We have been watching the issue of enhanced TSA airport screening procedures with some concern here at ZRecs, both because (a) we have seen solid accounts from reputable scientists [PDF link] that not enough is known about the radiation doseage coming from machines and its potential harm and (b) because the alternative, the "enhanced pat-down" that is in fact just short of a cavity search, is on questionable legal footing and is problematic for many people, including people with a variety of medical conditions, victims of rape or other sexual abuse, and children.

The polarizing tone of the rhetoric also hasn't helped, with all but the most right-wing media coming down consistently on the side of accepting the new procedures without any serious national conversation about whether we have crossed some threshold here. Unfortunately, many of the voices we turn to for trusted insight into health issues like this have remained oddly silent - though I guess that's better than the knee-jerk reactions we've seen from many others.

Beyond our personal concerns, which we would otherwise keep out of this blog, the issue seems to intersect ZRecs at two key points. First, that our children above all deserve not to be inappropriately touched, and that our definition of appropriate and inappropriate touching should not instantly reshape itself to conform to this new TSA directive. That hardly seems a point worth arguing except on cost/benefit grounds. Second, however, is the potential cancer risk posed by the full-body scanners in use.

If you've been inundated by the "get-more-radiation-from-flying-itself" and haven't seen the significant scientific dissent that has been being raised on this issue, please read on.

A reader of the blog Talking Points Memo wrote in with some illuminating insight into the radiation exposure levels of the full body scanners now in use at major airports. You can read it in full at the source link, but I'd like to reproduce some of it here.

The TSA pulls a couple intellectual "sleights of hand" in its discussion of these machines. First, the TSA website compares the dose of radiation received from the machines to the radiation from cell phones (I will note this comparison is for the millimeter wave machines, not the back scatter variety). This is not a good comparison and may lead to confusion about the two different types of machines being used. Cell phones emit radio waves. Radio waves, while electromagnetic waves like gamma radiation, are much longer and of significantly lower energy, and, thus are not ionizing radiation. That is, they do not have the ability to damage DNA and to cause cancer. I can put a flask of cells next to a radio wave emitter and the cells will grow just fine and not accumulate any additional mutations from that exposure.

Second, the TSA often compares the radiation from the back scatter machines to chest X-rays or cosmic radiation. These are much higher energy and typically pass through the body, so the dose is more diffuse and over a much larger part of your body. The back scatter radiation from the scanners is lower energy, but still ionizing, so the exposure is concentrated within a small amount of your body (the top layers of skin). This could potentially increase the effective exposure by 10-100-fold over what the TSA is saying. This second point is the one that the UCSF letter discusses in much greater detail.

The TSA also admits that the ionizing radiation penetrates through 1/10 of an inch of the skin. While that might not sound like much to many lay folks, that is actually quite significant. There is A LOT going on in your skin at 1/10 of an inch. To expose that layer of skin to increased ionizing radiation will lead to increased damage and the potential for mutations and ultimately cancer. It would take years to figure this out and maybe that is what the TSA/DHS is hoping for... the fog of epidemiology to hide the true health impacts. Look how long it took for the risks of smoking cigarettes, with a clear danger, to become well accepted with tons of independent data confirming the point.

The FDA response to the UCSF letter basically says, "the machines are below the threshold of an arbitrary dose limit we developed with the help of the manufacturers of these machines." Some scientists don't think that that is good enough. So, what to do? DHS cannot now do as the scientists from UCSF recommended and empanel a group of independent researchers to examine these machines and the ionizing radiation doses. If this panel did find that these machines were emitting dangerous amounts of radiation that causes cumulative damage, the authority and credibility of the US government would be irrevocably and permanently damaged. And not to mention the class action lawsuits that would follow. How could the US ever again say something was safe? Would anyone believe or trust the US government again on a wide range of health topics (the anti-vaxers would go nuts with this)? No, the US government will not allow a public, independent panel to evaluate these machines. They may do it internally and then graciously and secretly decide that the "benefits" (catching the one in a hundred million passengers that are terrorists) more than outweigh the "risks" (needlessly giving 1 in a million passengers skin cancer).

Why not put some dosimeters on TSA agents that work the machines? It would be interesting to follow over time to see if there are increased risks. Other folks that work around radiation are required to wear such devices to monitor potential exposures. According to the TSA website, there is exposure beyond the machine itself as evidenced by this statement:

"All results confirmed that the radiation doses for the individuals being screened, operators, and bystanders were well below the dose limits specified by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)."

Notice that they included operators and bystanders in that evaluation. They are receiving doses as well and it is below the arbitrarily set limit. The TSA folks should be demanding dosimeters to evaluate that claim. Too bad they don't have a union to represent them in this.

For me, I will do as instructed in every radiation safety class I have ever received: limit exposure whenever possible. I cannot do anything about cosmic radiation, but i can do something about walking through a back scatter machine. I will opt out. [Link]

We understand that there are also people who are not concerned about either method, or about one but not the other. And the jury is not yet in on these new machines, and we hope it someday will be. As for our family, we are not traveling this weekend so will not have to face the uncomfortable choice between the full-body scan and a body search (and of course, the prospect that even choosing the scan could lead to a search).

Whatever you choose to do and however you get there, we wish you safe travels and a wonderful holiday weekend.