May of 2010 T.S.A. worker Rolando Negrin assults a co-worker for jokes about his penis size after a training session with a total body scanner. The T.S.A. is using total body scanners in an attempt to reveal more hidden threats. The agency and the scanners manufacturer insist that passenger embarrassments are impossible due to features installed to prevent such from happening. Most of us would agree to a brief flash of quasi-nudity if it meant a safe flight. Body scanners and pat-downs are supposed to make passengers feel safer by detecting potential threats that could bring down an airplane. More than nine years after the 9/11 attacks, it seems that airport security may have crossed the line. Grassroots groups are calling on people either not to fly or to protest by refusing to submit to those full body scans, the ones that show everything. Major airline pilot unions are urging their members to avoid body scans. They are worried about health risks associated because of repeated small doses of radiation along with intrusiveness and security officer behavior. The T.S.A. insists that the machines are safe. And you believe what the government tells you, don’t you? A quote from security guru Bruce Schneier, a plaintiff in the body scanner lawsuit, calls this “magical thinking… descend on what the terrorists did last time and we will all be safe, as if they won’t think of something else”. Which of course they do. As of November of 2010, there are 373 body scanners in 68 U.S. airports, and another 1000 scanners were in place by the end of 2011. In addition, another 5355 employees are to be hired at a cost of $219 million the first year. The T.S.A. uses two types of scanners, one zaps the passenger with a tiny amount of x-rays which stop at the skin, the other scanner uses millimeter waves which are similar to microwaves. The FDA says radiation exposure is no more than minimal risk for passengers being scanned. T.S.A. chief John Pistole holds his view on body scanners. He quotes “they are an important role in the future of aviation security. (The Wall Street Journal, U.S. edition, Wednesday November 17th, 2010). Some scientists and two major airline pilots unions argue that not enough is known about the effects of the small doses of x-ray radiation emitted by backscatter x-ray technology, one of the two types of airport scanning machines. Backscatter technology raises concerns among some because it uses small doses of ionizing radiation. If you think of the entire population of, shall we say a billion people per year going through these scanners; it is very likely that some will develop cancer from the radiation that the scanners emit. Passengers however can opt out of the advance image scanning. Those who choose so however will be subject to an intrusive pat-down. The T.S.A.’s new pat-down procedure is more up close and personal than previous hand pat-downs of the past. So for airport passengers that means choosing between risks of cancer or allowing a total stranger, putting it frankly to “feel your genitals”. While the risk of harmful radiation exposure from backscatter scans is small, according to David Brenner, Director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University, even he has concerns about how widely the scanners will be used. In April of 2009, four scientists from the University of California-San Francisco sent John Holdren, President Obama’s top science advisor a letter declaring their concerns about the potential serious health risks. The four scientists, a biochemist, a cancer specialist and two x-ray experts noted that this is an urgent situation as these x-ray scanners are rapidly becoming implemented as a part of primary screening for all air travelers to be safe. They maintained that the dose of radiation delivered by these machines would appear to be safe if it were distributed throughout the passengers entire body, but they contended, because most of the dose is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.
They insisted that the devices could cause breast cancer in a fraction of female passengers, damage white blood cells, induce cancer within HIV and cancer patients, and cause “mutagenic effects”- that is chromosome damage that could potentially lead to cancer especially in older travelers. They also added that the risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to have been fully evaluated and they suggest that pregnant women can be at risk as well. In the meantime the T.S.A. is marching ahead with its plan to install full body scanners in airports across the country. Jenna Baker McNeill is a homeland security policy analyst at the heritage foundation in Washington D.C. She quotes “there is absolutely nothing wrong with full body scanners”. “In fact the more we innovate, the more we can stay one step ahead”. She says that there are still major problems with the way the T.S.A. is handling security at airports. Passengers are required to choose between a full body scan and an aggressive pat-down as a part of routine screening. This sends a message that we are all potential terrorists when really almost everyone is an innocent traveler. As for the pat-downs, one pilot says it was like “sexual molestation”. A California man learned this after being thrown out of a San Diego, California airport. John Tyner first refused to submit to a total body scan, opting for the traditional metal scanner and a basic pat-down. Then he refused a groin check by the security officer saying at one point, “you touch my junk and I am going to have you arrested. Tyner faces a civil suit and a $10,000 fine. All this comes just days before Thanksgiving and the start of the busiest travel time of the year. The fuss over pat-downs seems to have displaced the fuss over the full-body scanner images that can show more than T.S.A. agents really need to know about passengers. There has got to be a better way of approaching security on airlines. The previous terrorists had for the most part already been spotted and under surveillance by the federal government before they ever got on an airplane. How was it that they were able to fly so easily? A lot of people believe that most of the issues with security arise before anybody even gets to the airport. We pretend that we go through this nonsense as a small price paid to assure the safety for us all. When in all reality some say that 95% of the inspections, searches, shoe removal, and pat-downs are basically considered “overkill”. The only reason we continue to do this is that people are too afraid to question the so called taboo against profiling. Instead of seeking out terrorists, they seek out tubes of hair gel and toothpaste, invasively pat us down, run us through full body scans with the risk of privacy invasion and health concerns. This time the government has seemed to go too far with the full body scans and the absurd pat-downs. So for airport passengers That means choosing between the risks of cancer or allowing a total stranger to put his or her hands were they should not be.