American Morning
Tune in at 6am Eastern for all the news you need to start your day.
January 8th, 2010
09:00 AM ET
Are airport body scanners a health hazard?
300 full-body scanners will soon be inside airports around the country, but should passengers be concerned about dangerous radiation exposure?
Our Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta joined us on Friday's American Morning to answer your questions about the new security measures affecting your health.
About this Show
Welcome to the American Morning blog where you can get daily news updates from American Morning's reporters and producers. Join us for "the most news in the morning," weekdays from 6-9 a.m. ET, only on CNN.
On Twitter
This is amazing for us, Meredith! twitter.com/mbennettsmith/…
Derek Chauvin's trial is a chance for the justice system to prove it can actually work msnbc.com/opinion/derek-…
RT @ConstitutionCtr: #WomensHistoryMonth is a time to reflect on the women who have shaped America’s story.@RosenJeffreyey an@MSNBCBC's @Al…
RT @centralbanks_: The Exchange | Conversations for a Better Future One-on-one conversation with IMF Chief Kristalina Georgieva and Micros…
RT @ConstitutionCtr: #WomensHistoryMonth is a time to reflect on the women who have shaped America’s story.@RosenJeffreyey an@MSNBCBC's @Al…
It’s important for people to have an elected official who not only understands their platform, but one who is alsotwitter.com/i/web/status/1…2Zk1
becky said:
"People should not have a choice between the scanner and body search. My opinion everyone is a suspect so american government needs to stop giving the people so many choices. It is what it is we need to take as much precaution as possible -PERIOD"
By this definition, every person should be strip-searched with a full cavity search as well. If the scan ends at the skin, then plastic explosives shaped to look like a natural body part, or stored within the body, would not be discovered. Biological exposures are not prevented either if a 'suicide' attack uses an infected person.
Return to reality. There is no absolute safety and no absolute prevention. If you are afraid to fly, don't fly. Of course, trains can be bombed, ships have been hi-jacked and bridges can be destroyed. Best just to stay home in a bunker and pray. Or maybe take reasonable precautions, accept that life is fraught with potential but improbable dangers and enjoy yourself.
bw76 said:
"I was not allowed on american airlines because I had a knee replacement and a pace maker and the metel detecter picked up and they hand scanned me and refused to let me on the plane."
Really? I know a number of people with artificial knees and other metal parts in their bodies. They take a little longer to go through security but I've never heard of a single time they were refused. Do you carry a doctors letter?
So many people make the point 'I'd rather be irradiated than have a bomb blow up...". Abject fear always seems to over-run rationality.
What % of flights in the US over the last 10 years has experienced any sort of terrorist act? The probability of you being on the plane that has a successful terrorist act is incredibly small. It is far more likely that you will die from an accident caused by the aircraft or pilot than by the act of a terrorist. That is a simple statistical truth. It's even more likely that you will be killed due to an accident in your own bathroom, so I guess you better stay out of there.
While the probability of a terrorist act is tiny, with these new machines the probability of being scanned is relatively high. Until they have been in use for some time we won't really know how safe they are. What are the protections against operator error and malfunction? Given I have received a lot of radiation as part of my cancer treatment, I definitely will take the pat-down approach and skip the scanner if at all possible.
Someone is going to have to make less money for savings to occur. You can't shuffle insurance premiums around and save money. Does the president have the gumption to face trial lawers and tell them they are going to make 100B less from medical lawsuits?
Considering that it is now practical to put liquid explosives in implants where do you go from there. I remember when Marines still carried their M-1's and M-14's on commercial flights during permanent change of station and I carried my 1911, usually handed it to the pilot and he'd hand it back when I got off the plane.
It's plausible that the scanners can help identify a gun or a knife, but then again so will the (far less expensive) metal detectors that have been in place about 50 years and that are already paid for. It's also plausible that the scanners can help someone identify explosive substances, but then again so will the (far less expensive) bomb sniffing dogs, many of which are already in place and paid for.
These machines cost, what, a quarter of a millon each? I see how someone, somewhere, stands to make a lot of money from these scanners, and I see how the right lobbyist will most likely be able to secure a single-source, no-bid contract for them at taxpayer expense. This is business as usual in Washington. Yet I fail to see how the cost outlay translates into more security than we've got, because of the human factor.
The determination as to whether an individual is carrying dangerous material is being made by a human being. I'm interested in that individual's qualifications, or more likely his or her lack thereof.
A doctor can tell the difference between a real colostomy bag and a fake one. An explosives engineer can tell the difference between chewing gum and something that will really ruin your day. An electrical engineer may be able to tell the difference between a Pacemaker and a triggering device. In order to be effective, the individual viewing the scanner images must therefore have the equivalent of THREE highly technical graduate degrees. Or else you must have three highly trained people watching each scanner. That's a six to seven figure annual salary expense for every viewing station. Does anyone truly believe the TSA his hired that kind of talent?
The necessary talent may not be available at the moment regardless of budget. Right now, explosives engineering is a highly restricted field. It's not taught everywhere. The classes aren't big. You can't get into most of the existing programs without some pretty extensive (and expensive) security clearances. There's a reason for this: nobody wants a bunch of explosives engineers running around. As a certain flight school found out in late 2001, the more people you train the better the odds that you'll end up training someone who isn't on your side. Exactly how many explosives engineers do you plan to make and distribute uniformly across the USA and in other nations? How much control do you think you'll really have over the know-how if you train enough professional explosives engineers to put one at every airport?
If we're not going to have competent people reviewing the scans, then the scans are not useful or reliable as a security tool. It's like having a metal detector, without a person watching for the buzzer or a flashing light. Why exactly are we scanning?
So far the most successful anti-terrorist program has been... the passengers.
I saw the report on the full body scanners that the TSA is set to start using at the airports and the comments from those that think that it is a invasion of privacy or a violation of their religion.
I believe that it would be better to be scanned than to be pulled out because of profiling and as far as the violation of a persons modesty values whether it be personal or religious well a pat down is much more invasive than a scanner would be, I've been patted down and let me tell you whether the person doing it is the same gender or not they will pat you down in those private areas.
I know a woman that has body jewelry in private places and a while back she was going on a business trip out to California which meant she was going to have to go through a medal detector so what did she do she removed the jewelry before leaving and she said she put it back on when she got back, she did not like it but with the state of the world now she understands and abides by the rules and laws of our government.
Now as far as the health issue goes if a doctor can not find whats wrong with a person with conventional x-rays (high level radiation) they may ask you to have a MRI or CAT scan ( mid level radiation), but because of the myth that its more likely that a person is more likely to be killed by a car while crossing a street we think that taking precautions like the airport full body(AFB) scanner (low level radiation) is not necessary well do we not take extreme precautions crossing the street like looking both ways crossing at a crosswalk with the light we also take precautions with lightning such as not standing outside while it is lightning. Do you take an aspirin for a headache or do you wear a back brace when having to do allot of bending and/or lifting. A astronaut receives more radiation when at the ISS for 1 week as a person will receive if they go through a AFB scanner once a day for a year, their are just to many fools and idiots in this world and they are actually more dangerous to their selves than scanners or terrorist.
Does anybody want to go back to the good old days in the 1960's and 1970's when traveling by air or ship that all we had to worry about was some nut with a AK47 or bomb killing us if our name sounded a certain way never mind that we may not even of been a Jew or killed as being a CIA spy just because you where on leave and had a millitary ID in your wallet. Yes lets go back to those days.
There is only one thing to fear and that is fear its self, I do not fear dieing from a scanner or a terrorist what I do fear are those idiots that think that the government or corporations are out to get them without a shred of actual proof but persist in spreading rumors and half truths for those are the people who will in the end get people killed.
Oh one more question how many terrorist attempts have been stopped that we have never heard about?
Flying is a privilege not a right. I do not understand why people have to make a big deal over something so benign and simple. If you have nothing to hide walk thru the scanner and get on the plane feeling safer knowing everyone has been checked as well. There are a lot of people looking for their 15 minutes of fame, I don' t want to be on a plane with them.
People should not have a choice between the scanner and body search. My opinion everyone is a suspect so american government needs to stop giving the people so many choices. It is what it is we need to take as much precaution as possible -PERIOD
At airports have a line for all those getting the 3D body scan and a line for all the others going through different security measures. Put all the passengers going through the body scan on one plane. Put all the others on a different plane. I want to be on the plane that ALL passengers went through body scans.
Jerry from Texas
Nothing wrong with having the scanner as an option. After going through the airport last week, I noticed where they posted a signs saying if you wanted to be screened in private just ask. Consider that as an option if you want to preserve your dignity.
The machines use back scatter xrays. They do not penetrate the skin. You will receive far more radiation on the flight than you will from the scanner. The scanners used portray the body as a caricature with nothing that would appear appealling to a deviate agent. Things out of the ordinary, like guns, knifes, or bombs do appear on the scanner. Your physique is not identifiable as you or even looks remotely like you. I'd rather be scanned than to have some questionable looking agent running his hands up and down my body because he wants to.
How many times do you fly and how many times will you be scanned? Now, how many times do you expect to be "blown up"? We should, perhaps, develop something to prevent being struck by lightning as I am guessing it's more common to be be struck by that than be blown up. You've given up your freedom. They've won, regardless.
The whole issue is silly. If this can eliminate threats without all the airport hoopla currently practiced by TSA, it's worth it, period.
1. Body scanners are low-level radiation... not healthy, but not more risky than standing in front of a radar gun...
2. Your risk of repeated exposure to body scans is 100%.
3. Your risk of being blown out of the sky WITHOUT any airport security would be 1 in many 10's of thousands (given the number of flights).
4. WITH airport security your risks are reduced very little (fanatics are inventive).
5. Fanatics have been with us always (anarchists were blowing up buildings in NYC a hundred years ago).
6. The only way to control fanatics is to control people... ALL PEOPLE... and this is the real end game... control of you, not safety for you.
I tell the TSA guys this, "just measure my penis and let me get on the plane!"
I was not allowed on american airlines because I had a knee replacement and a pace maker and the metel detecter picked up and they hand scanned me and refused to let me on the plane.
Why don't people listen to the entire story. The images that get generated from the body scanner, come out in another room not within sight of the person being scanned or the general public. The person reading the scan has no idea who they are looking at because they are sitting in an isolated room away from the general public. The public needs to get over privacy concerns and understand the threat.
skd77339 January 8th, 2010 4:12 pm ET
The scanners could not possibly be as hazardous as having your plane blow up.
-------------------------------–
What are the chances of getting your plane blown up compared to getting cancer, or who know's what else from these body scanners?
I would prefer just a manual body search. One thing I can tell you right now, there is no way I am going through those scanners, and it's not for the sake of privacy, it's for my health! I'll travel by boat, train, car, foot, anyting, but as stated, I'm not going through a scanner.
I travel 2x week, 52 weeks a year and if they require body scanners – I will find a new way to travel (i.e. buying a plane; or driving). I get comments from TSA on their personal opinion of "things" that I bring through – you don't think they'll be commenting on peoples anatomy? People are people. What happens when these images (which are stored) get uploaded to UTube – and don't think that famous movie stars images won't be sold.
I think most people are not aware of the visuality of the scanners and how much of the body they show. I've talked to numerous flyers and it seems that men, just don't care if anyone sees them naked. The woman I've talked to do not think it goes to the skin level and shows any personal parts. So I think the polls are mis-leading because most people are ill-informed on the the devices.
The impacts of the radiation it emits to people are not known and won't be known until statistics come in over the years on cancer rates rising. There is no way that CNN or anyone can say that they are "safe", especially since the usage of them will vary depending on how often one travels. CNN is still touting the H1N1 vaccine (which was recalled by the CDC due to it's ineffectiveness). So you're going to believe them?
Don't ever believe what you're told to believe – especially by the media. The media has their own agenda's.
@ ronvan: It is wrong to assume that only "sub human, religious zealots" see the Western world as the enemy. I was shocked to learn the stats that 75% of Gaza population support suicide bombing...
I have to laugh... Let me see, would I rather have have x-rays go through my body (at very low levels) or have a bomb rip me to shreds in the air??? Hmmm... Sounds like a difficuly decision.
How do we know for sure that these scanners dont effect our bodies . what if a mistake is made like the pictures get in the wrong hands! what do we just get a sorry !
Just heard an interview on NPR with an engineer familiar with the technology. He says the x-rays are weak so that instead of passing through the body, they pass through clothing but then reflect off the body's surface creating an image of whatever may be concealed by clothing.
slow death is more dizastorus then at once..............
this nice …so i think better then this to change the secuirty agent by porn image prodector or better then this is to do not lose $ for the scaner and ask the passenger bordin neked 😉
welcom to the new world …all the airport become worse then Ghraib Jail….this what you bay for …not just the visa and the airteckets…for me i stop visiting all my family in UAS and i ask everyone to do stop travel there too maybe they start respect the humen more.
for me better to spand my $ in inda or china or even soudan the alow my wife and kids pass via this to US .
Good day, with the 300 full body scanners, the concern of radiation effects on frequent air travellers, is there a measure to minimize scaning individual repeatedly with the body scanners? and time will come when the applicable doses will be increased because the probaly the scanners might be inefficent in detecting newer forms of explosizes that the terrorists might be using. Will ALARA principle be in used to check that?
Have some terrorist on the plane our let some airport tech look at your junk through a scanner. Have a peek at your will I want to fly safe. Honestly though I have operated one of those machines before and there is nothing fun our pretty to see. Im sure these operators feel the same way and just want to make sure that all passengers are safe on their flights.
Ha I knew it was coming! A health hazard? Yeah, well what kind of health hazard do you think those people crashing into the Twin Towers had? Do you think they were worried asbestos or broken glass or impalement from office furniture? I would walk,or in my case wheel, through one of those machine a thousand times if it meant ,one time,I wasn't going to be cannon fodder for some rag head. Better he ends up with the 73 virgins than me.
Ask the people on the plane with the "Fruit of the Boom" terrorist if they mind full body scans and get their opinion.... Let's see; scan me and I might feel embarassed vs. being blown out of the sky. Which one shall I choose?!?
They probably are a health hazard. But the real issue is privacy. This is a porn shop waiting to happen. Every single one of these TSA morons should be jailed for kidde porn since they are not only viewing pictures of naked children, but producing those pictures and distributing them (to their agencies at least).
How about for pregnant women? Can these machines harm their babies? And BTW, ultrasound is not 100% safe.
Hope TSA is training their staff how to work the machines, or are they preset, I hope so. Wouldn't want to get a few too many rads. This occurs even when medical staff are trained, with not so good outcomes. Guess I won't be flying for a long time, at least not till they get this figured out.
NO ONE really wants to go through all this security. However, because of the actions of these animals, WE have no choice! We have to get over the "profiling" of certain groups! I would rather see EVERYONE go through the same security measures, using profiling only for those that act "funny". Sadly, Muslims are under the gun because a few have made it that way. Those "sub human, religious zealots" have taken control of how Muslims & their religion are seen and until they are eliminated ALL will suffer!
Gupta will support scanners the way doctors support x-rays. "It's necessary...period!" Since when have doctors been concerned with health risks? Since when have they been known for honesty?
The scanners could not possibly be as hazardous as having your plane blow up.
Health risks with airport scanners is a big concern of passengers