The implementation of full-body scanners and enhanced pat-down procedures in airports across the country has stirred up a storm of controversy in the past few weeks. Many Jumbos traveling through Logan Airport to return home for the Thanksgiving break will likely find themselves at the forefront of this debate, since full-body scanners were installed in Logan in March as part of the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) plan to deploy 1,000 of the scanners — each costing around $150,000 — to U.S. airports by the end of next year.
The use of full-body scanners is, understandably, a contentious issue, as the machines transmit an outline of the passenger's nude body to TSA agents. Critics around the world have decried their emergence as an invasion of privacy and a violation of basic human rights.
Those selected for a scan can opt out, instead facing a full pat down that many have described as even more invasive than the alternative.
In theory, the scanners are well worth the discomfort of having an image of one's body scrutinized by strangers: The agents viewing the scan are hidden from view from the passengers being scanned, and the images are not stored electronically, minimizing the privacy risk. The TSA notes the scanners obscure the face of the subject. The improved security resulting from the installation of these scanners should outweigh the awkwardness of this new measure.
Unfortunately, passengers have more to fear from these machines than just the potential uneasiness associated with the images of the scans themselves. While the Food and Drug Administration, the TSA and numerous independent organizations have stated that the radiation from the scanners does not pose a health risk, other scientists have reached a different conclusion.
A report by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco found that, while the amount of radiation to which the scanners expose passengers would be harmless if the radiation were distributed throughout the body, the fact that all the radiation is absorbed by the skin may present a health risk, particularly to the elderly and to immunocompromised individuals such as HIV and cancer patients. They also reported that a single malfunction in a scanner could result in a dangerously intense dose of radiation to a single spot on the skin.
Another study found that the radiation caused by one type of scanner used by the TSA could potentially "unzip" DNA, resulting in impaired gene expression and DNA replication. The reports of potential health risks are far from conclusive, but the Daily believes a comprehensive study to assess the long-term health risks of exposure to the scanners should have been conducted before their implementation in airports. At present, there is not enough evidence to conclude definitively that the scanners are safe for use, and their potential risks should overshadow any national security concerns they address.
The privacy issues are also less straightforward than they appear, because there is no guarantee that the data obtained by the scanners will be erased as the TSA promises it will be. The TSA requires that all the scanners installed in airports have the capability to save and store images, and tech blog Gizmodo.com last week leaked 100 images taken by a full-body scanner installed in a Florida courthouse. The scanner was a model similar to those used in airports.
In light of the fact that millions of men, women and children stand to be have their images recorded by these machines, the potential for abuse is great, and the TSA must take more steps to ensure that no images that are recorded by the scanners will be stored.
Furthermore, some sources have raised doubts as to the effectiveness of the machines. The scanners would not be able to detect any explosives hidden underneath the skin or inside body cavities, and several experts have testified that the scanners would not have been able to detect the explosives hidden in the underwear of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, last year's attempted Christmas Day bomber.
While we do not oppose the scanners on principle, their questionable effectiveness does not justify the monetary cost, invasion of privacy and potential health risks with which they are associated.
