DHS' X-ray scanners could be cancer risk to border crossers

[Newsjock]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57358146-281/dhs-x-ray-scanners-could-be-cancer-risk-to-border-crossers/

Internal Homeland Security documents describing specifications for border-crossing scanners, which emit gamma or X-ray radiation to probe vehicles and their occupants, are raising new health and privacy concerns, CNET has learned.

Even though a public outcry has prompted Homeland Security to move away from adding X-ray machines to airports--it purchased 300 body scanners last year that used alternative technology instead--it appears to be embracing them at U.S.-Mexico land border crossings as an efficient way to detect drugs, currency, and explosives.

A 63-page set of specifications (PDF), heavily redacted, obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center through the Freedom of Information Act, says the scanners must "be based on X-Ray or gamma technology," which use potentially dangerous ionizing radiation at high energies, and "shall be capable of scanning cars, SUVs, motorcycles and busses."

"Society will pay a huge price in cancer because of this," John Sedat, professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California at San Francisco, told CNET. Sedat has raised concerns about the health risks of X-ray scanners, and the European Commission in November prohibited their use in European airports.

[DJ13]

1. Wouldnt the answer be to have passengers get out of the vehicle

... when its being scanned?

[RC]

2. No, the answer is to get rid of the paranoid nut cases in and out of our government that are backing

this shit of 'everybody's a criminal' mentality our overlords have of us.

It seems someone is gearing up for us, you and me, to be the enemy. Otherwise why all the fancy, high tech crowd control and intensified border control.

Shutdown the Military/Industrial/Complex. It is killing too many innocent people.

[arikara]

3. Bingo

k&r for your response.

[DJ13]

4. I agree, in fact I was the first rec on the OP

I was just offering a compromise since the machines are already in use.

[caraher]

5. I have mixed feelings about these kinds of reports

On one hand, I don't think the investment in all this technology is warranted in terms of legitimate security objectives, and is outright objectionable on basic privacy grounds. These machines can easily be used to conduct surveillance without cause. And since they serve few legitimate purposes, any radiation exposure at all from them poses an unwarranted potential health risk.

At the same time, that risk is pretty darned tiny. If you dig past the article linked in the OP you'll find that while there are indeed legitimate technical questions about what the actual exposure from these devices would be, the disputes do not materially change the overall conclusion that there's not much risk to any individual. For instance, the abstract of the paper by Rez the CNET article quotes concludes, after pointing out all the ways the manufacturer's dose estimates may be suspect, "Nevertheless, calculated effective doses are well below doses associated with health effects."

The one thing the Rez paper really worries about is a failure scenario in which the scanning mechanism freezes up and operators take many seconds to realize this. It's not clear exactly how well-engineered the fail-safe features of these scanners are. The Rez paper estimates that to be in compliance with regulations, they'd need to shut off in 15 milliseconds, which means reliance on some mechanism (since no human operator could respond to such a failure so quickly).

[newfie11]

6. Nothing low energy is going to give that image

This is a shit load of radiation. You cannot get that image without a very high gamma output. If they do this people need to be removed from the vehicle first and be no where near it during the scan. HELL YEAH this will cause cancer if done often enough. This is insanity!!!!!!!!!

If they are monitored like the chernoff porno scanners at the airports, run/drive far far away. In medical radiography all our x-ray equipment MUST be tested once a year by a physicist.

It is my understanding the scanners at airports are never tested. If they are the info is not available to public.

[newfie11]

7. There is no way to know what radiation level in each indivudal will cause cancer

Everyone is different. Yes there is a known dose that will for sure cause cancer but radiation is cumulative. Enough scans in enough places and add some CT's, Fluoro, C-arm in OR, Hip Pinning, etc to the rest. You bet it could cause cancer. This is totally unnecessary unlike medical tests.
Again I say the is INSANE!!!