Rapiscan declaires its own scanners safe because they meet their own standards

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by Mike, May 4, 2013.

  1. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    The lies and bull:poop: continue!!!!

    The "standards" they cite were set by Rapiscan & TSA. :td:

    And the "testing" was done by Rapiscan. :td:

    Once again, no honest independent third-party evaluation. :td:

    USA Today: Airport body scanners pass company's radiation tests (May 2 2013)

    Controversial full-body X-ray scanners at U.S. airports underwent more than 700 inspections last year with all tests showing radiation levels below standards used by their manufacturer and the Transportation Security Administration, according to a USA TODAY review of the recently released reports.


    USA TODAY reviewed the latest airport X-ray scanner inspection reports, which TSA recently posted on its website and said are a response to a February 2011 Freedom of Information Act request filed by the newspaper. USA TODAY filed the request after the agency refused repeated requests in the fall of 2010 — by the newspaper and members of Congress — to voluntarily release the reports.


    The radiation inspections, performed by Rapiscan employees and contractors, use a device to measure the amount of radiation delivered and whether it is less than the company's standard of 5 microrem.

    Kant noted that Rapiscan's inspection standard is far less than the 25 microrem per screening dose limit for such devices set by the American National Standards Institute.

    What medical authorities concur with this? The only standard I'm aware of is "no medically unnecessary x-rays". ANSI isn't my customary source of health & medical advice. Would you want a health consultation with the outfit that defines how your computer modem should function?

    The outside experts are already criticizing these latest "tests":

    But some scientists have said the device Rapiscan uses in its tests isn't designed to accurately measure the low-level radiation used by the scanners. "Their measurements are probably flawed," John Sedat, a professor emeritus of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California, San Francisco, said of the latest inspection reports.

    as they did with the earlier ones:

    The first batch of inspection reports, released by TSA in March 2011, were riddled with what the TSA and Rapiscan said were clerical and math errors that in some cases showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected, USA TODAY reported at that time. The TSA had repeatedly assured the public and lawmakers that the machines had passed all inspections, but USA TODAY found that the agency hadn't reviewed the reports until after the newspaper began calling for their release. The TSA required Rapiscan to retrain its employees and contractors who conduct the radiation inspections.
  2. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    It appears that the latest batch of reports are posted here: Surveys of Backscatter Imaging Technology Machines

    ... prefaced by this grossly misleading statement:

    "Spirit of transparency"? :td: This agency has never shown any "transparency" with regard to the nude-o-scopes. According to USA Today:

    KrazyKat likes this.
  3. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Have they shown transparency in anything but their motives to grant "jobs" to illiterate knuckle-draggers, thugs, and thieves?

    Between Pissy, his boss Nappy, and her boss Obama, the entire agency and administration has been about as transparent as a 2' thick panel of bismuth to visible light.
  4. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    Why did they bother? These scanners are doomed to reside next to the puffers and nothing will improve TSA's reputation.

    The thing that irritates me is USA Today's pandering to these thugs and the travel industry in general. USA Today may be the most useless piece of dead tree media out there and can't die quickly enough.
  5. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    I can think of one or two things. But they're all incredibly unlikely, like every TSA employee suddenly becoming an organ donor - and donating all of their organs at the same time. Voluntarily.
  6. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    Except that the TSA has a contract with American Science & Engineering for backscatter with AIT. Allegedly, three are already being tested. I'd love to know where.
  7. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Well, considering the TSA's "allegations" about the Johns Hopkins tests, I'm not seeing anything believable there.
  8. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Any statement from TSA or its contractors can be dismissed as a lie.
  9. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    Pretty much. They'll tell the truth when it suits their purposes, though. Look at Rugape for examples.
  10. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Because MMW doesn't work I think they're trying to hold the door open for other BKS. But their "transparency" isn't helping their case any.
    And other standards are lower.​
    Rapiscan has said 25 per scan was the limit. TSA has said BKS gives less than 10 per scan. Why trust what either TSA or OSI say? A screening is two scans and that's just once through a checkpoint...
  11. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    But where did "25 per scan" come from?

    ANSI is great for defining how we do things. For example, the RS-232 (point-to-point) and RS-485 (multi-drop) protocols that defines how binary communications take place have benefited us by standardizing communications methods and hardware.

    Would you come to me for medical advice? I'm an engineer, too! D:
  12. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Right! That's not even the quality of the standards or tests, or the choice of persons to go through the cancer boxes (---in full operation at SEA, lest we believe they've been decommissioned).

    Just pointing out Rapiscan overstating by at least 2X a tolerance ANSI changed from 10 in the first place. They can't even get their numbers straight. It would be irresponsible to take anything they say at face value.
  13. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I think the answer is clear. If you encounters a backscatter type Strip Search Machine Opt Out. Be prepared to end your trip at that point or suffer the Grope Down and be ready to file a complaint of sexual assault.
  14. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    USA Today is probably best seen as a way to stay informed of the latest PR. Unfortunately the "travel beat" has never been known for doing much more than reprinting copy. This is probably as good as it gets, considering both the source and the media venue.

    Story makes me think they're trying to solve a problem, for OSI or TSA or both.
    Fisher1949 likes this.
  15. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    On the other, lesser website, there was a brief discussion on this point, with a TSA troll insisting the backscatter is safe by virtue of the applicable ANSI specs, which, to that fellow, represented a consensus of safety of these types of devices. For this kind of radiation, normal human beings with a brain would want absolutely firm and definitive medical studies and conclusions BEFORE inflicting this on HUNDREDS OF MILIONS of passengers.

    Do the homework first, doofuses, using appropriate models. Anything less is an awful recklessness.
    DeafBlonde and KrazyKat like this.
  16. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    The Rapiscans were 'shovel ready'-- ready for shoveling money their way.
  17. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    Papering the file in anticipation of future lawsuits perhaps?
  18. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    Or even involuntarily. It's the only useful thing a freedom fluffer can do, other than become fertilizer.
  19. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with a grope detector, possibly in a soft athletic cup. One illegal touch and the flashing lights and wailing siren point out the freedom fluffer that's about to become Bubba's wife.

Share This Page