expresses doubts about the existing statistical models.
10:41 AM on 11/21/2010
wow - I'm quite impressed by the sophistication of this response - sincerity doesn't always come across in these posting so please know I'm serious. I think there are three problem still - one, although I don't know this for sure I suspect that high energy radiation from space, scattered through our atmosphere, becomes low energy radiation - true, the higher you go the higher the median energy of the radiation, but I don't think that the height of flights would change the quality of radiation that much. Two, low energy radiation is particularly dangerous because it deposits its energy very densely - thus it's not as penetrating - external sources of low energy x-rays are thus limited in their dose-deposition profile through the body - this should keep energy concentrated on dead skin and away from organs. Finally, it's gotta be about dose - it's presently impossible to study micro-rem/Sv radiation doses because there are no metrics, no biological assays sensitive enough to measure them - there frankly just isn't much radiation here, especially compared to the flight's radiation or the radiation encountered in daily living - even if there's a large correction for the relative biological effect (RBE) of low energy x-rays - that correction is on the order of 1-10, not 10-1000 - the corrected flight dose would still be much larger.
09:52 PM on 11/20/2010
While we are all being x-rayed and/or patted down before our flight, the baggage handlers are unwittingly loading packages being shipped that have not been examined or x-rayed. WTH??? The recent examples of unexamined cargo on commercial flights being bombs inside printers makes me wonder about priorities.....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:54 AM on 11/21/2010
The real priority, if you really want to know, is the huge amount of money paid to the government contractor that makes this machine. We are told it is 'safe'. We see in the gulf, how people and animals in the water were exposed to a VERY TOXIC chemical that is banned in the rest of the world. Now we are told that eating gulf seafood is 'safe...' The 9/11 cleanup workers, residents and rescuers were told the environment in lower Manhattan was 'safe' to breathe also. Do you see a pattern here?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NeoLiberal
09:47 AM on 11/21/2010
What we SHOULD be doing is figuring out a way to screen/scan the thousands of cargo containers that enter our country everyday. They go unchecked, unopened, unsearched, and they come from all over the world.

I wonder what's inside them?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realitytrumpsbull
two 'alves of coconut!
09:34 PM on 11/20/2010
On the OTHER hand, if all this scanning helped to prevent some of that international industrial espionage...and I think that's part of what's really at-issue, nevermind if you're the shoe bomber or underpants bomber, what's that in your pants, does Fruit Of The Loom now put blueprints on their hip huggers? What company did you say you work for, again? Say, is that a price tag you forgot to remove or is that a....microchip?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Amber Berglund
Got Mashed Potato, ain't got no T-Bone
09:05 PM on 11/20/2010
I walked through one of those backscatter scanners and didn't even realize it until later.

I was standing in a line waiting to go through security (I can't remember if it was BWI or Kansas City)

I thought I was walking through a metal detector, but they told me to raise my arms above my head. I didn't know why at that time.

Airport security guards wear guns, and there's also this air of intimidation, as though you MUST do as they say, or they may detain you under suspicion of terrorism.

I didn't realize I was being irradiated. They didn't ask me if I were pregnant or if my immune system were compromised.
Honestly, I feel violated. I feel that they should at least tell people that they are being exposed to radiation.
How many children will be born with various cancers because of airport back-scatter scanners?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realitytrumpsbull
two 'alves of coconut!
09:35 PM on 11/20/2010
And how many people will be caught trying to smuggle things like money into/out of the country?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Amber Berglund
Got Mashed Potato, ain't got no T-Bone
09:56 PM on 11/20/2010
Right. Exactly. Probably very few.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
10:00 PM on 11/20/2010
Small price to pay to avoid Chernobyl babies.
03:35 PM on 11/22/2010
Yes. I am sorry to hear it. I agree that it is deeply unacceptable.
08:05 PM on 11/20/2010
The ever-expanding charades of TSA Twister are turning into a Russian Roulette of risks with rewards that go only to the insiders who provide the machines.

Security is secondary when money is the motivation.
07:41 PM on 11/20/2010
" This is about Government's right to subject citizens to ionizing radiation in any quantity at any time without a proper explanation of the consequences of that radiation, and without a proper exploration of safer alternatives. "

====

Explanation be damned. No explanation about personal safety with respect to the form of scan (or pat-down) jusitfies engaging in such searches absent a level of cause making the search Constitutionally permissible. The government should not be permitted to just say "no harm, no foul" and, therefore, allow it to search anyone for no articulable reason specific to that person. Such a search is, itself, a harm to our personal liberty (the loss of which threatens our physical well-being), whether or not there is an actual deleterious effect resulting from the radiation.