Talk:Backscatter X-ray

message: Alternate references?
Reference 1 and 2 are not available. Page showing [404] error.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatasin (talk • contribs) 21:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Like most aspects of this technology there has been little if any discussion of the issue. There may be peer-reviewed studies on the subject and an article I read about the use of this technology in New Jersey's PATH system which seemed typical said something like "there are no health or privacy concerns". The legal ramifications of this technology is potentially enormous as well since the 'plain view' clause of US's search and seizure laws would extend through walls, cars, clothing, etc. if these devices ever became widespread.  The US and UK governments have been remarkably successful in keeping this technology under wraps and out of the press, deploying it in airports (most recently a Phoenix AZ airport) with little public notice. And apparently there has been a recent wave of scary Orwellian technologies  Antonrojo 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that was an irresponsible edit. I think that, equally, it is important to mention when there is little science backing TSA claims about things like 'privacy algorithms', though these are reported as fact by some major news outlets that should know better. Antonrojo 03:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No it was not an irresponsible edit. I am very concerned with radiation, and there is obviously a risk here. It is important to restate that there are no safe levels of radiation.  BreakthruMarco (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: the units of dose should be changed to Sievert Drickey (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  units 

message: An important factor in people's perception of whether a risk is acceptable may be whether it is a risk that they choose and which brings them a personal benefit, or whether it is a risk imposed by someone else and which brings benefit only to other people as in the case of an x-ray airport scan, which might be alleged to benefit other passengers but which clearly doesn't benefit a passenger who knows that they themselves are not carrying any weapon.
Wait, airport security now benefits terrorists? That bit makes no sense. An x-ray scan doesn't benefit a person who's carrying a knife; on the other hand, it benefits passengers who do not so they can be sure others are not carrying knives (or shotguns, or drugs, or explosives) either.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.175.18.90 (talk) 10:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm deleting this 

message: I'm questioning the following section:
1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure
According to :
The annual limit on public exposure from a single source of ionizing radiation is 100 milli-rem (1mSv). Medical sources are exempt from this limit. The only medical procedure currently subject to a radiation exposure limit is mammography with a limit of 300 milli-rem per procedure.
According to MIT News :
The US Food and Drug Administration's current regulations state, "The amount of radioactive material to be administered shall be such that the subject receives the smallest radiation dose with which it is practical to perform the study without jeopardizing the benefits to be obtained by the study. Under no circumstances may the radiation dose to any adult research subject from a single study, or cumulatively from a number of studies conducted within one year, be generally recognized as safe if such doses exceed the following:
Single dose for an adult-3,000 millirems;
Annual total dose-5,000 millirems.
For a research subject under 18 years of age at the last birthday, the radiation dose shall not exceed 10 percent of that set forth above."
Therefore, the single exposure limit for a child is 300 millirems (whole body equivalent) and the annual total exposure cannot exceed 500 millirems. 
I believe it is supposed to be a dose of "1mSv" (Milli Sieverts as questioned by Drickey), not "1 mrem". Are there any radiation experts that can confirm?
:The statement in question is referenced in the Wikipedia article (also here), and is nearly a direct quote from that reference. nakomaru (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The worst case assumption is that all exposures add up linearly (see LNT model). It may be that at such small levels as in backscatter scanning, they may be completely ignored. In otherwords, it may over-estimate risk, and the comparison is meaningful. Perhaps a references to the LNT model should be added. nakomaru (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Exactly. If my risk of cancer from the flight is 1 in 1 million, and my risk of dying from the X-ray is 1 in 1 billion, my total risk becomes 1001 in 1 billion (assuming they are independent). OK, so nobody will ever attribute a cancer death to this machine, but I wonder whether the prevention of a terrorist incident will ever be attributed to this machine either.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.221.233 (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

text: The fact is there is no safe dosage of ionizing radiation. Hanxu9 (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am concerned that in these discussions comparing the dose in terms of some other condition for X time, the effect of intensity on cancer risk is ignored.  Single dose limits are much lower that year long limits for people who work with radiation.  Deliver 5 minutues of excess upper atmosphere flight time radiation in 5 seconds, and you have a much higher quantity of radiation striking tissues per unit time.66.155.211.158 (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hanxu9: If you really believed that there is no safe dosage of ionizing radiation, you would live underground. 66.155.211.158: the temporal aspect of radiation dosage is important for exposures to the extent of radiation burns, but we are talking about exposures much below this level. For these exposures, the current standard for risk does not care about the rate of exposure, only the quantity of exposure. This portion of the article could perhaps better explain this, but it is not disingenuous as it is. Lectures 5-7 of Physics for Future Presidents (available online for free) talks about the health effects of radiation and how dosages add up together. nakomaru (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  safe levels of radiation 

message: This is supposed to be an encyclopedia.  Do we really have to use such immature euphamisms as "private parts"?  Are crotch, groin, genitals, breasts, etc really inappropriate terms for a site like this?  MrItty (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  terminology 

message: I have a couple of problems with this article.
Incomplete: the article implies that backscatter x-ray technology only applies to full-body imaging.  This is not true; its first (and currently largest) application was to luggage/cargo scanners, to identify plastics and liquids that did not show up well on regular transmitted x-ray images.
::In addition, there are uses for this technology which do not involve the knowledge or consent of the target, as per http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/65497 , so framing the health and safety issues entirely within the context of air travel needs to stop. (140.232.0.70 (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete, and  an inaccuracy 

message: The picture in the top-right hand corner of the article is of a woman's front. I'm not trying to be sexist or anything, but in almost every secondary-level anatomy textbook I've seen, when the authors want to show a diagram of something non-gender specific in the torso, they use a man instead of a woman. Given that Backscatter X-ray technology allows one to effectively see through one's clothing, I feel as that the same rules of censoring indecency should probably apply here as well. I propose that, if possible, this image should be replaced by a similar one of a man. Pottersson (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedias show anatomic detail. If the image is of a man it's also going to show full frontal nudity. What's the difference in terms of decency? Let99 (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored. nakomaru (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace picture? 

message: Absolute wording like "in fact" and "it is clear" are personal opinion. Facts only please. Let99 (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate wording 

message: Here is what the current article says:
"In October 2010, The TSA responded to the concerns of UCSF researchers via the white house science advisor. A copy of the response refuting the claims of these researchers can be found at this link:"
However, the TSA has NOT given a figure for the amount of photons per unit area and time that the surface of the human body is exposed to in the backscatter machine. This was the main basis of the researchers' concern. I therefore find the claim that the concerns have been "refuted" to be highly problematic. Hanxu9 (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, what is the amount of photons per unit area and time that the surface of the human body is exposed to in the backscatter machine? If your employer will not tell you the number, you have no way of knowing whether the machines are safe. You should bring it up with the TSA union. Hanxu9 (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Here's one recent quote: "No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial." This is what Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at Johns Hopkins University school of medicine, told AFP. Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101113/hl_afp/usairportsecurityhealth_20101113020345 Title of article:
"'Naked' airport scanners may be 'dangerous'"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanxu9 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The concerns of the UCSF researches have not been refuted 

message: I have spent the better part of an hour trying to reword a section of the health implications.  After all of this I left with the impression that the health implications section reads less like a description of the actual medical science of the technology and more of a justification for its use in daily society.  Justifications for backscatter x-rays use are important in this topic but perhaps they should be a separate section and not a part of a section that should be directly addressing the current medical science of the backscatter x-ray radiation. TheIguana (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health implications, science vs. justifications for use 

message: The following section is clearly a justification of use, not an explanation or discussion of the health effects.  I've removed it from the Health Effects section.  If you insist on adding it back to the article, please add it to the appropriate section.  It appears to have been removed several times already.
The additional risk from exposure to backscatter radiation may be more acceptable to the person undergoing the scan if this is an unavoidable activity that is useful to the individual or the community as a whole. For instance, if scans are carried out in the interest of public safety then the potential benefit of discovering a weapon on a person could be to the benefit of the community but not to the person being scanned. In other words, a person may be certain they are not carrying a weapon and may gain little by being scanned but the act of undergoing a scan may benefit other passengers.  Quoting from ANSI N43-17: To put this in perspective, this same risk of death results from about one minute of riding in an automobile. Likewise, this same risk of death is experienced about each ten minutes of working in a “safe” field such as a secretary or office administrator, due to occupational deaths from accidents, homicides, and other causes. (The automobile death rate is calculated from: 250 million people in the U.S, each driving an average of 10,000 miles per year, at an average speed of 30 mph, resulting in 25,000 traffic deaths per year. The occupational death rate is based on 5 deaths per 100,000 employees per year, a typical value for “safe” occupations). 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.65.94 (talk • contribs) 
:Do not remove the content if you just think it's not in the right place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and thank you for making the correction. It's good to see the article now more balanced and less like a pro-OSI Systems public relations piece. Hanxu9 (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is good! The section really did not belong in health effects at all.  The sections original form was very wordy and I tried to make it more clear but those changes have only shown how opinionated the section was.  I was originally advocating for a separate section for justification for use in this article but maybe this section would be better placed in or merged with the usage section in the full body scanner article.  I say this because the justification for use of this technology seems to be more aimed at the actual full body scanner than the underlying technical principle that the scanner uses. The other option I see is setting up the justification for use section as a summary section headed with a wikilink to the full body scanner usage section.  TheIguana (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrect placement 

message: I came to this article looking for information about backscatter x-ray technology, and specifically the source of x-rays, the detectors, and details about how the full-body scanners in airports achieve the resolution claimed.  Unfortunately, this article contains no such details, a grievous omission for an encyclopedia.  Jedwards01 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Technical Details  

message: It seems that due to the recent news this section has been the result of a lot of edits. The current state is too long, goes back and forth and is sometimes redundant. Please try to limit additional content that is unimportant, redundant or speculative. Also, like information should be combined and organized. For example a paragraph starts as: "However, biochemists and biophysicists at the University of California, San Francisco, in a May 2010 letter..."
and then 10 paragraphs later: "However, researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, have argued that the amount of..."
Combine. Cut. Organize. Copy edit. Please help. nakomaru (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've combined those two sections and tightened it up a bit.  There is still too much here, and it's not NPOV, but it will sort out in time.Kbk (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health effects section is a mess 

message: Quote: 'Furthermore, other scientists claim the health effects of backscatter are well understood whereas those from millimeter wave scanners are not'
"millimeter wave", that is basically infrared light, making this a 'passive' scanning technology, or not?
Would appreciate an explanation or reference for the reasoning behind this claim. 
86.171.181.73 (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  millimeter wave scanner  health effects 

message: ANSI norms are irrelevant since these are industrial consensus norms. Only when regulatory law explicitly quotes these norms are they applicable and binding. So, either provide evidence that regulatory law explicitly states that ANSI N43-17 needs to be complied with, or cut it out of this article. And no, the TSA has nothing to say here. The relevant regulatory authority for ionising radiation is the EPA and/or NRC. It is NOT the FHA. As such, 10 CFR Part 20 is legally binding for all States:
§ 20.1301 Dose limits for individual members of the public:
(2) The dose in any unrestricted area from external sources, exclusive of the dose contributions from patients administered radioactive material and released in accordance with § 35.75, does not exceed 0.002 rem (0.02 millisievert) in any one hour.
Discuss.
--Dio1982 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANSI is irrelevant 

message: It reads like it was written by the TSA.  Each and every line discussing a concern or criticism of the system is followed by a sentence claiming that such concern or criticism has been definitively refuted --- most often by reference to TSA press releases, or statements of what the "TSA said."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.78.74 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should get an NPOV block... 

message: The article states in a matter of fact way that medical irradiation (of the gonads) increases risk of childhood leukaemia in offspring. A single case control study is cited to support this. A more balanced argument is required here, due to evidence on the contrary:
A 2001 UNSCEAR review (http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2001.html) found no evidence of hereditary effects in humans although suggested it was possible based on animal data. No evidence of hereditary effects were found following radiotherapy for childhood cancer (Boice JD jr, Tawn EJ, Winther JF, Donaldson SS, Green DM, Mertens AC et al. Genetic Effects of Radiotherapy for Childhood Cancer. Health Phys 2003 2003 Jul;85(1):65-80.). No evidence of hereditary effects following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Schull W. Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Half-century of Studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (1995) Wiley). The ICRP has downgraded tissue weightings for gonads to as a consequence of recent evidence. If there is a risk of hereditary effects of IR, then it is considerably less than the somatic risk, which is already extremely low in the case of backscatter scans.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xapbpoh (talk • contribs) 21:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  hereditary effects

message: As long as the machines are operating to spec, well-maintained, free of design flaws, and engineered openly by a responsive honest developer.
That's how these things are always done, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
Oh...well then.
128.97.68.15 (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perfectly safe.... 

message: The article doesn't talk about contractors.  If they have a little guy that wants to sit around and look at male genitals all day, he has access to hundreds of images.  Crooked Q (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Backscatter X-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101203034020/http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/how_it_works.shtm to http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/how_it_works.shtm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070427205030/http://www.tsa.gov:80/research/privacy/faqs.shtm to http://www.tsa.gov/research/privacy/faqs.shtm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101213235619/http://www.tsa.gov:80/assets/pdf/ait_fact_sheet.pdf to http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/ait_fact_sheet.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Backscatter X-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130423120257/http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/267126/house-gop-report-a-call-for-tsa-reform.pdf to http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/267126/house-gop-report-a-call-for-tsa-reform.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Backscatter X-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106043039/http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/imaging_technology.shtm to http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/imaging_technology.shtm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100418053454/http://www.tek84.com:80/ to http://www.tek84.com/
*Added  tag to http://www.as-e.com/products_solutions/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928211825/http://www.jpeocbd.osd.mil/fps/Docs/Brochure%20for%20NII%20Aug2008.pdf to http://www.jpeocbd.osd.mil/fps/Docs/Brochure%20for%20NII%20Aug2008.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207155633/http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data/200911/Table_01_Size_of_UK_Airports.pdf to http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data/200911/Table_01_Size_of_UK_Airports.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313162554/http://www.epos.efort.org/public/Sorrentoeposters/3958.ppt to http://www.epos.efort.org/public/Sorrentoeposters/3958.ppt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103114639/http://sxi.nre.ufl.edu:80/ to http://sxi.nre.ufl.edu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Backscatter X-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100908095734/http://www.tek84.com/company.html to http://www.tek84.com/company.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tek84.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716203604/http://www.tek84.com/downloads/Holt-Letter2010-12-2.pdf to http://www.tek84.com/downloads/Holt-Letter2010-12-2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111215113224/http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/tsa_safety_study_ait_info_memo.pdf to http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/tsa_safety_study_ait_info_memo.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110205092128/http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/jh_apl_v1.pdf to http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/jh_apl_v1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110419204023/http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/jh_apl_v2.pdf to http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/jh_apl_v2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140506113432/http://www.tek84.com/bodyscanner-more.html to http://www.tek84.com/bodyscanner-more.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131208202236/http://tek84.com/bodyscanner.html to http://www.tek84.com/bodyscanner.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901143535/http://www.rockyflatsgear.com/ to http://rockyflatsgear.com/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://sxi.nre.ufl.edu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Backscatter X-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815095917/http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2007/press_release_10112007.shtm to http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2007/press_release_10112007.shtm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100910042527/http://www.saic.com/products/security/vacis-xpl/ to http://www.saic.com/products/security/vacis-xpl/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are some redirects to this article that aren't used in the article, or any other article, and don't seem to be very widely used to refer to the subject: porn scanner, porno scanner and naked machine. Each phrase seems to have seen some use c. 2010–13, but it would probably be hard to find sources mentioning, rather than using, the terms, which is what we'd ideally want to cite. Does anyone have any interest in adding them to the article with sources, in order that readers who search for them and end up here aren't unduly confused, or should some or all of them be deleted? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Porn scanner and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#Porn scanner until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Porn scanner" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Can we say the energy and/or wavelength (range) used? I believe somewhat less than the more usual 20KeV, but don't know it close than that. Gah4 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy