Pilots urged to avoid full body scanning

[Mitch Cronin]

"frost back" eh? .... I've never heard that before... makes sense, I guess.... Did that come from someone in Lesser North America [ ], or is it home grown, so to speak?

[Kip Powick]

I don't see what we're "accepting" that is so bad. There's absolutely nothing that a few thousand frost back pilots are going to do that will affect what happens south of the border. They could care less if a few dozen flights to Canada get canceled.

In Canada, where we potentially might have some pull if we needed to exercise it, we are subject only to holding our card up to a reader and having our finger scanned and I haven't seen anything that would indicate that that will change.

Not exactly what I call being violated.

Hello D.

I really don't give a rats ass about what happens south of the border but if the "frosts backs" take a stand, perhaps others will follow. You do what is required for the country you are flying out of...that is a given....but...wouldn't it be nice for pilots in Canada to be a "leader" in change vs a follower of the status quo or shall we just remain those quaint folk from the Great White North?

PS..statistically, the phrase used most often by Canadians is "Excuse me..sorry" and we are well known for our politeness but just how far are you going to be pushed with respect to being a professional airman, airwoman, "airperson".

Apathy is not an enviable trait...no matter where you come from..

[Don Hudson]

Don: my point remains. There is no likelyhood of aircrews presenting a common front on this issue and unless they do so, nothing will change.

Hi malcolm;

Yes, understand malcolm and agree. My argument isn't that such things aren't required or possible but that it takes great effort after the dream. I hope you understood my post this way and not as a disagreement with the notion itself. Even with deep commitment, putting these things into practise can be challenging. Whether it should be or not is a different question entirely but I think we're all clear here on that question.

Kip, same thing - I intend that we are on the same page here regarding crew treatment and firm action but to be fair to the discussion the details need examination as does any coordinated response. To do otherwise would be foolish and could possibly backfire. Except for ill-defined notions of "safety", the Canadian public very clearly has little support for "airline pilot issues" and would react badly if a strike vote were taken on the issue of security checks. While we do not have nearly the issues in Canada which our colleagues must endure in the US, body-scanners are in place in some Canadian airports. Other than inchman, we have not heard from anyone regarding "pat-down or radiation?" Perhaps someone will comment and begin putting flesh on this issue for Canadian crews.

Don

[J.O.]

Even with a concerted multi-company effort, an en masse dropping of tools over an American security issue would be equivalent of pissing into a 50 knot breeze. Whether we like it or not, the public has been brainwashed into accepting that these security measures are necessary. There would be zero sympathy for the cause and we'd only end up going back to work with our collective tails tucked between our legs. If we want to affect any change, this can only be done if the unions south of the border were to sit down with those in charge at FAA / DHS / TSA and discuss it like adults, rather than trying to embarrass them into a change in a public - and no doubt nasty - way.

IMHO of course.

[inchman]

"frost back" eh? .... I've never heard that before... makes sense, I guess.... Did that come from someone in Lesser North America [ ], or is it home grown, so to speak?

It was a term used by (some) American Airlines pilots towards Canadian Airlines pilots during the code sharing between those companies in the 90's. Because of the lower wages north of the border and the extreme difference in the dollar, someone down there coined the phrase to draw the parallel with the potential loss of jobs due to cheap labour of "sweat backs" from south of their border.

Bottom line is, in the context of the thread, that they could give two hoots what someone outside the US thinks of their security policies.

[Kip Powick]

It was a term used by (some) American Airlines pilots towards Canadian Airlines pilots during the code sharing between those companies in the 90's. Because of the lower wages north of the border and the extreme difference in the dollar, someone down there coined the phrase to draw the parallel with the potential loss of jobs due to cheap labour of "sweat backs" from south of their border.

Bottom line is, in the context of the thread, that they could give two hoots what someone outside the US thinks of their security policies.

The term used for those south of the US border that 'immigrated' into the US is "Wetbacks". It was coined cause many of the Mexicans got into the USA by swimming across the Rio Grande River.

[inchman]

The term used for those south of the US border that 'immigrated' into the US is "Wetbacks". It was coined cause many of the Mexicans got into the USA by swimming across the Rio Grande River.

I stand corrected.

[Luc Skywalker]

All,

What do you think of someone "setting up a pilot" or framing him or her to nip this in the bud? Nah they wouldn't do that would they?

[Maranatha]

Apathy is not an enviable trait...no matter where you come from..

Well Kip, it's kinda like a bumper sticker I once saw, a classic really: "I am neither for nor against apathy!" Like the sticker at the entrance to the simulator, "Just because yer paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get ya1"

I went through the full-body scanner in DEN last month. My travelling companion went through conventional screening. When I made the pyramid with my fingers as ordered, I made sure that the middle finger was fully up. Nothing was noticed, or said. For a retired old flatulator like me, it's an issue but for active pilots it's an issue that should cause ALPA/ACPA/BALPA/Vereinigung Cockpit etc to set the parking brakes for a couple of days. Also CUPE [they down tools: they don't set the park brake]. Whether the intestinal fortitude exists to do that is another matter altogether.

Hope all is well in Eastern Ontario.

[Maranatha]

I don't see what we're "accepting" that is so bad. There's absolutely nothing that a few thousand frost back pilots are going to do that will affect what happens south of the border. They could care less if a few dozen flights to Canada get canceled.

In Canada, where we potentially might have some pull if we needed to exercise it, we are subject only to holding our card up to a reader and having our finger scanned and I haven't seen anything that would indicate that that will change.

Not exactly what I call being violated.

But Inchman, when you clear security in the USA after a layover you will have to go through their process. That's when it gets tricky.

Glad it's not me anymore, but I still travel to the USA occasionally, and I don't like it one bit.

[Kip Powick]

Here is a new CNN video concerning the pilot/passenger backlash...

The TSA administrator does use "babble gaff" but based on what I heard.....things may change, especially for the pilots.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/11/15/exp.am.intv.pistole.tsa.cnn?hpt=T1

[W5]

Received this little tidbit in my e-mail this morning:

Full Frontal Nudity Doesn't Make Us Safer: Abolish the TSA

By ART CARDEN

The Republicans control the House of Representatives and are bracing for a long battle over the President's health care proposal. In the spirit of bipartisanship and sanity, I propose that the first thing on the chopping block should be an ineffective organization that wastes money, violates our rights, and encourages us to make decisions that imperil our safety. I'm talking about the Transportation Security Administration.

Bipartisan support should be immediate. For fiscal conservatives, it's hard to come up with a more wasteful agency than the TSA. For privacy advocates, eliminating an organization that requires you to choose between a nude body scan or genital groping in order to board a plane should be a no-brainer.

But won't that compromise safety? I doubt it. The airlines have enormous sums of money riding on passenger safety, and the notion that a government bureaucracy has better incentives to provide safe travels than airlines with billions of dollars worth of capital and goodwill on the line strains credibility. This might be beside the point: in 2003, William Anderson incisively argued that some of the steps that airlines (and passengers) would have needed to take to prevent the 9/11 disaster probably would have been illegal.

The odds of dying from a terrorist attack are much lower than the odds of dying from doing any of a number of incredibly mundane things we do every day. You are almost certainly more likely to die or be injured driving to the airport than you are to be injured by a terrorist once you're in the air, even without a TSA. Indeed, once you have successfully made it to the airport, the most dangerous part of your trip is over. Until it's time to drive home, that is.

Last week, I picked up a "TSA Customer Comment Card." First, it's important that we get one thing straight: I am not the TSA's "customer." The term "customer" denotes an honorable relationship in which I and a seller voluntarily trade value for value. There's nothing voluntary about my relationship with the TSA.

A much more appropriate term for our relationship is "subject." The TSA stands between me and those with whom I would like to trade, and I am not allowed to without their blessing.

Second, the TSA doesn't provide security. It provides security theater, as Jeffrey Goldberg argues. The kid with the slushie in Tucson before the three-ounce-rule? The little girl in the princess costume at an airport I don't remember? The countless grandmothers? I'm more likely to be killed tripping over my own two feet while I'm distracted by the lunacy of it all than I am to be killed by one of them in a terrorist attack. The moral cost of all this is considerable, as James Otteson and Bradley Birzer argue.

For even more theater of the absurd, consider that the TSA screens pilots. If a pilot wants to bring a plane down, he or she can probably do it with bare hands, and certainly without weapons. It's also not entirely crazy to think that an airline will take measures to keep their pilots from turning their multi-million dollar planes into flying bombs. Through the index funds in my retirement portfolio, I'm pretty sure I own stock in at least one airline, and I'm pretty sure airline managers know that cutting corners on security isn't in my best interests as a shareholder.

And the items being confiscated? Are nailclippers and aftershave the tools of terrorists? What about the plastic cup of water I was told to dispose of because "it could be acid" (I quote the TSA screener) in New Orleans before the three-ounce rule? What about the can of Coke I was relieved of after a flight from Copenhagen to Atlanta a few months ago? I would be more scared of someone giving a can of Coke to a child and contributing to the onset of juvenile diabetes than of using it to hide something that could compromise the safety of an aircraft.

And finally, most screening devices are ineffective because anyone who is serious about getting contraband on an airplane can smuggle it in a body cavity or a surgical implant. The scanners the TSA uses aren't going to stop them.

Over the next few years, we're headed for a bitter, partisan clash over legislative priorities. Before the battle starts, let's reach for that low-hanging, bipartisan fruit. Let's abolish the TSA.

http://blogs.forbes.com/artcarden/

[Moon The Loon]

Here's an excerpt from the lonnnnngggggggggg video associated with the following story:

"If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/video-of-man-refusing-body-scan-and-pat-down/article1799474/?from=1799470

[chockalicious]

Interesting Analysis by the numbers. He also has a blog posting regarding screening showing that most Americans support it even though the overwhelming majority of Americans have not flown in the past year.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646963713065116.html

By NATE SILVER

Most of us are horrible assessors of risk. Travelers at American airports are taking extensive steps due to fears of terrorism. But in the decade of the 2000s, only about one passenger for every 25 million was killed in a terrorist attack aboard an American commercial airliner (all of the fatalities were on 9/11). By contrast, a person has about a one in 500,000 chance each year of being struck by lightning.

A passenger holding her baby prepares to go through a security checkpoint at Los Angeles International Airport Dec. 29.

The usual response I get to these statistics—especially in the wake of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempt to bring down Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day—is that although terrorist incidents aboard airplanes might never have been common, they are becoming more so. This belief, too, is mistaken. Relative to the number of commercial departures world-wide, passenger deaths resulting from what I term "violent passenger incidents"—bombings, hijackings, and other sabotage—were at least five times less common in the 2000s than in any decade from the 1940s through the 1980s.

Indeed, 9/11 looks like a horrible outlier. While it killed nearly 3,000 citizens, no other individual terrorist attack in the modern history of the 38 most highly developed nations has killed more than 329. Meanwhile, a literal repeat of 9/11 is unlikely, as Al Qaeda's diabolical innovation—turning a passenger jet into a missile—would almost certainly be thwarted by brave passengers (and secure cockpit doors).

Overall, academic and governmental databases report, terrorist attacks killed a total of about 5,300 people in the most highly developed nations since the end of the Cold War in 1991, a rate of about 300 per year. The chance of a Westerner being killed by a terrorist is exceedingly low: about a one in three million each year, or the same chance an American will be killed by a tornado. (The Department of Homeland Security's budget is 50 times larger than that of the weather service).

Nor is it clear that the threat from terrorism is increasing. The years between 2005 and 2009 (313 fatalities), in fact, represents the second safest period on record since at least 1970.Surely some of this is because of improved vigilance and intelligence. As well, other once-threatening terrorist organizations—like the Irish Republican Army, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, and the Libyan extremists who brought down the flight over Lockerbie, Scotland,—have become dormant or de-radicalized.

There is one concern that rates as a clear exception to these statistics: the threat of terrorism involving nuclear weapons. The renowned Harvard scholar Graham Allison has posited that there is greater than a 50% likelihood of a nuclear terrorist attack in the next decade, which he says could kill upward of 500,000 people. If we accept Mr. Allison's estimates—a 5% chance per year of a 500,000-fatality event in a Western country (25,000 causalities per year)—the risk from such incidents is some 150 times greater than that from conventional terrorist attacks. Other scholars consider the chance of a nuclear incident to be much lower. Even if Mr. Allison has overestimated the risk by fivefold, and the number of causalities by threefold, it would still represent 10 times the threat that conventional terrorism does.

In other words, a more rational anti-terrorism policy would focus resources heavily, perhaps almost exclusively, on threats of nuclear and weapons of mass destruction terror. The good news is that, because it requires so much coordination to acquire fissile material, build a nuclear weapon, and successfully detonate it, the international community has many opportunities to stop such catastrophes before they occur—although Mr. Allison and other experts contend that present efforts are inadequate.

Other sorts of terrorist attacks are not so easily deterred. There's really nothing preventing someone from committing a suicide attack at a shopping mall, or a movie theater, or a sporting event. This is not to suggest that no efforts should be made to stop them. But surely we must understand that, at best, we will reduce the risk from an extremely small nonzero number to a slightly smaller nonzero number. And we must be aware of the potential trade-offs. For instance, although it might be politically incorrect to talk about the hardship imposed by adding 15 minutes to each passenger's journey because of increased screening at the airport, if that time is worth $20 per hour this would be taking about $3.5 billion of productivity out of the economy each year. (The FAA considers a measure to be "cost-effective" it if saves one life per $3 million spent, so such screenings would have to prevent 1,150 fatalities per year to meet its benchmark.)

This is not to suggest that no efforts should be made to stop "conventional" terror attacks. But surely we must understand that, at best, we will reduce the risk from an extremely small nonzero number to a slightly smaller nonzero number.

Many object to this sort of analysis—no cost is too high, they say, to prevent the next 9/11. But if history is any guide, the next attack will probably not be like 9/11—it will be like NWA 253, something which threatens the lives of dozens or hundreds of people, not thousands. To the extent we overreact to these incidents—allowing them to disrupt our economy and our way of life—we do little but increase the value to terrorists of committing them.

[chockalicious]

Found the article, I have recommended Nate Silver's work on here before.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/the-full-body-backlash/

November 15, 2010, 7:32 pm

The Full-Body Backlash

By NATE SILVER

8:07 p.m. | Updated

As full-body scanners come into more widespread use in American airports (they will be phased in soon at the three major airports in the New York City metro region), they are also coming under more frequent criticism.

The objections are coming from many different quarters:

Unions representing American Airlines and US Airways, citing concerns about radiation, have asked their pilots to bypass the scanning machines and instead opt for a pat-down.

Bipartisan groups of legislators in New Jersey and Idaho are working to ban the use of such systems in their states.

Some widely read bloggers spanning different parts of the political spectrum — like Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic Monthly, Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing, and Patrick Smith of Salon (who is a commercial airline pilot) — have been highly critical of the new procedures.

A California man named John Tyner who wrote about — and videotaped — his experience at San Diego International Airport, in which he claimed to have been threatened with a $10,000 fine for refusing a pat-down even after he decided not to board his flight, received more than 4,000 comments to his blog, the vast majority of them sympathetic.

Another blogger has called for Wednesday, Nov. 24th — among the busiest travel days of the year — to be “national opt-out day,” encouraging people to submit to a pat-down (and to have it done in full view of other passengers) rather than go through the body-scanning machines.

So is there a backlash brewing?

Before we look at what the polls have to say — and at some of the potential problems with them — I should make clear that I’m sympathetic to these arguments. As I’ve written in the past, the risk of airplane-based terrorism is probably overstated, and may obscure more serious threats like that posed by the potential for terrorists to gain access to weapons of mass destruction.

My first experience with the full-body scanners, on a flight back to Kennedy Airport from San Diego last month, was also a negative one. I had assumed that, whatever their other faults, the full-body scanners would at least speed up the process of going through the security line; I supposed I imagined something like this scene from the movie Total Recall, in which passengers literally don’t even have to pause to go through security as their bodies are scanned while they walk toward the departure gate.

Instead, the lines were quite slow — possibly because the machines were coming up with a lot of false positives, myself included. As is my usual practice when passing through airport security, I emptied my pants pockets completely — there wasn’t so much as a stick of gum, a penny, or a taxi receipt in there. But the machine nevertheless insisted that that there was something in the back right-hand pocket of my jeans. When the official from the Transportation Security Administration asked me what I had in my pocket, and I told him that there was absolutely nothing, he then performed a pat-down. I was in a chipper enough mood that I wasn’t inclined to make a scene, but I did ask the T.S.A. official whether it was routine for the machines to see things that weren’t there, to which he declined to respond.

This is not necessarily to suggest that my experience was typical — although perhaps there are some particular issues in San Diego, the same airport at which Mr. Tyner experienced his problems, and perhaps there is something of a learning curve as T.S.A. crews learn how to use the new technologies effectively.

Still, it shifted my overall opinion of the technology from positive to negative. This may be something to keep in mind when reviewing polls on the topic.

The T.S.A. is fond of citing polls which suggest that about 75 or 80 percent of air travelers approve of the new machines. There are a couple of issues having to do with the timing of these surveys, however. Most of them were conducted in January, immediately after the failed attempt last Christmas day by a Nigerian man, who had concealed explosives in his underwear, to blow up a plane travelling from Amsterdam to Detroit — during which time concern about air travel security would naturally have been quite elevated.

In addition, the surveys were conducted at a time when virtually no Americans would have had experiences with the full-body scanners, which had not yet been installed in any American airports at that time. Again, I have no way of knowing whether my experience at San Diego was at all typical. But if so, I would imagine that other people might have their opinions shifted after actually having encountered the machines.

In general, surveying Americans on issues related to airport security is problematic because most Americans fly rarely, if ever. A Gallup poll conducted in 2008, for instance, found that just 44 percent of Americans reported having flown at least once in the past year. In fact, this is probably an overestimate. The Gallup poll reported that American adults had taken an average of 1.7 round trips by airplane in the past year. Statistics compiled by the Department of Transportation, however, found a total of about 800 million passengers boarded flights offered by U.S.-based carriers in 2008. Since a typical round-trip consists of either 2 or 4 flights (depending on whether there is a layover or not; a round-trip might also involve as many as 6 or 8 flights when there are multiple layovers), this implies that there were something on the order of 250 million round trips made by airplane in 2008, which would be fewer than one per American, rather than the 1.7 trips that the Gallup poll found. My guess is that the fraction of Americans who travel by plane each year is in fact probably not more than about 1 in 3.

In addition, these flights are concentrated among relatively few people. A study by the market-research firm Arbitron found, for instance, that frequent fliers — those who take 4 or more round trips per year — account for the 57 percent majority of all air travel, even though they make up just 18 percent of air travelers and something like 7 percent of the overall American population.

At least one past survey has identified differences in perceptions about airport security procedures between frequent and occasional fliers. This was a 2007 Gallup poll, which found that while just 26 percent of occasional travels were dissatisfied with airport security, the level rose to 37 percent among those who fly more frequently.

What I think we need to know then, is how those who have actually traveled through an airport that uses the full-body scanners feel about them — particularly if they’re people who fly frequently and are therefore going to bear the burden of any inconvenience, embarrassment, invasion of privacy or health risk brought on by the new technology.

My guess is that a majority of such passengers will still approve of them: Americans are willing to tolerate a great number of things at the airport that they would never stand for in other parts of their lives. (Imagine, for instance, if you had to pass through a metal detector on the way into the shopping mall, or were diverted for 15 minutes through a security checkpoint every time that you wanted to drive on the Interstate.)

But the holiday travel period — when nerves are always frayed and the weather is often at its worst — will be a significant test of the new system. I would advise passengers to get to the airport early, particularly if they are flying out of airports, like San Diego, where the systems have been installed very recently.

8:07 p.m. | Updated Just as we were posting this item, a new poll came in from CBS News showing 81 percent of Americans supporting the full body scans. So, it does not appear that the high levels of support were an artifact of the timing of the previous surveys, most of which had been conducted shortly after the Christmas Day bombing attempt.

Nevertheless, I would guess that only somewhere between 1 and 5 percent of Americans have so far traveled through a security line where such machines were in use; it will probably take some time before we know where public opinion settles in on this topic.

Another issue is that most of these surveys are asking about the full-body machines in a vacuum. I’d be curious to see what the results were if respondents were asked to pick between full-body machines and traditional metal detectors.

[cp fa]

Hmmm... CBS news polling department randomly phoned 1137 people to get those numbers.

Here's an online poll conducted by Reuters that shows a very different result:

http://blogs.reuters.com/ask/2010/11/12/are-new-security-screenings-affecting-your-decision-to-fly/

[CD]

Other Canadian groups are getting vocal... Here are a couple of articles from today:

Local Sikhs condemn U.S. turban searches

Airport checks draw fire - Toronto

[Kip Powick]

Just like the polls that tell us who we will vote for.... But here is what continues to puzzle me , unless I missed their news releases, the two unions / associations that represent the majority of Canada's inflight crews are silent on the subject.

I would have thought that ACPA and CUPE would have stepped up to the plate by now or are the majority of their members not concerned?

The same question applies to the inhouse associations at Westjet.

ACPA????

Well Malcolm, a lot of retirees have been banned from the "new" ACPA forum so those of us that are "Dots" have no info and those that are AC and on this forum.?....well you will have to wait and see if anything happens. Based on what has been posted in this thread I would say "nothing" is being done....but then again, what do I know...now?

[John S.]

Kip

You response made me think "How many irons can ACPA have in the fire before there is no room for more?"

Perhaps this is iron that will have to wait till others are dealt with. (In other words there is only so much money for only so many lawyers at once.)

[J.O.]

Canada's been rolling out a similar licence for a while now. So far, I've heard nothing about tying this new licence to the security biometrics database but it would certainly be possible. Now if it could only remove the need for a RAIC from the airport authorities ...

[Super 80]

I got together with an old colleague earlier this week and at his company the flight attendants union is making noise about a "hostile workplace" and sexual harassment resulting from the new screening policies, the resulting guidance from their legal department suggests that such a claim would not be easily dismissed based on US federal law in this area, as the offending screening does occur within the conduct of their work duties.

Personally he loves the new security measures, it is the proverbial rope with which the TSA will hang itself and hopefully be reigned in by either a house cleaning or new legislation.

[Johnny]

Rep Congressman John Mica was on CNN this morning. He was one of the founding fathers of the TSA, now calling for reform.

There are 3500 Administrative Employees, in Washington alone, with the TSA. They earn an average salary of:

ONE HUNRED AND FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($105,000/year)

More than the average of an Airline Pilot in the United States.

Aviation security is nothing but 'big business' designed to generate wealth.

[Don Hudson]

I wonder when the lawsuits are going to begin in the U.S.

Europe Bans Airport Body Scanners For "Health and Safety" Concerns

(FORBES) - The European Union issued a ruling this week that bans X-ray body scanners in all European airports. According to the European Commission, the agency charged with enforcing the ruling across the EU's 27 member nations, the prohibition is necessary "in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens' health and safety."

X-ray body scanners, which use "backscatter" ionized radiation technology, emit enough radiation to theoretically damage DNA and cause cancer. While the level of radiation is extremely low, some studies have found that over time a small number of cancer cases could result from scanning millions of people a year. Statistically the incidence is minuscule, but it's a possibility nonetheless.

Instead of X-ray scanners, European airports will use millimeter-wave scanners that utilize low-energy radio waves. So far, no credible studies have linked exposure to radio waves to cancer.

In the U.S., the TSA uses both types of scanners: 250 X-ray scanners and 264 millimeter wave scanners. Controversy surrounding use of the scanners has focused mainly on privacy concerns, and it would seem that the potential health risks of the technology have been largely downplayed in the interest of security.

In response to the EU ruling, the TSA offered a different flavor of statistics showing that since January 2010, more than 300 dangerous or illegal items have been found on passengers as a direct result of using X-ray body scanners.

Earlier this month, a PBS Newshour/ProPublica report accused various agencies within the U.S. government of glossing over cancer risks when the scanners were rolled out. According to the report, radiation experts convened by the Food and Drug Administration started raising concerns over use of the technology in 1998 when only 20 machines were in operation throughout the entire country. Quoting from the report:

"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.

But, of course, that was before 9/11. Deployment of scanners increased radically after the attacks, and full-body versions were installed en masse after the failed underwear bombing in 2009.

The FDA took issue with the ProPublica report and responded last week with a letter claiming that the cancer risk from X-ray scanners is roughly 1 in 400 million, in stark contrast to ProPublica's assertion that research suggests anywhere from six to 100 Americans a year could develop cancer from use of the machines.

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 the lanes by 2014.

[DEFCON]

So, how much will the taxpayers spend on these gizmos before we publically understand; the terrorist can easily get around these technologies?

I think, ‘they’ are conditioning (frustrating) us so we come to appreciate the need to allow ‘them to incorporate the ‘number of the beast’ (implantable RF Chips etc) into our bodies. Of course, the whole thing will be sold as a good technology and most necessary to ‘our continuing protection’.