-
8/3/2019 Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk Scientific American
1/12
Image: TSA.gov
Look for a PBS NewsHour story on X-ray
body scanners, reported in conjunction
with ProPublica, to air later this month.
On Sept. 23, 1998, a panel of radiation safety
experts gathered at a Hilton hotel in
Maryland to evaluate a new device that
could detect hidden weapons andcontraband. The machine, known as the
Secure 1000, beamed X-rays at people to
see underneath their clothing.
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 shouldnt be X-
rayed unless there is a medical benefit.
I think this is really a slippery slope, said Jill Lipoti, who was the director of New
Jerseys radiation protection program. The device was already deployed in prisons;
what was next, she and others asked courthouses, schools, airports? I am
concerned with expanding this type of product for the traveling public, said
another panelist, Stanley Savic, the vice president for safety at a large electronics
company. I think that would take this thing to an entirely different level of public
health risk.
The machines inventor, Steven W. Smith, assured the panelists that it was highly
unlikely that the device would see widespread use in the near future. At the time, only
20 machines were in operation in the entire country.
The places I think you are not going to see these in the next five years is lower-
security facilities, particularly power plants, embassies, courthouses, airports and
governments, Smith said. I would be extremely surprised in the next five to 10
years if the Secure 1000 is sold to any of these.
Today, the United States has begun marching millions of airline passengers through
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Scientific American Newsletter
Get weekly coverage delivered to your inbox.
Enter your email address
Sign Up Now
Latest Headlines
Most Read
Most Commented
Latest Posts by SA Editors
Latest from SA Blog Network
Home News
U.S. Glossed Over Cancer Concer nsAssociated with Airpor t X-RayScannersExperts say the dose from the backscatter is negligible when compared with
naturally occurring background radiation, but a linear model shows even
such trivial amounts increase the number of cancer cases
By Michael Grabell and ProPublica |November 1, 2011 | 16
News | Health Tweet
Share Email Print
Follow Scientific American
The Jolt's on You: Turn-of-Last-Cen tur y
Prank Machines Reveal "Shocking" Hazing
Practices [Slide Show]
Features2 hours ago
Bigger Plates, More FoodOr Is It the Other
Way Around?
Scientific American Magazine3 hours ago | 1
Does Science Need More Compelling Stories to
Foster Public Trust?
Observations16 hours ago
Information , data and technology at
ScienceOnline2012
STAFF A Blog Around The Clock3 hours ago
#SciAmBlogs Tue sday - asteroid miss, GPS in
court, Siri and more...
STAFF The Network Central10 hours ago
M athematics - Algebra and Stat i s t ics and
more - at ScienceOnline2012
STAFF A Blog Around The Clock18 hours ago
Understan ding Your Mind Is Mission Critical
STAFF Streams of Consciousness20 hours ago
#SciAmBlogs Monday - hobbits, baby
mamm oths, chimp s, laughter and more . . .
STAFF The Network CentralNov 8, 2011
Subscribe & getSelections on
EvolutionFREE!
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Subscribe to Digital
Give a Gift
BlogsSubscribe News & Features Multimedia Education Citizen Science Topics Magazines
Search ScientificAmerican.com
Log In or Register Follow SA
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/network-central/sciamblogs-monday-hobbits-baby-mammoths-chimps-laughter-and-morehttp://blogs.scientificamerican.com/streams-of-consciousness/understanding-your-mind-is-mission-criticalhttp://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/mathematics-algebra-and-statistics-and-more-at-scienceonline2012http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/network-central/sciamblogs-tuesday-asteroid-miss-gps-in-court-siri-and-morehttp://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/information-data-and-technology-at-scienceonline2012http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=does-science-need-more-compelling-stories-to-foster-public-trusthttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bigger-plates-more-food#commentshttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bigger-plates-more-foodhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=turn-of-century-prank-machines-reveal-shocking-hazing-practiceshttps://subscribe.scientificamerican.com/servlet/OrdersGateway?cds_mag_code=SCA&cds_page_id=86406&cds_response_key=I1GASBRBAhttp://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/scientific-american/id261232352?uo=4http://www.youtube.com/sciamericanhttp://www.twitter.com/sciamhttp://www.facebook.com/scientificamericanhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=rsshttp://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=newslettersignuphttp://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=plantshttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-glossed-over-cancer-concerns&print=truehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/author.cfm?id=1751http://www.scientificamerican.com/author.cfm?id=3157http://twitter.com/sharehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/health-and-medicinehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/section.cfm?id=newshttp://www.scientificamerican.com/section.cfm?id=newshttp://www.scientificamerican.com/http://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=registerhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=log-inhttp://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/scientific-american/id261232352?uo=4http://www.youtube.com/sciamericanhttp://www.twitter.com/sciamhttp://www.facebook.com/scientificamericanhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=rsshttp://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=newslettersignuphttp://www.scientificamerican.com/pressroom/pr/release.cfm?site=sciam&date=2011-05-10http://www.scientificamerican.com/http://www.scientificamerican.com/all_topics.cfmhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/http://www.scientificamerican.com/education/http://www.scientificamerican.com/multimedia.cfmhttp://blogs.scientificamerican.com/http://www.scientificamerican.com/https://subscribe.scientificamerican.com/servlet/OrdersGateway?cds_mag_code=SCA&cds_page_id=86406&cds_response_key=I1GASBNBE&WT.mc_id=SA_subs_navbar_printhttps://subscribe.scientificamerican.com/servlet/GiftsGateway?cds_mag_code=SCA&cds_page_id=75766&cds_response_key=I1GASBSGE&WT.mc_id=SA_subs_subcenter_gifthttps://w1.buysub.com/servlet/OrdersGateway?cds_mag_code=SAD&cds_page_id=97975&cds_response_key=I1GADBSBE&WT.mc_id=SA_subs_subcenter_digitalhttp://www.sciamdigital.com/cart_http.cfm?ARTICLEID_CHAR=171D9977-237D-9F22-E8B25F79C64E8F27&WT.mc_id=SA_subs_subcenter_issuehttps://subscribe.scientificamerican.com/servlet/OrdersGateway?cds_mag_code=SCA&cds_page_id=86406&cds_response_key=I1GASBSBE&WT.mc_id=SA_subs_subcenter_printhttps://subscribe.scientificamerican.com/servlet/OrdersGateway?cds_mag_code=SCA&cds_page_id=86406&cds_response_key=I1GASBZBE&WT.mc_id=SA_subs_subcenter_offerhttps://subscribe.scientificamerican.com/servlet/OrdersGateway?cds_mag_code=SCA&cds_page_id=86406&cds_response_key=I1GASBZBE&WT.mc_id=SA_subs_subcenter_offerhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammaghttp://www.scientificamerican.com/ -
8/3/2019 Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk Scientific American
2/12
the X-ray body scanners, parting ways with countries in Europe and elsewhere that
have concluded that such widespread use of even low-level radiation poses an
unacceptable health risk. The government is rolling out the X-ray scanners despite
having a safer alternative that the TransportationSecurityAdministration says is also
highly effective.
A ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation of how this decision was made shows that
in post-9/11 America, security issues can trump even long-established medical
conventions. The final call to deploy the X-ray machines was made not by the FDA,
which regulates drugs and medical devices, but by the TSA, an agency whose primary
mission is to prevent terrorist attacks.
Research suggests that anywhere from six to 100 U.S. airline passengers each year
could get cancer from the machines. Still, the TSA has repeatedly defined the scanners
as safe, glossing over the accepted scientific view that even low doses of ionizing
radiation the kind beamed directly at the body by the X-ray scanners increase
the risk of cancer.
Even though its a very small risk, when you expose that number of people, theres a
potential for some of them to get cancer, said Kathleen Kaufman, the former
radiation management director in Los Angeles County, who brought the prison X-rays
to the FDA panels attention.
About 250 X-ray scanners are currently in U.S. airports, along with 264 body
scanners that use a different technology, a form of low-energy radio waves known as
millimeter waves.
Robin Kane, the TSAs assistant administrator for security technology, said that no
one would get cancer because the amount of radiation the X-ray scanners emit is
minute. Having both technologies is important to create competition, he added.
Its a really, really small amount relative to the security benefit youre going to get,
Kane said. Keeping multiple technologies in play is very worthwhile for the U.S. in
getting that cost-effective solution and being able to increase the capabilities of
technology because you keep everyone trying to get the better mousetrap.
Determined to fill a critical hole in its ability to detect explosives, the TSA plans to
have one or the other operating at nearly every security lane in America by 2014. The
TSA has designated the scanners for primary screening: Officers will direct every
passenger, including children, to go through either a metal detector or a body scanner,
and the passengers only alternative will be to request a physical pat-down.
How did the United States swing from considering such X-rays taboo to deeming themsafe enough to scan millions of people a year?
A new wave of terrorist attacks using explosives concealed on the body, coupled with
the scanners low dose of radiation, certainly convinced many radiation experts that
the risk was justified.
But other factors helped the machines gain acceptance.
Because of a regulatory Catch-22, the airport X-ray scanners have escaped the
oversight required for X-ray machines used in doctors offices and hospitals. The
reason is that the scanners do not have a medical purpose, so the FDA cannot subjectthem to the rigorous evaluation it applies to medical devices.
Still, the FDA has limited authority to oversee some non-medical products and can set
mandatory safety regulations. But the agency let the scanners fall under voluntary
standards set by a nonprofit group heavily influenced by industry.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with
no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I
will be billed for the one-year subscription.
Email Address
Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State
Zip
6
Continue
Science Jobs of the Week
Research Scientist
Braskem - Biotechnology Laboratory in Campinas,Brazil
Scientific American Intern
NPG_US
Research Associate
University of Glasgow
Faculty Positions in Biology
Cornell University
Postdoctoral Research Fellows
IASS, Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V.
More jobs from Naturejobs.com
http://www.scientificamerican.com/naturejobs/http://www.scientificamerican.com/naturejobs/index.cfm?method=job&id=224427http://www.scientificamerican.com/naturejobs/index.cfm?method=job&id=229291http://www.scientificamerican.com/naturejobs/index.cfm?method=job&id=229299http://www.scientificamerican.com/naturejobs/index.cfm?method=job&id=229301http://www.scientificamerican.com/naturejobs/index.cfm?method=job&id=229946http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=cancerhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=securityhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=transportation -
8/3/2019 Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk Scientific American
3/12
As for the TSA, it skipped a public comment period required before deploying the
scanners. Then, in defending them, it relied on a small body of unpublished research
to insist the machines were safe, and ignored contrary opinions from U.S. and
European authorities that recommended precautions, especially for pregnant women.
Finally, the manufacturer, Rapiscan Systems, unleashed an intense and sophisticated
lobbying campaign, ultimately winning large contracts.
Both the FDA and TSA say due diligence has been done to assure the scanners safety.
Rapiscan says it won the contract because its technology is superior at detecting
threats. While the TSA says X-ray and millimeter-wave scanners are both effective,
Germany decided earlier this year not to roll out millimeter-wave machines afterfinding they produced too many false positives.
Most of the news coverage on body scanners has focused on privacy, because the
machines can produce images showing breasts and buttocks. But the TSA has since
installed software to make the images less graphic. While some accounts have raised
the specter of radiation, this is the first report to trace the history of the scanners and
document the gaps in regulation that allowed them to avoid rigorous safety evaluation.
Little research on cancer risk of body scanners
Humans are constantly exposed to ionizing radiation, a form of energy that has been
shown to strip electrons from atoms, damage DNA and mutate genes, potentiallyleading to cancer. Most radiation comes from radon, a gas produced from naturally
decaying elements in the ground. Another major source is cosmic radiation from outer
space. Many common items, such as smoke detectors, contain tiny amounts of
radioactive material, as do exit signs in schools and office buildings.
As a result, the cancer risk from any one source of radiation is often small. Outside of
nuclear accidents, such as that at Japan's Fukushima plant, and medical errors, the
health risk comes from cumulative exposure.
In Rapiscans Secure 1000 scanner, which uses ionizing radiation, a passenger stands
between two large blue boxes and is scanned with a pencil X-ray beam that rapidly
moves left to right and up and down the body. In the other machine, ProVision, made
by defense contractor L-3 Communications, a passenger enters a chamber that looks
like a round phone booth and is scanned with millimeter waves, a form of low-energy
radio waves, which have not been shown to strip electrons from atoms or cause
cancer.
Only a decade ago, many states prohibited X-raying a person for anything other than
a medical exam. Even after 9/11, such non-medical X-raying remains taboo in most of
the industrialized world. In July, the European Parliament passed a resolution that
securityscanners using ionizing radiation should be prohibitedbecause of healthrisks. Although the United Kingdom uses the X-ray machine for limited purposes,
such as when passengers trigger the metal detector, most developed countries have
decided to forgo body scanners altogether or use only the millimeter-wave machines.
While the research on medical X-rays could fill many bookcases, the studies that have
been done on the airport X-ray scanners, known as backscatters, fill a file no more
than a few inches thick. None of the main studies cited by the TSA has been published
in a peer-reviewed journal, the gold standard for scientific research.
Those tests show that the Secure 1000 delivers an extremely low dose of radiation,
less than 10 microrems. The dose is roughly one-thousandth of a chest X-ray andequivalent to the cosmic radiation received in a few minutes of flying at typical
cruising altitude. The TSA has used those measurements to say the machines are
safe.
Most of what researchers know about the long-term health effects of low levels of
radiation comes from studies of atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By
-
8/3/2019 Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk Scientific American
4/12
charting exposure levels and cancer cases, researchers established a linear link that
shows the higher the exposure, the greater risk of cancer.
Some scientists argue the danger is exaggerated. They claim low levels stimulate the
repair mechanism in cells, meaning that a little radiation might actually be good for
the body.
But in the authoritative report on low doses of ionizing radiation, published in 2006,
the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the research and concluded that the
preponderance of research supported the linear link. It found no compelling
evidence that there is any level of radiation at which the risk of cancer is zero.
Radiation experts say the dose from the backscatter is negligible when compared to
naturally occurring background radiation. Speaking to the 1998 FDA panel, Smith, the
inventor, compared the increased risk to choosing to visit Denver instead of San Diego
or the decision to wear a sweater versus a sport coat.
Using the linear model, even such trivial amounts increase the number of cancer
cases. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a radiologist at the University of California, San
Francisco, estimated that the backscatters would lead to only six cancers over the
course of a lifetime among the approximately 100 million people who fly every year.
David Brenner, director of Columbia Universitys Center for Radiological Research,reached a higher number potentially 100 additional cancers every year.
Why would we want to put ourselves in this uncertain situation where potentially
were going to have some cancer cases? Brenner asked. It makes me think, really,
why dont we use millimeter waves when we dont have so much uncertainty?
But even without the machines, Smith-Bindman said, the same 100 million people
would develop 40 million cancers over the course of their lifetimes. In this sea of
cancer cases, it would be impossible to identify the patients whose cancer is linked to
the backscatter machines.
How the scanners avoided strict oversight
Although they deliberately expose humans to radiation, the airport X-ray scanners
are not medical devices, so they are not subject to the stringent regulations required
for diagnostic X-ray machines.
If they were, the manufacturer would have to submit clinical data showing safety and
effectiveness and be approved through a rigorous process by the FDA. If the machines
contained radioactive material, they would have to report to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
But because it didnt fit into either category, the Secure 1000 was classified as an
electronic product. The FDA does not review or approve the safety of such products.
However, manufacturers must provide a brief radiation safety report explaining the
dose and notify the agency if any overexposure is discovered. According to the FDA,
no such incidents have been reported.
Under its limited oversight of electronic products, the FDA could issue mandatory
safety regulations. But it didnt do so, a decision that flows from its history of
supervising electronics.
Regulation of electronic products in the United States began after a series of scandals.From the 1930s to the 1950s, it was common for a child to go to a shoe store and
stand underneath an X-ray machine known as a fluoroscope to check whether a shoe
was the right fit. But after cases arose of a shoe models leg being amputated and store
clerks developing dermatitis from putting their hands in the beam to adjust the shoe,
the practice ended.
-
8/3/2019 Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk Scientific American
5/12
In 1967, General Electric recalled 90,000 color televisions that had been sold without
the proper shielding, potentially exposing viewers to dangerous levels of radiation.
The scandal prompted the creation of the federal Bureau of Radiological Health.
That ultimately led to a lot more aggressive program, said John Villforth, who was
the director of the bureau. Over the next decade, the bureau created federal safety
standards for televisions, medical X-rays, microwaves, tanning beds, even laser light
shows.
But in 1982, the FDA merged the radiological health bureau into its medical-device
unit.
I was concerned that if they were to combine the two centers into one, it would
probably mean the ending of the radiation program because the demands for medical-
device regulation were becoming increasingly great, said Villforth, who was put in
charge of the new Center for Devices and Radiological Health. As I sort of guessed,
the radiation program took a big hit.
The new unit became stretched for scarce resources as it tried to deal with everything
from tongue depressors to industrial lasers. The government used to have 500 people
examining the safety of electronic products emitting radiation. It now has about 20
people. In fact, the FDA has not set a mandatory safety standard for an electronicproduct since 1985.
As a result, there is an FDA safety regulation for X-rays scanning baggage but none
for X-rays scanning people at airports.
Meanwhile, scientists began developing backscatter X-rays, in which the waves are
reflected off an object to a detector, for the security industry.
The Secure 1000 people scanner was invented by Smith in 1991 and later sold to
Rapiscan, then a small security firm based in southern California. The first major
customer was the California prison system, which began scanning visitors to prevent
drugs and weapons from getting in. But the state pulled the devices in 2001 after a
group of inmates' wives filed a class-action lawsuit accusing the prisons of violating
their civil liberties.
The U.S. Customs Service deployed backscatter machines for several years but in
limited fashion and with strict supervision. Travelers suspected of carrying
contraband had to sign a consent form, and Customs policy prohibited the scanning of
pregnant women. The agency abandoned them in 2006, not for safety reasons but
because smugglers had learned where the machines were installed and adapted their
methods to avoid them, said Rick Whitman, the radiation safety officer for Customsuntil 2008.
Yet, even this limited application of X-ray scanning for security dismayed radiation
safety experts. In 1999, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, a
nongovernmental organization, passed a resolution recommending that such screening
be stopped immediately.
The backscatter machines had also caught the attention of the 1998 FDA advisory
panel, which recommended that the FDA establish government safety regulations for
people scanners. Instead, the FDA decided to go with a voluntary standard set by a
trade group largely comprising manufacturers and government agencies that wantedto use the machines.
Establishing a mandatory standard takes an enormous amount of resources and
could take a decade to publish, said Dan Kassiday, a longtime radiation safety
engineer at the FDA.
-
8/3/2019 Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk Scientific American
6/12
In addition, since the mid-1990s, Congress has directed federal safety agencies to use
industry standards wherever possible instead of creating their own.
The FDA delegated the task of establishing the voluntary standards to the American
National Standards Institute. A private nonprofit that sets standards for many
industries, ANSI convened a committee of the Health Physics Society, a trade group of
radiation safety specialists. It was made up of 15 people, including six representatives
of manufacturers of X-ray body scanners and five from U.S. Customs and the
California prison system. There were few government regulators and no independent
scientists.
In contrast, the FDA advisory panel was also made up of 15 people five
representatives from government regulatory agencies, four outside medical experts,
one labor representative and five experts from the electronic products industry, but
none from the scanner manufacturers themselves.
I am more comfortable with having a regulatory agency either federal or the
states develop the standards and enforce them, Kaufman said. Such regulators,
she added, have only one priority, and thats public health.
A representative of the Health Physics Society committee said that was its main
priority as well. Most of the committees evaluation was completed before 9/11. Thestandard was published in 2002 and updated with minor changes in 2009.
Ed Bailey, chief of Californias radiological health branch at the time, said he was the
lone voice opposing the use of the machines. But after 9/11, his views changed about
what was acceptable in pursuit of security.
The whole climate of their use has changed, Bailey said. The consequence of
something being smuggled on an airplane is far more serious than somebody getting
drugs into a prison.
Are Inspections Indepen dent?
While the TSA doesnt regulate the machines, it must seek public input before making
major changes to security procedures. In July, a federal appeals court ruled that the
agency failed to follow rule-making procedures and solicit public comment before
installing body scanners at airports across the country. TSA spokesman Michael
McCarthy said the agency couldnt comment on ongoing litigation.
The TSA asserts there is no need to take additional precautions for sensitive
populations, even pregnant women, following the guidance of the congressionally
chartered National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements.
But other authorities have come to the opposite conclusion. A report by Frances
radiation safety agency specifically warned against screening pregnant women with
the X-ray devices. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administrations medical institute
has advised pregnant pilots and flight attendants that the machine, coupled with their
time in the air, could put them over their occupational limit for radiation exposure and
that they might want to adjust their work schedules accordingly.
No similar warning has been issued for pregnant frequent fliers.
Even as people scanners became more widespread, government oversight actually
weakened in some cases.
Inspections of X-ray equipment in hospitals and industry are the responsibility of
state regulators and before 9/11, many states also had the authority to randomly
inspect machines in airports. But that ended when the TSA took over security
checkpoints from the airlines.
-
8/3/2019 Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk Scientific American
7/12
Instead, annual inspections are done by Rapiscan, the scanners manufacturer.
As a regulator, I think theres a conflict of interest in having the manufacturer and
the facility inspect themselves, Kaufman said.
Last year, in reaction to public anger from members of Congress, passengers and
advocates, the TSA contracted with the Army Public Health Command to do
independent radiation surveys. But email messages obtained in a lawsuit brought by
the Electronic PrivacyInformation Center, a civil liberties group, raise questions
about the independence of the Army surveys.
One email sent by TSA health and safety director Jill Segraves shows that local TSA
officials were given advance notice and allowed to pick and choosewhich systems
the Army could check.
That email also suggests that Segraves considered the Rapiscan inspectors a valuable
public-relations asset: They are our radiation myth busters, she wrote to a local
security director.
Some TSA screeners are concerned about their own radiation exposure from the
backscatters, but the TSA has not allowed them to wear badges that could measure it,
said Milly Rodriguez, health and safety specialist for the American Federation ofGovernment Employees, which represents TSA officers.
We have heard from members that sometimes the technicians tell them that the
machines are emitting more radiation than is allowed, she said.
McCarthy, the TSA spokesman, said the machines are physically incapable of
producing radiation above the industry standard. In the email, he said, the inspections
allow screeners to ask questions about radiation and address concerns about specific
machines.
The companys lobbying campaign
While the TSA maintains that the body scanners are essential to preventing attacks
on airplanes, it only began rolling them out nine years after 9/11.
After the attempted shoe-bombing in December 2001, the federal government
conducted a trial of a Rapiscan backscatter at the Orlando International Airport. But
the revealing images drew protests that the machines amounted to a virtual strip
search.
The TSA considered the scanners again after two Chechen women blew up Russian
airliners in 2004. Facing a continued outcry over privacy, the TSA instead movedforward with a machine known as a pufferbecause it released several bursts of air
on the passengers clothes and analyzed the dislodged particles for explosives. But
after discovering the machines were ineffective in the field and difficult to maintain,
the TSA canceled the program in 2006.
Around that time, Rapiscan began to beef up its lobbying on Capitol Hill. It opened a
Washington, D.C., office and, according to required disclosures, more than tripled its
lobbying expenditures in two years, from less than $130,000 in 2006 to nearly
$420,000 in 2008. It hired former legislative aides to Rep. David Price, D-N.C., then
chairman of the homeland security appropriations subcommittee, and to Sen. Trent
Lott, R-Miss.
It started a political action committee and began contributing heavily to Price; Rep.
Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., then head of the homeland security committee; Rep. Jane
Harman, D-Calif., also on that committee; and Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., the top
Republican on the Senate appropriations committee.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=privacy -
8/3/2019 Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk Scientific American
8/12
In addition, it opened a new North Carolina plant in Price s district and expanded its
operations in Ocean Springs, Miss., and at its headquarters in Torrance, Calif., in
Harmans district.
Less than a month after U.S. Senator Trent Lott and other local leaders helped
officially open Rapiscan Systems new Ocean Springs factory, Lotts office announced
in a news release in late 2006, the company has won a $9.1 million Department of
Defense contract.
But Rapiscan still hadnt landed a major contract to roll out its X-ray body scanners in
commercial airports. Indeed, in 2007, with new privacy filters in place, the TSA begana trial of millimeter-wave and backscatter machines at several major airports, after
which the agency opted to go with the millimeter-wave machines. The agency said
health concerns werent a factor.
But with the 2009 federal stimulus package, which provided $300 million for
checkpoint security machines, the TSA began deploying backscatters as well. Rapiscan
won a $173 million, multiyear contract for the backscatters, with an initial $25 million
order for 150 systems to be made in Mississippi.
Three other companies American Science & Engineering, Tek84 Engineering Group
and Valley Forge Composite Technologies make X-ray scanners, but none are usedby the TSA.Peter Kant, executive vice president for Rapiscan, said the company
expanded its lobbying because its business was increasingly affected by the
government.
Theres a lot of misinformation about the technology; theres a lot of questions about
how various inspection technologies work, he said. And we needed a way to be able
to provide that information and explain the technology and how it works, and that s
what lobbying is.
The lawmakers either declined to comment or said the lobbying, campaign
contributions and local connections had nothing to do with the TSAs decision to
purchase Rapiscan machines. The TSA said the contract was bid competitively and
that the winning machines had to undergo comprehensive research and testing phases
before being deployed.
While the scanners were appearing in more and more airports, few passengers went
through them, because they were used mostly for random screening or to resolve
alarms from the metal detector.
That changed on Christmas Day 2009, when a Nigerian man flying to Detroit tried to
ignite a pouch of explosives hidden in his underwear.
Following the foiled Great Balls of Fire suicide bombing, as the New York
Postdubbed it, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano ramped up plans to roll
out body scanners nationwide. Members of Congress and aviation security experts
also pushed heavily for the TSA to install more machines that could detect explosives
on passengers.
Harman sent a letter to Napolitano, noting that Rapiscan was in her district.
I urge you to expedite installation of scanning machines in key airports, Harman
wrote in the letter, which was first reported by the website CounterPunch. If youneed additional funds, I am ready to help.
Michael Chertoff, who had supported body scanners while secretary of Homeland
Security, appeared frequently on TV advocating their use. In one interview, he
disclosed that his consulting firm, Chertoff Group, had done work for Rapiscan,
sparking accusations that he was trying to profit from his time as a government
-
8/3/2019 Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk Scientific American
9/12
servant.
Despite the criticism, little has been revealed about the relationship. Rapiscan
dismissed it, asserting that the consulting work had to do with international cargo and
port security issues not aviation.
There was nothing that was not above board, Kant said. His comments about
passenger screening and these machines were simply his own and was nothing that we
had engaged the Chertoff Group for.
A public records request by ProPublica turned up empty: The Department ofHomeland Security said it could not find any correspondence to or from Chertoff
related to body scanners. DHS also said Chertoff did not use email.
The Chertoff Group did not respond to requests for comment.
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.
According to annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, OSI
Systems, the parent company of Rapiscan, has seen revenue from its security divisionmore than double since 2006 to nearly $300 million in fiscal year 2011.
Miles OBrien and Kate Tobin of PBS NewsHour contributed to this report.
Tweet
Post a Comment | Read Comments (16)
Reprints and Permissions
Articles You Might Also Like
What Is the Best
Approach to
Airport
Security?
Have Post-9/1 1
Airport
Screening
Technologies
Made Us Safer?
Preventable
Deaths: Is U.S.
Domestic
Security and
Public Health
Spending Out of
Balance?
9/11: 10 Years
Later
Radiation Levels
Explained: An
Exposure
Infographic
Handic
CAPPS
16 Comments Add Comment
Show All | Jump To: 1-10 | 11-20 | Next View6Oldest to Newest
1. GilZw
04:20 PM 11/1/11
The danger from backscatter goes beyond the discussion here.
You can read more about the danger on Wikipedia at this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gil_Zweig
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
2. Jazzism
07:37 PM 11/1/11
The threat is diminished so much the TSA has to retract 4/5's
of their bullshit.
Enough with molesting our kids, removing any dignity our
elderly have left and suspect everyone under the sun as guilty
until proven innocent. They get away with almost as much
human rights abuses as insurance companies and George
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-neuroscience-of-true-grithttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=screening-for-terrorismhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=handicaps-in-cappshttp://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/04/08/radiation-levels-explained-an-exposure-infographic/http://www.scientificamerican.com/report.cfm?id=9-11-anniversaryhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-domestic-security-and-public-health-spending-out-of-balancehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=have-new-airport-screening-technologies-inspired-by-9-11-made-us-saferhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=aviation-security-ait-pat-downhttp://twitter.com/sharehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=contactus&tab=reprints -
8/3/2019 Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk Scientific American
10/12
Bush.
Disband TSA and bring in another authority that wasn't
created as a kneejerk reaction and can do a better job treating
people than irradiating them as though they were a cancer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
3. sog001
08:05 PM 11/1/11
The scanner in the photograph accompanying this article is
not a backscatter scanner, but rather a milliwave scanner. The
least you could do is include the right photograph with the
article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
4. bvineyard
09:37 PM 11/1/11
I can offer a real life perspective on the intensity level of the
airport scanners.
After being pulled aside for private pat downs 4 out of 5 times
this year, following the scanner check, I became alarmed
because the TSA agents told me each time they saw something
concealed near my navel.
After discussing with my doctor I underwent a CAT scan to
find the problem. It turns out an internal birth defect, a tube
connecting the navel to the bladder did not dissipate after
birth and this is showing up on the airport scanners.
Initially the doctors and technicians agreed the airport
scanner should not be set at a high enough level to see internal
organs, but without doubt that is the case.
Now I request a pat down instead of the scanner, they will pull
me aside anyway, and I am convinced the radiation output is
set at an unsafe level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
5. Nagnostic
11:26 PM 11/1/11
Sciam! How could you?
You seem to be advertising opposition to Janet Napolitano's
Homeland Security scheme! Don't you know you're breeding
dissent, concerning the Big Zero administration's policies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
6. Mendrys
01:10 AM 11/2/11
Hear now, it's not fair to blame Bush for the deployment of
these scanners. He did not make TSA policy decisions. They
would have been rolled out no matter who was president at the
time and no matter who took his place in 2008.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
7. Atomboy
05:30 AM 11/2/11
Of course they minimize the risk. This is the country that set
off one nuclear blast after another in Nevada, knowing full
well that radioactive fallout was dusting the entire country and
sweeping offshore to circulate the planet. Our government
acted as every corporation has acted; they used advertising to
refocus people away from the lethal danger. Check out
"American Ground Zero..." by Carole Gallagher. For a fictional
portrayal of bureaucracy run amuck see Terry Gilliam's fine
film, "Brazil." Prescient and frightening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
8. Frank of America
01:00 PM 11/2/11
Six additional cases of cancer per 100 million or even 100
additional cases of cancer per 100 million is an acceptable risk
to avoid having an aircraft with 200-500 souls on-board go
down in flames. If the scanners weren't deployed and a plane
was taken down by a bomb the same people who are moaning
about this would be up in arms because the TSA had a
perfectly good technology and didn't use it. We can't have it
both ways. Should there be some more rules about their use?
-
8/3/2019 Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk Scientific American
11/12
Add a Comment
You must log in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Perhaps. Independent inspections if done properly might be
an improvement, perhaps the TSA staff should have radiation
badges. That doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the
bathwater. TSA finds weapons every day and many are found
using this technology. Complaining about the radiation when
three minutes at 30,000 exposes us to more radiation than the
machine is childish. When did we become such wimps?
Criminy. If we were all so concerned about cancer we wouldn't
smoke, drink and eat such unhealthy food. Now 'scuse me
while I go for a smoke, an Irish Coffee and a burger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
9. Frank of America
01:41 PM 11/2/11
And - if I may be so bold - we will always be one step behind
those who wish us harm until we straighten out our foreign
policy. Blind allegiance to Israel and global corporate interests
is not in our national interest. We need a much more balanced
approach. Being the world's policeman sets us up as a target. If
we had a more enlightened policy we would a) save money b)
do more good c) cease being such a reviled entity around the
world and less of a target.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
10. Stevilton
02:35 PM 11/2/11
To put a scan into perspective the estimated dose ranges from
0.015 Sv to 0.88 Sv. While flying, the expected dose from
cosmic rays is approximately 0.04 Sv per minute.
Therefore, the highest dose a person would receive from a
scan is approximately equivalent to 22 minutes of air time.
Often a lot less than the difference in dose received if a person
took a direct flight, as opposed to transferring. Further, there
is no evidence for elevated cancer risk below doses of 100
000uSV. For those of a scientific nature with access to the
journal Radiology I highly recommend the following article:
http://radiology.rsna.org/content/261/1/330.full
and you can enjoy Dr. Brenner's "brilliant" reply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
| Jump To: 1-10 | 11-20 |
http://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=registerhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=log-in -
8/3/2019 Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk Scientific American
12/12
Scientific American is a trademark of Scientific American, Inc.,
used with permission
2011 Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
Advertise About Scientific American Subscribe
Special Ad Sections Press Room Renew Your Subscription
Science Jobs Site Map Buy Back Issues
Partner Network Terms of Use Products & Services
International Editions Privacy Policy Subscriber Customer Service
Contact Us
http://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=contactushttps://w1.buysub.com/servlet/CSGateway?cds_mag_code=SCAhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=privacyhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=internationalhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=products-and-serviceshttp://www.scientificamerican.com/page.cfm?section=termsofusehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/partners/http://m1.buysub.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=11001&storeId=11001&categoryId=10092&langId=-1http://www.scientificamerican.com/sitemap.cfmhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/naturejobs/https://w1.buysub.com/servlet/CSGateway?cds_mag_code=SCAhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/pressroom/http://www.scientificamerican.com/ad-sectionshttp://www.scientificamerican.com/subscribe/combo_sciam.cfm?&sc=footerhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/pressroom/aboutus.cfmhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/mediakit/