Suspected Radiation Leak Exposes Ignorance About TSA Photo Policy

A suspected radiation leak from a security checkpoint at a Hawaii airport not only reignited legitimate fears about the controversial body scanners – it also revealed more ignorance about TSA’s photo policies.
Eleven Transportation Security Administration workers fell ill Thursday after they were exposed to mysterious fumes emitting from a body scanner.
As a HAZMAT team arrived to inspect for radiation, the TSA workers were treated by paramedics, then urged to go to the hospital for further tests.
Meanwhile, an employee of Lihu’e Airport snapped photos of the HAZMAT team conducting their investigation, sending them to The Garden Island newspaper.
The employee told the newspaper that TSA workers regularly forbid passengers from taking photos at the checkpoints.
The worker who spoke with The Garden Island said TSA staff always tells travelers to put down their cameras, prohibiting them from taking pictures at the airport.
“It makes you wonder what kind of stuff is going on there,” he said.
And a state Department of Transportation spokesman told the newspaper that passengers are not allowed to photograph the checkpoints.
Meisenzahl said travelers are allowed to take pictures at the airport, but not of TSA equipment and checkpoints, per TSA policy.
But he is wrong.
The TSA has always stated that photography and video recording of checkpoints is legal. TSA asks passengers not to photograph the monitors, but even then, there is no explicit rule forbidding it.
But that doesn’t stop TSA workers from constantly telling passengers they are not allowed to take pictures.
The HAZMAT inspection at Lihu’e Airport found no radiation, according to the article.
However, a ProPublica investigation that was published Saturday reveals some very scary information about the body scanners and radiation.
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 it’s a very small risk, when you expose that number of people, there’s 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 panel’s attention.
Fujifilm's X-Pro1, now M Mount friendly
Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3











San Diego 7 photo gallery — Just Be Love All Stay Cool
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?





























Comments
Radiation leak!? From what? These devices do NOT contain radioactive material any more than your TV does.
I don't know where you get your information from, you have anything to backup that claim?
It's pretty common knowledge that X-rays are produced by vacuum tubes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube
Yes, and it's quite possible to have the radiation shielding develop a "leak" and start pouring Xrays outside the machine. Or it's possible for an Xray tube to overproduce xrays which would then penetrate either a poorly shielded machine, or be way over the rating of the existing shielding.
Damn republicans and their radiation. It's likely Cheney's fault.
Kidding, of course.
The symptoms were probably "epidemic hysteria". It is common when something unforeseen happens in stressful situations. Many, many, examples.
...fell ill Thursday after they were exposed to mysterious fumes emitting from a body scanner.
"Fumes" indicates something chemical, not nuclear, going on. When you get zapped by radiation, you don't smell anything. I'm guessing something overheated and vaporized some of the nasty plastic these machines apparently contain.
In saying this, I am in no way defending the obscene porno-scanners, which may indeed be killing people with cancers caused by emitted radiation in "normal use". Please forgive me if I express the wish that most of the people killed will be government goons, not the innocent travelling public.
Sigh ...
Our society really is completely irrational when it comes to evaluating risk. We'll gladly take relatively huge risks (like driving a car, for instance) but say "radiation" and we go into a panic, however insignificant the real risk may be.
Buried deep in the ProPublica article is this salient fact:
"The dose is roughly one-thousandth of a chest X-ray and equivalent to the cosmic radiation received in a few minutes of flying at typical cruising altitude."
But is anyone in a tizzy about the order of magnitude higher ionizing radiation dose they're going to get while sitting aboard their flight? Of course not.
Exactly.
Just like in Japan. Over 20k people die from an earthquake and tsunami but that gets overshadowed by the fact that a nuclear plant leaks some radiation as a result of the earthquake and tsunami. The fact that no one died from the nuclear accident and most likely no one will ever die from it doesn't make a difference.
People are just nuts and have no ability to judge what is risky behaviour and what isn't. It mostly comes down to what is common and what isn't.
Riding in a car is about the most dangerous and risky thing anyone will do in their lifetime. Yet it's considered safe by most because they are very familiar with it.
No one is going to die from the accident? Tell that to the workers who've essentially sacrificed their lives to deal with the meltdowns.
You make a valid point about people not making informed calculations about risk. But in the case of the porno-scanners, there is evidence that there may be much more risk than the government claims:
http://www.mnn.com/health/healthy-spaces/stories/us-glossed-over-cancer-...
Carlos, I'm sure that you've posted it here at least once, but do you have a link to the exact regulation that allows photography, and not just the TSA's blog post on the issue? I'd like to print something a little more official to bring with me sometime.
Those who would give up freedom and liberty for security and safety deserve neither and will loose both.
Can't remember who said it.
It was Benjamin Franklin.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety,deserve neither and will lose both.
And "loose" is pronounced, "LUHSE".
As in, setting the dogs 'loose'.
'Lose', as in to 'lose' something, is spelled LOSE.
As in LOSER.
I know it is funny, but every time you misspell something-oh, never mind.
Post new comment