[ RadSafe ] bakscatter x-ray

Thu Nov 18 12:11:09 CST 2010

It used to be a great country when one did not need papers to travel within the US. 

When the government did not treat the people as the enemy. 

When common sense was used when making regulations. 

When I did not have to go to the airport half a day before flying to make sure I can get on a plane even when flying on a US government purchased ticket.  

For what ends has this been done, for the people on the plane having the ultimate responsibility to stop any attack anyway. 

John Pisole (TSA chief) said "If you have two planes getting ready to depart and one, you say, everybody has been thoroughly screened on this plane, and you can either go on that plane or another plane where we have not done a thorough screening because people did not feel comfortable with that, I think most if not all of the traveling public will say, 'I want to go on that plane that has been thoroughly screened.' "

Give the public the choice and we will find out. Let one of the airlines, choose a different mode of screening. Of course, this will not happen. 

I am not sure that Archie Bunker airlines would not have been preferable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM

Funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same. 

Frankly, if someone wants to get a bomb through the scanners they can. Have surgery to implant a bomb and you walk right through either the millimeter wave or backscatter scanners. Maybe, we should prevent anyone with stitches or staples from flying. 

Give me Ben Franklin's take over Lewis Black any day. 

Jeff

Jeff Terry
Asst. Professor of Physics
Life Science Bldg Rm 166
Illinois Institute of Technology
3101 S. Dearborn St. 
Chicago IL 60616
630-252-9708
terryj at iit.edu

On Nov 18, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Brennan, Mike (DOH) wrote:

> If I were a bad guy trying to sneak something past TSA, one of the
> things I might do is have confederates, preferably people who didn't
> even know there was something real going down, hassled the screeners to
> distract them.  If I were some TSA games theory guy, I would recognize
> the bad guys might do this, I might encourage a policy of screener being
> extra thorough with people who were intentionally complicating the
> process, as a way of dissuading the behavior.  On those rare occasions
> that I have interacted with the police, I have found that respect and
> cooperation have kept those interactions short and less painful than
> they might been.  
> 
> I like Lewis Black's take on it; "You mean I get to fly from New York to
> Los Angeles in six hour AND someone fondles me?  Is this a great
> country, or what!  I'm glad that TSA hasn't thought to change me a
> baggage handling fee."
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jeff Terry
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 6:09 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] bakscatter x-ray
> 
> I am already working on that today. We are x-raying pepto bismo to see
> if we can recommend painting everyone's underwear
> pink. Should work as a temporary tattoo as well without needing to dip
> into lab chemicals. It is always better to screw with TSA with over the
> counter products.  
> 
> The ultra strength has over 500 mg of Bi subsalicylate per 15 ml. 
> 
> Our other suggestion is going to be to wear an athletic cup, a 1/4 inch
> of ABS plastic should let you walk through the metal detectors, yet
> still play havoc with the backscatter machines. 
> 
> I think that our measurements are looking good. We will be preparing our
> website for recommendations shortly.
> 
> No concern on our part about the radiation, just the civil liberties. 
> 
> Jeff
> 
> Jeff Terry
> Asst. Professor of Physics
> Life Science Bldg Rm 166
> Illinois Institute of Technology
> 3101 S. Dearborn St. 
> Chicago IL 60616
> 630-252-9708
> terryj at iit.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 17, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Cary Renquist wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I took a quick look at one of the papers that they cite for dose per
>> scan data... The paper was by some researchers at John Hopkins U. 
>> 
>> (Been a long time since I have played with x-rays and I have never
> dealt
>> with 50 kVp x-rays)
>> Their list of equipment for dose measurement was a large ion chamber
>> (1800 cm^3 volume) and a Thermo Sci. (Bicron) micro-rem survey meter.
>> Neither of those seem especially appropriate for rigorously
>> characterizing the dose from such a low energy x-ray source.
>> Particularly where the concern might be entrance dose.
>> 
>> As I indicated above, I took a really quick look -- haven't read the
>> experimental protocol/analysis or any of the other papers that are
>> available.  
>> They can be downloaded from the TSA site: TSA Electronic reading room
>> http://j.mp/92qzyT
>> 
>> Probably a good read for my flight back home for Thanksgiving...
>> (perhaps I should grab some heavy metal carrier solution from the lab
>> (bismuth?/barium?) and paint a smiley face on my skin)
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Cary
>> 
>> ---
>> Cary Renquist
>> cary.renquist at ezag.com
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan,
> Mike
>> (DOH)
>> Sent: Tuesday, 16 November 2010 08:53
>> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] bakscatter x-ray
>> 
>> X-ray isn't my corner of the rad world, but the more I think about the
> "
>> The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the
> underlying
>> tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed
>> throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be
>> dangerously high." Statement, the less sense it makes to me.  It seems
>> to me that for any x-ray the majority of the absorption is in first
>> dense material it encounters; the skin.  It also seems to me that if
> one
>> set up detectors to collect and process the backscatter from a
>> diagnostic x-ray procedure, you could image the target's skin through
>> their clothing (though this would be far more difficult than just
> asking
>> them to take it off).  Unless someone can point out where I am wrong
>> (and I well might be), it seems that this objection is without merit.
> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan,
> Mike
>> (DOH)
>> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 4:05 PM
>> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] bakscatter xray
>> 
>> If the majority of the energy is delivered to the skin, then wouldn't
> it
>> follow that the majority of THAT energy is delivered to the outer
> layer
>> or the skin; the layer of dead skin cells?  If the claim is that the
>> radiation penetrates the dead layer, but is then deposited in the
> living
>> tissue, I would think that there should be some support for that.  
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of conrad
> sherman
>> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 6:57 PM
>> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] bakscatter xray
>> 
>> here is the letter from ucsf and response
>> 
>> LETTER OF CONCERN
>> 
>> ...Snip.....
>> 
>> (28keV).The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the 
>> Underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were
>> distributed 
>> throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be 
>> dangerously high.
>> 
>> ....Snip....
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>> 
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>> 
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu