TSA Puts Off Safety Study of X-ray Body Scanners

Previous independent observations  and studies have signaled how the body scanners do cause cancer due to the radiation. Furthermore, airport scanner operators have been diagnosed with cancer a few years after working next to the machines.

by Michael Grabell
ProPublica
November 16, 2011

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 [1] 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 [2] of the health effects of the X-ray scanners, also known as backscatters.

But at a Senate hearing [3] of a different committee last week, Pistole said he had since received a draft report on the machines by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general, or IG, that might render the independent study unnecessary.

“My strong belief is those types of machines are still completely safe,” Pistole said. “If the determination is that this IG study is not sufficient, then I will look at still yet another additional study.”

According to a summary obtained by ProPublica, the inspector general concluded the machines are within industry standards for radiation exposure limits. But the summary also suggests the report focuses mostly on how the TSA monitors and maintains the machines. The full report won’t be released for several weeks.

“I hope the Obama administration is not backing away from an independent study of the health effects of these radiation-emitting machines,” Collins said in a statement to ProPublica. “What I asked for — and what the administrator committed to — was an independent study on the health effects of [the] machines, not just a study on whether TSA is doing an adequate job of inspecting, maintaining and operating” them.

The inspector general’s report calls on the TSA to ensure that radiation surveys are conducted for unintended emissions, that calibrations are consistently documented and that airport screeners complete annual radiation safety training. The inspector general also advised the agency to determine how much on-the-job training is needed for screeners who operate the backscatters and to ensure that accidental radiation overdoses are properly reported.

It’s unclear whether the recommendations resulted from any problems found during the investigation, or are general reminders about best practices. It’s also unclear whether investigators measured the radiation doses from the machines themselves or relied on inspections conducted by the manufacturer.

The TSA uses two types of body scanners [4]. With the backscatter machines that have been the focus of health concerns, a passenger stands between two large blue boxes and is scanned with a pencil X-ray beam that moves rapidly left to right and up and down the body. With the other kind of scanner, called a millimeter-wave machine, a passenger enters a chamber that looks like a round phone booth and is scanned with a form of low-energy radio waves, which do not strip electrons from atoms and have not been shown to cause cancer.

In recent years, the TSA has commissioned tests of the X-ray scanners by the Food and Drug Administration and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. In addition, survey teams from the Army Public Health Command visit airports to check the machines.

Those tests have all shown that the X-ray scanners emit extremely low levels of radiation, equivalent to the radiation received in a few minutes of flying. But the tests haven’t doused questions from some outside radiation experts about why the TSA doesn’t use only the millimeter-wave machines, which the agency also deems highly effective.

The European Union on Monday prohibited the use of X-ray body scanners [5] in European airports “in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens’ health and safety.”

But others have pointed to problems with millimeter-wave machines. Germany announced earlier this year that it would forgo the machines after concluding that they produced too many false positives.

There are currently 500 body scanners, split about evenly between the two technologies, deployed in airports. The TSA plans to deploy 1,275 backscatter and millimeter-wave scanners covering more than half its security lanes by the end of 2012 and 1,800 covering nearly all lanes by 2014.

No Longer Free, No Longer Brave

Except for a tiny minority, the United States population is composed of government dependent, ideologically insane, reality ignorant people who are no longer free nor brave.

by Katerina Azarova
Russia Today
September 9, 2011

As terrorists struck New York on September 11th, the United States vowed to fight back and protect their country, their people and their freedom. But 10 years on, it seems that freedom is just an illusion, and the US is becoming an Orwellian state.

When George W Bush spoke about the necessity of “protecting the homeland of our country”, he probably thought that the homeland was literally just that – a land that one calls home. And while most people focused on the fact that the then US president had once again made a grammatical blunder, many saw a hidden danger in his statement – not only because of the Big Brother-type security changes ahead, but also because of the very nature of the word “homeland”.

Merriam-Webster defines “homeland” as “a state or area set aside to be a state for a people of a particular national, cultural, or racial origin.” Now, that really doesn’t apply to one of the youngest countries in the world, which has no shared cultural or racial origin. Dig a little deeper and many linguists will tell you of the word’s decidedly Teutonic origin. A blend of two proto-Germanic words “kham” (home) and “landan” (land), a homeland does not unite people by ideas or beliefs. It ties them firmly to the land. It is a concept that has little to do with patriotism – despite the fact the words do share common Greek roots – and, ironically, it was used ad nauseam by the US government in the post-9/11 world. Ironic because it’s patriotism that is more applicable to the concept of the United States as a nation – one where people of all cultures and backgrounds come together for shared ideas, opportunities and beliefs. And one of the key ideas that most people chose to make the US their home was one much propagated by President Ronald Reagan. The idea of freedom.

Reagan once said that “above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have.” But 20 years after Reagan was sworn in, the terrorist attacks of September 11th happened – and George W Bush decided that there are weapons more appropriate than freedom.

Because freedom – that greatly advertised American concept – was effectively taken away from the people, with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Under the new Patriot Act, The Federal Bureau of Investigation began probing almost every second of every life in the country and when people wanted to leave the country, the Transport Security Administration probed them. The Big German-sounding Brother was fully established, the people living in the ‘land of the free’ under surveillance at all times.

The Patriot Act is probably one of the most controversial pieces of legislature in American history. An acronym that, for all the old and new security bureaus, Provides Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism. But the tools included in the bill weren’t – and still aren’t –considered appropriate by many. Wiretaps and electronic surveillance were legalized. Arrests were made on a daily basis. When the number of those detained reached 1200, officials stopped counting. Personal records no longer remained personal – and that was only the domestic beginning.

What followed – and still continues today – may be labeled by politicians as a ‘war on terror’ or ‘defense of their people’, but really it is just shy of a full-scale military offensive on multiple countries.

While the Department of Homeland Security watched over the land of the no-longer-free, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with the Department of Defense, took the war on terror overseas. The result? Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and multiple ‘black sites’ across Europe, where prisoners and suspected terrorists were tortured, abused and killed. Since 9/11, more than 600 men have been brought to Guantanamo Bay prison alone – and only one has so far been charged.

Many will argue that this is in fact proof of the Patriot Act’s success. But there is a logical issue. The act’s objective is to prevent attacks on America by bringing terrorists under state control – not to investigate or prosecute past cases. Therefore, any evaluation of the Patriot Act requires the disproving of a negative. If there have been no further Al-Qaeda attacks on the United States, it may mean that the act has done its job. But if there are no attacks, how does one prove they were “prevented” by the Patriot Act?

Numerous statements by US politicians have strived to provide some believable data. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, an avid supporter of the act, dismissed doubts and claims of freedom violations as “hysteria” and claimed no less that “3000 foot soldiers of terror have been incapacitated” since the act’s implementation. No matter that no group or person had independent access to basic information about these alleged terrorists and their alleged plots.

Officially, 1200 special interest detainees were held and investigated under the Patriot Act. The Justice Department examined more than 700 of them, and none was ever linked to any terrorist group or plot. Nevertheless, upon his resignation in 2004, Ashcroft’s letter stated that “The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.” This should have meant the end of the Patriot Act, for it included a “sunset” provision, to expire in December 2005. Seven years later, it’s still in place and regularly being enforced…not necessarily for a war against terror.

Statistics show that the so-called sneak-and-peak, a search warrant that can be executed without prior warning, is mostly used for drug-related crimes. Between 2006 and 2009, 1618 delayed-search warrants were issued for drugs, 122 for fraud – and only 15 (!) for terrorism.

All this is being done in the name of protection of American soil and citizens. Of protecting their most valued asset, freedom. George W Bush claimed that the war on terror was necessary “for the freedom of the homeland”. But instead of inspiring faith, he only intensified the fear residing within every American citizen since 9/11, for his words sounded a lot like those of another historic leader.’

“What we have to fight for…is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be able to fulfil the mission assigned to it by the Creator.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

Inspecciones y Detecciones de Comportamiento en Aeropuertos

Nuestra probabilidad de ser elegidos en una nación de sospechosos

Por Luis R. Miranda
Boiling Frogs
4 de agosto 2011

La Agencia de Seguridad Aeroportuaria de Estados Unidos (TSA) está a punto de comenzar programas de control en “puestos de control de comportamiento y seguridad” en los aeropuertos. ¿Quiénes son estos agentes de la TSA? Estos son los mismos ignorantes, incompetentes, escandalosos, molestadores, abusivos, y en algunos casos los criminales que han creado un escándalo tras otro. Entonces, ¿qué estos policías escandalosos, incompetentes y criminales hacen detectando comportamientos sospechosos? Lo más probable es que usted lo hayan adivinado. Ellos estarán observando y tal vez interrogando a las personas para determinar si los viajantes -USTED- es sospechoso, o no. ¿Cómo van a hacer eso, y en base a qué pautas?

De acuerdo con su descripción, ellos buscarán “micro expresiones”, como la falta de contacto visual, comportamiento agitado o nervioso, que podrían dar alguna “pista” de alguna intención nefasta. ¿Cuánto de ese comportamiento sospechoso es necesario para ser detenido como sospechoso? Ellos no dicen. ¿Qué tan agitado se considera sospechosamente agitado? Ellos no dicen. ¿Cuánta falta de contacto visual podría considerarse como un nivel sospechoso? No dicen nada sobre eso. ¿Cuáles son las probabilidades de ser elegido de acuerdo al estado de ánimo, prejuicios y psicosis de estos observadores? Bueno, ellos no dicen.

Básicamente, un grupo de gente incompetente, abusiva, tendenciosa y criminal tendrán un poder casi ilimitado -dado por el gobierno- serán libres para usar sus juicios subjetivos para decidir si alguien es sospechoso o no. Ahora quiero que USTED piense en la agitación, la aversión, el nerviosismo, el estrés, la tímidez … Piense en ello, y luego calcule las probabilidades de que USTED sea determinado como un sospechoso, y por lo tanto ser uno de sus elegidos:

Si usted es uno de los adictos a los Starbucks y está acostumbrado a beber varias tazas de espresso, entonces puede apostar que USTED será uno de los muchos que serán elegidos por la TSA. Usted sabe que va a parecer electrico, y la TSA probablemente leerá su electricidad como un indicador fundamental de su desconfianza. Usted puede ser elegido.

Si usted es una de muchas señoras por ahí con el temperamento cambiante y oscilante estado de ánimo, por los ciclos de la menstruación, eche un vistazo rápido a su agenda y asegúrese de que su próximo vuelo no coincida con ese momento del mes.

Si usted es uno de los padres que viajan con niños, algunos de ellos con edades de dos, tres, o cuatro años, USTED va a tener que enviar a los niños en la sección de carga. Todos sabemos lo frustrante y la agitación se puede haber al viajar y manejar niños de esa edad, sobre todo cuando pasamos por la revisión de zapatos, el cinturón, caricias otros comportamientos. Su estado de frustración y agitación probablemente hará que sea uno de los elegidos de la TSA.

Si usted es una de las minorías raciales … bueno, no necesito decir más. Piense en esos eventos de abuso policíal, multipliquelos varias veces, y ese será el chance de que usted sea seleccionado como uno de los que parecen sospechosos.
Si USTED es tímido, entonces usted está totalmente sin suerte. Usted sabe que la mayoría definitivamente aparta la vista … por lo menos una o dos veces ante la mirada de los observadores. Hágase un favor y cancele todos los viajes aéreos. Usted definitivamente va a ser un elegido.

En realidad, cuando nos damos cuenta, si usted es un “estadounidense”, usted puede también poner todas sus apuestas en que será elegido por la TSA, en un momento u otro. Debido a que el Gobierno estadounidense le ha designado a usted, todos y cada uno de ustedes como “sospechosos”. Cuando se trata de sus comunicaciones, teléfono, e-mail, etc cada uno de ustedes es un sospechoso, de acuerdo con su gobierno; en las escuchas telefónicas y la vigilancia de las comunicaciones telefónicas. Piense en ello, incluso los “ordinarios” procedimientos de seguridad en los aeropuertos son formas de hacer que USTED se someta a ser considerado como un sospechoso. Si usted realiza algún tipo de conducta sospechosa o no es realmente un dilema discutible. Nosotros, mi amigo, todos nosotros, fuimos designados como sospechosos desde hace casi una década. Es mejor devolver ese billete de avión, olvidarse de ese vuelo y conducir nuestro carro mientras podemos. Antes de que la policía de detección de comportamiento sospechoso se haga cargo de los caminos también, y haga el conducir, una experiencia humillante e imposible.

 

U.S. Court Rules in favor of Body Scanners

The Court defied Fourth Amendment and told TSA to get public comments on body scanners.

Associated Press
July 16, 2011

The public should have had the chance to raise concerns about full body scanners before the government put them in airports around the country, a federal appeals court said Friday. But now that the machines are there, the government doesn’t have to stop using them.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the Transportation Security Administration to start soliciting comments about the machines, which show an image of a person’s naked body.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington-based civil liberties group, tried to force the TSA to stop using the machines, arguing that they violated privacy and religious freedom laws as well as the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches

The appeals court did not find that the machines violated the Fourth Amendment and said that, because the scanners have become an essential part of airport security, they can remain in use while the public comments. The government did not say whether it would appeal the ruling.

The TSA screeners who watch travelers as they pass through the machines do not see the naked images. The screeners who see the images work in separate locations and don’t see the passengers. Travelers may choose not to go through the scanner, but they then receive an invasive pat-down, which many feel also violates privacy.

EPIC said it doesn’t object to the scanners being used as a secondary way to screen passengers in some instances.

Mother arrested for Protecting their Children from TSA

by Erin Quinn
The Tennessean
July 13, 2011

A 41-year-old Clarksville woman was arrested after Nashville airport authorities say she was belligerent and verbally abusive to security officers, refusing for her daughter to be patted down at a security checkpoint.

Andrea Fornella Abbott yelled and swore at Transportation Security Administration agents Saturday afternoon at Nashville International Airport, saying she did not want her daughter to be “touched inappropriately or have her “crotch grabbed,” a police report states.

After the woman refused to calm down, airport police said, she was charged with disorderly conduct and taken to jail. She has been released on bond.

Attempts to reach Abbott on Tuesday were unsuccessful. The report does not list her daughter’s age. The mother and daughter were traveling from Nashville to Baltimore on Southwest Airlines.

“(She) told me in a very stern voice with quite a bit of attitude that they were not going through that X-ray,” Sabrina Birge, an airport security officer, told police.

“No, it’s not an X-ray,” she told Abbott. “It is 10,000 times safer than your cell phone and uses the same type of radio waves as a sonogram.”

“I still don’t want someone to see our bodies naked,” Abbott said, according to the police report.

At one point, Abbott tried unsuccessfully to take a video with her cellphone.

TSA policy revised

The arrest comes on the heels of public outrage over a video showing a pat-down of a 6-year-old girl at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport. The April video prompted a new policy that took effect last month in which airport security screeners must try to avoid invasive pat-down searches of children.

TSA says it will instruct screeners how to make repeated attempts to screen young children without invasive pat-downs. The instructions should reduce the number of pat-downs on children, TSA says.

Related Links:

Togel178

Pedetogel

Sabatoto

Togel279

Togel158

Colok178

Novaslot88

Lain-Lain

Partner Links