Airport X-Rays and the Facts

A while ago we wrote several pieces regarding the backscatter X Rays and the potential for cancer including a detailed White Paper. The essence was that the backscatter systems in place do have a significant risk of inducing cancers such as melanomas in certain people.

Now an Ars Technica posting states:

The TSA, which has deployed at least 500 body scanners to at least 78 airports, said Tuesday the machines meet all safety standards and would remain in operation despite a “calculation error” in safety studies. The flawed results showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected.

 First why are we not surprised, it is after all the Government and second just watch the melanoma rate explode. The article continues:

The snafu involves tests conducted on the roughly 250 backscatter X-ray machines produced by Rapiscan of Los Angeles, which has a contract to deliver another 250 machines at a cost of about $180,000 each. About 250 millimeter-wave technology machines produced by L-3 Communications of New York were not part of the bungled results.

Note that the millimeter scanners are generally harmless. It is the backscatter machines which in my opinion present the risk.

 

Rapiscan technicians in the field are required to test radiation levels 10 times in a row, and divide by 10 to produce an average radiation measurement. Often, the testers failed to divide results by 10, Horowitz said.

 This is the typical problem one often sees. Poorly trained and generally less intelligent and low cost "techs" go and perform tests not knowing what to do. One does not know the details here but based upon my experience that is what one sees.

“Certainly, the errors are not acceptable. It’s not every report. We believe the technology is safe,” she said.  ”We’ve done extensive, independent testing. It doesn’t raise alarms in terms of safety.”

Rapiscan, in a letter to the TSA, admitted the mistake and is “redesigning the form” used by its “field service engineers” when surveying the Rapiscan Secure 1000 that is deployed to 38 airports.

“Oftentimes, the FSE will bypass the step of dividing by 10. While the resulting entry, at a pragmatic level, is understandable on its face and usable for monitoring purposes, the value, if read literally by persons unfamiliar with our system and the survey process, would imply energy outputs that are unachievable by the Secure 1000 Single Pose,” Rapiscan wrote.

 In effect there appears to be a serious set of problems. Can TSA solve this? Not in my opinion based upon past performance.