Pilot Organization Calls for Boycott of Nudie Scanners
The world's largest pilots orgnanization is calling on its members to boycott the nudie scanners being implemented at airports in the U.S. and around the world, citing concerns about radiation.
David Bates, president of the Allied Pilots Association, which represents American Airlines, is leading the charge to boycott the scanners.
"It is important to note that there are "backscatter" AIT devices now being deployed that produce ionizing radiation, which could be harmful to your health," Mr Bates said.
"I share our pilots' concerns about this additional radiation exposure and plan to recommend that our pilots refrain from going through the AIT (body scanners).
"We already experience significantly higher radiation exposure than most other occupations, and there is mounting evidence of higher-than-average cancer rates as a consequence."
Mr Bates says it's less than ideal that people who wish to avoid the extra radiation are left with no choice but to undergo what he calls "demeaning" pat-down searches.
Associate Professor Jan Gebicki, from Macquarie University, who specialises in radiation biology, says that caution should be exercised when it comes to full-body scanners.
"If we cannot establish any cause-effect links between health and scanner exposure, it is safest to assume that any exposure represents a potential risk, even if it is too small to measure," Mr Gebicki said.
US scientists warned earlier this year of the potential health dangers of the devices, saying that the radiation levels have been dangerously underestimated and could lead to an increased risk of skin cancer.
University of California biochemist David Agard warned that unlike other scanners, the radiation from these devices is delivered at low energy beam levels, with most of the dose concentrated in the skin and underlying tissue.
"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," Dr Agard said.
"Ionizing radiation such as the X-rays used in these scanners have the potential to induce chromosome damage, and that can lead to cancer."
David Brenner, the head of Columbia University's Centre for Radiological Research, says the concentration on the skin – one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the body – means the radiation dose is actually 20 times higher than the official estimate.
The researcher was consulted to write guidelines for the security scanners in 2002 but said he would not have signed the report had he known the devices were going to be used so widely.
And of course, that's not even addressing the glaring privacy concerns. It's notable that when DHS Sec. Napolitano unveiled the new scanners at JFK Airport last month, she declined to submit to a scan herself.
And of course, the kicker is that like many of TSA's ractionary policies, the body scanners may not have even prevented the terror plot that inspired their use.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
when DHS Sec. Napolitano unveiled the new scanners at JFK Airport last month, she declined to submit to a scan herself.
And a great sigh of relief went up from the assembled multitudes.
Until they all realized she was opting for the intrusive pat down.
I suspect the assembled multitudes were in favor of that.
Anything--anything, I tell 'ya--to inflict discomfort and humiliation on TSA employees. Yes, even feeling up Janet. It's that serious.
It's notable that when DHS Sec. Napolitano unveiled the new scanners at JFK Airport last month, she declined to submit to a scan herself.
To be fair, she objected because she didn't want to be seen as using her official positon to endorse Spanx?
looking the way she does with Spanx on wouldn't be an endorsement.
And of course, the kicker is that like many of TSA's ractionary policies, the body scanners may not have even prevented the terror plot that inspired their use.
They're doing "something." In their minds, isn't that all that matters?
ST2010 (Security Theater 2010)
My understanding is that if they wore dosemeters, long haul pilots would all be grounded well before the year was up due to reaching maximum allowed annual radiation doses.
Depends on whose exposure standards you use, but yeah. Highest professional exposure of any class of workers.
Cosmic rays are a bitch.
I eagerly await the emergence of an all-airline-pilot version of The U-Foes.
Read an article today (on Drudge?) about how the flight attendants' union is handling a lot of complaints, concerning attendants opting out of scanners but getting groped during a pat down. The union is complaining loudly to the TSA. Half of me says good for them, the other half asks who is representing the average traveler who has the same complaint?
Get out of the way, Hammerhead.
Maybe, maybe not. The problem with these reactionary solution is that they always arrive after the fact, indicating two very interesting things:
a) The government is not populated by soothsayers, and
b) The government is not even populated by smart people, let alone soothsayers.
I'm here!!
TSA
Total Sexual Assault.
Visual, and
Physical
And the terrorists just keep on winning.
But isn't it fun to imagine they might have?
It is a matter of public safety to check how much junk a passenger has in his/her trunk. Too much could get get get the other passengers drunk.
-10. Black Eyed Peas references incur automatic deductions from the judges.
I concur.
Hey! Don't Phunk with my heart A.R.ian. Where is the love?
-10 for even knowing that it's a BEP reference.
Why? Judging from the article, it's already retarded up there...
+10 for being my enabler.
I didn't know it was a BEP reference. I trust your judgement, BP.
-10. Black Eyed Peas references incur automatic deductions from the judges.
Kim Hill Black Eyed Peas, +5, Fergie Black Eyed Peas, -20.
In this case, yes, -20.
Proof that old Black Eyed Peas are better:
This may finally be the bridge too far. I really hope people revolt over this.
They won't. You are observing "creep."
I'm not a lawyer, so I am completely befuddled at how this does NOT violate the 4th Amendment. It seems completely invasive- both the scanner and the pat-down- and it's not based on any type of probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. It's completely unreasonable to think that EVERY person who enters the airport could potentially be carrying a bomb in his or her undies. I think reasonable suspicion, enough to warrant an invasive search like this, might be triggered if the person were acting suspiciously, or had set off the metal detector, or some other cursory, non invasive screening had raised a suspicion. But to think that, just because I want to get on a plane, that's enough to warrant somebody groping me like that is completely insane.
How is this even happening at all?
Rational basis. National Security.
These are legal words that act like the invocation of "privilege" at Feministing.
Because it's a free country. Why do you hate freedom?
It's not invasion of privacy because they are not randomly coming to your home and feeling you up under threat of fine and/or imprisonment. Or something.
Oh, I see. But it's okay to make get naked screened or felt up a condition of getting on a plane, even though there's absolutely NO reason to believe I may be a terrorist, and absolutely NO rational person would assume that I was carrying a bra bomb just because I want to go to Florida on a plane? Even though we deem it outrageous as a society that cities like New York and Philadelphia would even CONSIDER stop-and-frisk policies, and call it a violation of fourth amendment rights? So, if the Federal Government came into my home to take a look at what I gots in my panties, it would be bad. But since it's at the airport, it's good. I see. That makes perfect sense.
Actually in NYC they have conditioned admission to the rapid transit on submission to a baggage search.
I'm not a lawyer, so I am completely befuddled at how this does NOT violate the 4th Amendment. It seems completely invasive- both the scanner and the pat-down- and it's not based on any type of probable cause or even reasonable suspicion.
Back in the day, when airline security was a private affair, they could at least hide beneath the veneer that you were being searched by a commercial entity that you have an agreement with. Now that veneer is gone: You're being searched by agents of the government. I am also not a lawyer, but I believe these types of searches have been generally upheld under the umbrella of:
o No expectatino of privacy under the circumstances.
o A greater public good is served by this miniscule loss of freedoms
o You can choose not to fly, therefore choose not to be searched.
Regarding point one, yes, I do expect my privacy to be respected, always. Period. That is sort of the point of the fourth Amendment.
Point two: what greater good? Keeping BushObamaCheneyBiden, or whatever cucrrent dufus, in power on the grounds that "well, if we didn't do this you *might* get on a plane with a bomb"? I'm more likely to get struck by lightening.
Point three, practically, there are many places even within the US that I can *not* get to in any sort of reasonable time without taking a plane.
Tell it to the judge.
I've considered .
You can choose not to travel. You can choose not to leave your property.
If it weren't for the job thing, I could be quite happy not leaving my property.
Which is retarded, because it's not even really my property, since the government can seize it pretty much at any time, for any reason.
So while I'm being a shut-in in order to avoid having my civil rights violated, do I need to choose to keep my blinds closed, too, in order to avoid the government looking through my windows, JUST IN CASE I might be making a bomb in my living room?
Closing the blinds is classified as suspicious behavior. Especially seeing as I now have record of you writing something on the internet about building a bomb.
Privacy just became the least of your worries.
How do I not have an expectation of privacy with regard to my genitals?
All your genitals are belong to us.
Because if there is another terrorist attack, Obama's critics can't say he didn't make a concerted effort. Had he actually reversed course on the Patriot Act/TSA/et al and an attack happened, he would be looking back fondly on his current popularity numbers.
Serious, I can't believe it's gotten so freaking bad that I miss the Bush Administration's relative restraint on violating civil liberties.
Napolitano woudln't go through the scanner because none of the tabloids woudl buy the pics.
She needed to shop the pics to Animal Husbandry Quarterly
A TSA no-neck gruffly inquiring "Dose or grope?"
I'm so happy for America.
Better than the SWAT team screaming "Shag or Bag?"
"If we cannot establish any cause-effect links between health and scanner exposure, it is safest to assume that any exposure represents a potential risk, even if it is too small to measure," Mr Gebicki said.
Doesn't this mean: if we can't prove it's unsafe, we should just assume it is?
PS: Sorry about the last. Submitted, mean to preview.
Problem is, this starts sounding like the lefties screaming for no genetically modified food, since, we don't know what will happen. Yes we do, fewer people will starve.
But damn! I hate it when I have to argue both sides because others can't think clearly.
+1
Skin cancer is a small price to pay so that your country can fight Teh Turr'r.
But I'm scurr'd of the turr'r.
So does anyone know off the top of their head how many actual terrorists these "improved" security measures have caught?
Zero, right?
But for these measures, our skies would be filled with gun-wielding, box-cutter waving fanatics.
With snow globes. Don't forget the snow globes.
I want to go on record right now as saying that I'm not going to feel clean if Libertarians win this fight based on strained environmental and health concerns. But I guess I'll take it.
This.
But he fucked up part is that I can totally see the TSA reverting to a less radioactive solution for airline crew (because of frequency), while the rest of us rubes still get the bullshit digital undressing.
Fuck the TSA.
Which is my point. Winning this on anything but principle is just delaying the inevitable. We should win this because they shouldn't be able to look at my naked ass. Not because my naked ass might develop cancer in certain favorable conditions when in use during high frequency periods of abnormal sunspot activity.
All that requires is the TSA "fixes" the health concerns and says "There, now we can look at your naked ass again."
Well said!!!
What's fucked up about the pilot union's complaint is that the objection is entirely over possible radiation exposure, as opposed to definite violations of privacy.
Fuck the TSA. Until this shit gets straightened out (if it ever will) I won't be flying because I'm not sure I want to be arrested quite yet.
I don't like the full body scanners but I do like to have a little fun with the screener when I go through. I always give the guy looking at my body scan a little wink, they love that.
We don't want to give them more reasons to keep them.
One more reason to get that prince albert I've been thinking about! Give them something to see!
I will personally pay Johnny Knoxville's bail if he jumps on this in his next movie....
Was wondering: if you wrote "Fuck you Big Brother!" in black sharpie across your chest, could they read it? If so, how about "You're a pedophile" on your child's back? If I'm going to get naked unwillingly in front of strangers, I'd rather make sure they know how I feel about it.
Thanks