ProPublica

Journalism in the Public Interest

Cancel

Bill Would Require Independent Study of X-Ray Body Scanners

Sen. Susan Collins is planning to introduce a bill that would require the TSA to conduct a new, independent health study of the X-ray body scanners used to screen airline passengers for explosives at airports.

Transportation Security Administration agents screen passengers at Los Angeles International Airport on May 2, 2011. (Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)

Sen. Susan Collins, the top Republican on the homeland security committee, plans to introduce a bill in the coming days that would require a new health study of the X-ray body scanners used to screen airline passengers nationwide.

The Transportation Security Administration began using the machines for routine screening in 2009 and sped up deployment after the so-called underwear bomber tried to blow up a plane on Christmas Day of that year.

But the X-ray scanners have caused concerns because they emit low levels of ionizing radiation, a form of energy that has been shown to damage DNA and mutate genes, potentially leading to cancer. ProPublica and PBS NewsHour reported in November that the TSA had glossed over cancer concerns. Studies suggested that six or 100 airline passengers each year could develop cancer from the machines.

Shortly after our report, the European Union separately announced that it would prohibit X-ray body scanners at its airports for the time being “in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens’ health and safety.”

The new bill drafted by Collins would require the TSA to choose an independent laboratory to measure the radiation emitted by a scanner currently in use at an airport checkpoint. The peer-reviewed study, to be submitted to Congress, would also evaluate the safety mechanisms on the machine and determine whether there are any biological signs of cellular damage caused by the scans.

In addition, the bill would require the TSA to place prominent signs at the start of checkpoint lines informing travelers that they can request a physical pat-down instead of going through the scanner. Right now, the TSA has signs in front of the machines noting that passengers can opt out. But the signs mostly highlight the images created rather than possible health risks.

The bill is the latest volley in a back-and-forth between Collins and the TSA. At a hearing in November, TSA administrator John Pistole agreed to a request from Sen. Collins to conduct a new independent health study.

But a week later at another hearing, Pistole backed off the commitment citing a yet-to-be-released report on the machines by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general.

“I have urged TSA to move toward only radiation-free screening technology,” Collins said in a statement to ProPublica. “In the meantime, an independent study is needed to protect the public and to determine what technology is worthy of taxpayer dollars.”

The TSA uses two types of body scanners to screen passengers for explosives. The X-ray machines, known as backscatters, look like two refrigerator-size blue boxes and are used at Los Angeles, Chicago O’Hare, New York’s John F. Kennedy, and elsewhere. The other machine, which looks like a round glass booth, uses electromagnetic waves that have not been linked to any adverse health effects. Those machines are used at airports in Dallas and Atlanta, among others.

The TSA says the radiation from the X-ray machines is minute, equivalent to that received in two minutes of flying at altitude. That measurement has been verified in previous tests by the Food and Drug Administration, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and the Army Public Health Command.

“All the previous independent testing showed that the machines are well below the national standard,” TSA spokesman Greg Soule said.

A group of vocal critics, primarily based at the University of California, San Francisco, has cast doubt on those tests, suggesting that the device used to measure the radiation isn’t equipped to provide accurate measurements on body scanners, among other flaws.

While not commenting specifically on the drafted legislation, Soule said, “the TSA is committed to working with Congress to explore options for an additional study to further prove these machines are safe for all passengers.”

Rocco Giuliano

Jan. 26, 2012, 10:43 a.m.

While they’re at it, they should assess the EFFECTIVENESS of the scanners. Note the following from an Israeli expert: ““I don’t know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747,” Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.

“That’s why we haven’t put them in our airport,” Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.”

Sela, former chief security officer of the Israel Airport Authority and a 30-year veteran in airport security and defence technology, helped design the security at Ben Gurion.”

No… forget the study… get rid of the scanners. The REAL issue is they’re against the Constitution.

The Great and Terrible TSA would prefer you not look behind the screen, so we’ll see how far this gets.  After all, how many legislators pass through the machines regularly?

The large, overriding issue is still the invasion of privacy.  I don’t care how many tests they conduct (and why is the TSA to be allowed to choose its own “independent” lab anyway? Fox guarding the hen house much?), they are still violating our dignity and our bodies.

We don’t need these scanners and we don’t need the TSA’s hands down our pants.  That’s the point.

By the way, surprised to see a repetition in this article of the false claim that Johns Hopkins has tested the airport scanners.  Hopkins has repeatedly said it they did not test the scanners.  The TSA keeps repeating this lie—although I see they’ve backed off their former lie about NIST, which also did not test the scanners—and the estimable ProPublic shouldn’t be repeating it.

Sorry, meant to include relevant links, with quote:

“The letter’s primary author, John Sedat, a professor emeritus in biochemistry and biophysics at UCSF, told ProPublica, ‘There’s no real data on these machines, and in fact, the best guess of the dose is much, much higher than certainly what the public thinks.’

“In the April 28th letter, the scientists said Johns Hopkins did not test an actual airport scanner but instead used a model build by manufacturer Rapiscan. The letter also notes that the report on the tests is ‘heavily redacted’ that ‘there is no way to repeat any of these measurements.’”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/TSA-body-scanners-safety/2011/06/10/id/399656

Even so, in the Rapiscan model, Hopkins found that radiation could overshoot the unshielded machine by as much as 4.5 to 14 feet.

http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/epic_v_dhs_radiation.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505124_162-43451644/exposed-the-feds-and-the-shady-uses-of-government-technology/

While we’re worrying about these scanners, let’s also take a look at cat scans, which an ER doctor told me are the equivalent of 400-500 chest X-rays!  He said this when considering one for my son who was showing signs of appendicitis, which turned out not to be the case, thankfully.  He said dramatically, “We don’t like to burn up children.”  And I’ve had at least a half dozen in my lifetime on top of several airport scannings, so I guess I’m cooked.

Meantime, let’s all refuse to be scanned.  They can grope me all they want,but they can’t scan me. 

Second thing to do is BOMBARD our elected whores—pardon, representatives—with the FACTS, including valuable info from remarks above. Phone, email, fax, write.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Yes, it’s a huge pain, but nobody is going to do it for you.

For our elected - uh, you know—to give up the payoffs from the companies that sell this garbage to the taxpayers, they have to be threatened with losig their cushy jobs.

Now, go to it!!!

And while you’re at it, deluge newspapers and TV with the FACTS.
Maybe a little something will get through.

Linda Fountaine

Jan. 26, 2012, 4:47 p.m.

Please tell me exactly what good it would do to have the TSA do an independent laboratory study ? (“would require the TSA to choose an independent laboratory to measure the radiation emitted by a scanner currently in use at an airport checkpoint”). Any studies done should be done WITHOUT the TSA’s/Homeland Security involvement…period!  We all know Homeland Security will doctor the “findings” to reflect favorably so they can continue to grope and humiliate whom ever they choose to on any given day.

I am with everyone else, do away with the “scanners”.  Start doing what Israel does to deter terrorist….Profile!!  If that hurts someone’s little bitty feelings…so what? I don’t care!!  I am tired of our government playing footsie with terrorist and treating legal citizens like criminals. If those who dress like terrorist don’t like being profiled…then don’t come here…we certainly can do without you.

Carol Davidek-Waller

Jan. 26, 2012, 5:13 p.m.

Europe has all ready decided to eliminate them. Why waste scarce taxpayer dollars on a study we don’t need.
They’ve all ready wasted enough buying the darn things and using them to get us used to having our Constitutional right to privacy violated.

I’ve worked for TSA almost two years and I developed a tumor in my pleura lining, a very rare form. Never had a health issue Before working there and it doesn’t run in my family. Almost 10% of the officers I work with have cancer or re-accruing cancer. . . Something isn’t right here. Im looking for another job, they dont pay me enough to die for this job. Please understand why I didn’t put my real name.

The sooner the process begins the better it is for stopping wastage of US government funds.

It’s the same old story of corrupt - tyrannical - government policing itself. As in TSA choosing a lab that will inevitably show scanners to be “safe”. Who do these people think they are kidding? Is there anyone anywhere who still believes these card tricks? Much worse is the strong implication that the population is being used as experimental mice, and culled by attrition.

This is all just another scam to keep the citizenry inline. I used to be altruistic and for many years fell for our government’s B.S. but experience has taught me this is just another big boondoggle perpetrated on “we the people.”  Our tax dollars are paying for these machines and it is just another skinning of the sheep.  If these “things” are so harmless place them at the entrance to the Senate and House chambers and let “them” go through these beauties every day.  lol!

“Europe has all ready decided to eliminate them” - no they have not. They have not been approved. If they are not approved (currently under test at Manchester), it will be down to security performance rather than radiation safety.

Loads of indepedent tests have been done - but it is not for me to say who, where.

Mark, the EU has indeed banned backscatter (xray) scanners.  They made this decision back in November.  The EU will only use MMW (millimeter wave) scanners.  The UK is, as often happens, a different case; it’s doing its own thing.

Linda Fontaine, two things:  First, enough already with this shibboleth about Israeli security. Though Israel has eliminated terrorism on planes, they’ve learned to accept it in other venues—buses, cafes, marketplaces. Bombs still go off there.

The Israelis also rely heavily on racial and ethnic profiling.  If you’re with an American tour group, for example, you’ll be ushered quickly through.  If you’re the “wrong” racial or ethnic type, you’ll get a thorough going-over.  And if you’re a peace activist—forget it; you’ll be strip-searched in a back room.  Just ask Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein.  (She has written publicly about this; I won’t include the link because that will get my comment booted to moderation or spam.  Google her name and you’ll find it.)

There is no such thing as 100% security, anywhere.  The belief of so many Americans that there is, is why they’re willing to bend over and spread ‘em every time an authority figure tells them to.  They cherish the fantasy of security more than the reality of life.  Life entails risk. And the risk of being killed by a terrorist attack in this country is so vanishingly small it can barely even be quantified.  Everyone who’s so afraid of this should quit driving—35,000 traffic fatalities EVERY YEAR in this country.  Better yet, they should stay home cowering under the bed; the rest of us have lives to lead.

Second, what does “dress like a terrorist” mean??

Senator Collins is a nazi puke. The scanners are here because of ignorant scumbags like her, McCain, Lieberman, and Levin.We can also thank them for NDAA 2012.

BantheScan:  You must be of the Seinfeld generation, that throws around the word Nazi promiscuously.  As in “Soup Nazi”, et seq.  I find it distressing that people can be so ignorant as to “take in vain” a term so horrific that it boggles the mind to think of what was done to innocent people by the Nazis.

Maybe you don’t know the history; maybe you have not seen the photos, taken by the Germans!  as well as by the liberating forces, ... well, let me stop here.  Go thou and study history—and stop using the term “Nazi” to designate anyone you don’t happen to like.

I don’t know the history of Collins’ bill, but I can tell you, having watched the Republican vote closely since the Mad Dogs took over the Party beginning nearly 40 years ago, that Collins and the other female Senator from New England are voices of moderation and SANITY compared to the leadership and the sheeple Reps who march in line—like storm troopers.  For all I know, she may have opted for a bill she COULD get through, whereas it might have been impossible to get the votes for a complete repeal (considering the payoff to the whore Congress by the manufacturers of these dangerous devices)

HOw much direct action have you taken with your representatives?
That will do more good than your lambasting some of the better Republicans (yes, there are a few left; they do what they can in the face of overwhelming odds within a Party sold out to the fanatic religious right.

Hmmm.  It seems to me that if “Nazi” isn’t allowed as a rhetorical tool, then neither should “storm troopers” be.

In any case, there’s plenty of blame to go around.  Both Republicans and Democrats have sold us out and given us the police state tactics we see all around us.  And no, “police state” isn’t hyperbole.

Lisa, you said: “There is no such thing as 100% security, anywhere.  The belief of so many Americans that there is, is why they’re willing to bend over and spread ‘em every time an authority figure tells them to.  They cherish the fantasy of security more than the reality of life.”

Americans have been systematically brainwashed by Our Corporate Masters and their Military allies, to be afraid—very afraid.  This is not an accident.  Frightened people are more easily controlled; that way the real masters of the country can strip away our civil liberties, bit by bit, on pretext of protecting us against…whatever.  And they are doing it now,  openly and brazenly supported by the right-wing 5-4 Supreme Court majority’s totalitarian decisions.

Hypatia, I totally agree.

But some of that brainwashing is self-imposed.  My circle of friends and colleagues is highly privileged, highly educated—probably hyper-educated—ostensibly politically aware, had every break in the book, blah blah blah.  Yet about this stuff, they choose to be ignorant.  I’ve had a few tell me outright that they don’t think civil liberties are important.

With that kind of attitude, it’s no wonder we’re sprinting, not crawling, towards fascism.

The problem with “Profiling” is the ACLU, NAACP and CAIR will sue and say that they are being unfairly profiled. Until we rid ourselves of this Politically Correct BS, we will continue to be exposed to these kinds of gamma rays.

Oh, here we go again—another person who thinks he knows what “a terrorist” looks like.  Yeah, Colleen LaRose really fit that bill, didn’t she?  So did Timothy McVeigh.  So did Trey Atwater.  So did Andrew Joseph Stack III.

Jettexas, you have not a glimmer what the ACLU does every day, every minute, to protect YOUR right to free speech, free assembly, freedom of (and from) religion.  You ****on it while enjoying the benefits of these dedicated people who work against terrible odds to protect YOUR rights.

What was the last time you read the US Constitution, and specifically the First Amendment?  The one that protects YOUR rights. 

Ignorance is no excuse for attacking the First Amendment and those whose life work is to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Giborah, bravo! (or brava, as the case may be)

Jettexas, until then, or until we admit that we’re not appreciably safer for all the alleged safeguards (and clearly not safer, in your case) and dismantle the programs that treat us like we’re all merely dormant criminals waiting to strike with our four ounces of shampoo and nailclippers.

The problem was solved when the cockpit door got locked and reinforced.  The amount of effort it takes to get terrorists onto a plane isn’t worth it unless you can use the plane as a weapon or hijack to escape.

It’s cheaper, easier, and scarier to blow up or poison a mall during the holidays, where the place is packed with victims and security is maybe three guys on Segways if it’s a really classy joint.  I’ll be scared when that happens.  Until then, I’m pretty sure there aren’t terrorists hiding around every corner impatiently waiting to kill us.

I’m much more worried about drunk drivers, personally.  I don’t fly, but it’s because of treatment by the airlines and the TSA (no offense, I know you guys aren’t happer about it than I am), rather than any fear for my safety.

I’ve said it before, but the right solution (if you absolutely must spend money and secure the airways against this potential threat) is to build those explosive sniffers at every single entrance.  If someone trips it, lock the area down, move the other people away, and deny entrance to whoever refuses the search.  And if they’re threatening, shoot to kill.

Simplest approach: Boycott the airlines.

When they realize their business is suffering due to their complicity with the TSA, they will send the goon squad packing.

As I posted in the other article, why won’t the authors post the actual exposure numbers and comparative numbers like during a cross-country airline flight.  Or can’t the authors get the numbers, and if so why not?

@Giborah . . the ACLU keeps us from saying the Lords Prayer in a courtroom, saying Under God in our Pledge of Allegiance, they keep the TSA from profiling those who should be profiled, instead of patting down every person that goes through their security lines or walking through AIT’s and getting exposed to possible radiation. They do nothing for my rights . . . the Constitution was built on Christian beliefs and that is what the ACLU want to take away from us! duh!

R Brown, you’re right—boycott the airlines.  I’ve been saying it till I’m blue in the face. 

I took my last flight in September 2010. Though I adore travel more than I can say, and feel lucky that I’ve done a lot of it in my life, I won’t do it anymore.  I refuse to be abused by these thugs.

Economic boycotts work.  The civil rights movement wouldn’t have succeeded without them.  But most Americans, who talk a good game about “freedom” and “democracy” and “values,” don’t have the courage of their professed convictions.  They won’t endure the slightest sacrifice for a principle.

If everyone who CAN choose not to fly WOULD do so, we would bring the airlines to their knees, 4 to 6 months max.  Then things would change.  (Obviously I’m not talking about people who are forced to fly for work or for a medical procedure—they’re between a rock and a hard place, and I sympathize with them.)  But millions of people can do what I’m doing.  They just don’t want to be bothered.

The rallying cry of this country used to be “Give me liberty or give me death!”  Now it’s “Don’t inconvenience me!”

And so the abuse will continue.  And the sheeple will fall right into line.

Jettexas, after reading your latest attack on the ACLU, and your contention that the Constitution was “built on Christian beliefs”, I ave the feeling that you are in the wrong country.  We are a nation of laws, not of religious fanaticism, much as some would prefer the latter.

I have several suggestions for countries where you would be happier.  Start with Saudi Arabia, which is run by religious fanatics of the Wahabi sect of Islam.  Cut off hands of thieves; do not allow women to drive; do not permit freedom of religion; punish rape victims not their abusers; make women cover themselves head to foot outside of the house,etc.  All this has been widely reported for a long, long time.

Then there is Afghanistan, where Islamic fundamentalism prevails; where women die because the fanatics will not allow a male doctor examine a sick or laboring woman, and there are no female doctors because women are not allowed to study.  Other provisions same as above, only worse.

Of course it would require a slight change from your version of Christianity to Islamic Sharía law, but that shouldn’t be a big problem for someone who wants to impose his beliefs on the rest of us.  You’ll be much happier where everybody has to think, act, do exactly what the dominant religion dictates.

There will be no civil law only religious “law”.  But remember, you won’t be able to write freely as on this thread; in fact you won’t be able to do ANYTHING freely, like speak, write, read, practice another religion, enter into civil contracts, etc.

Have a good trip, and remember to constantly invoke “God"in every utterance.

My point exactly . . . If we as a country did not believe in God, our Constitution would be useless. The first commandment is Thou Shalt Not Kill, now if that were not a Christian belief and the flu cation of our rights, I don’t know what is because if you do kill, you will be arrested, tried and judged as stated by our rights in the bodies of government that are built arou d these principles. If the commandments did not exist and we had no beliefs, then what is the use for a legislative branch to make laws, a judicial branch to interpret whether a man is guilty of that commandment.

Sharia isn’t a law and their beliefs are based on that shall kill any and all infidels, so therefore their laws are created by and prosecuted by their religious belief to kill all infidels.

What came first . . The Ten Commandments or the Constitution?

The ACLU want to take God out of our fundamental foundations. Ever heard of the Masons? Oh and GOD bless you!

What Constitution did this following oath come from:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God.

So it does exist in the Constitution and Article 6 . . . Oh snap!

By the way . . . Hypatia lived in Roman Egypt, and was murdered by a Christian mob which accused her of causing religious turmoil.

Now I understand, perhaps you are in the wrong country or you are a misguided Liberal. Hahahaha

You people gripe about going through security but if the TSA were able to profile and only screen like Muslim men between the ages of 16 and 45, the you could get on a plane without being screened at security.

The problem is, the ACLU and CAIR would sue the shiz out of the TSA for profiling. So it’s a never ending circle. You gripe about being screened but yet you let political correctness keep them from only screening people whom wish to kill us.

Political correctness forces the TSA to screen all people fair and square, like it or not. Until you stand up to these divisive groups, stop the griping. Would you get on a plane with a group of Muslim men who haven’t been screened? Because if so, you are very brave.

BTW, one last shot, Jettexas:  When you quoted Article 6 of the US
Constitution about the oath of office (swear OR affirm!!!), how come you left off this very important clause

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; *****but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.******

VERY IMPORTANT.  We need to sleep with our eyes open to guard against the Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, whatever they’re called,
who have been infiltrating our government and military for the last few decades.  Just before he left office,  Bush, who had appointed born-agains to important posts in his government, knowing that appointees must offer their resignations, quickly “baptized” them as Civil Service.  Which means nobody can get rid of them, and they will continue boring from within, contrary to the plain meaning of the Constitution.  They are inside the ***Justice Department***, big time!

It’s even worse in the U.S. Military.  Most egregious is the Air Force Academy, run by religious fanatics who persecute cadets who won’t toe their particular line.  This is a whole long, awful story.  For those who want to help, go to Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF.org).  The Air Force ex-JAG who started the group is deluged with letters from desperate officers and cadets who had nowhere to turn for help until MRFF came to the rescue.  The battle is on-going.

@hypatia. . .
Finally, the Constitution refers to the year that the Convention created the document as “the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.” Some have argued that the use of the term “Lord” in this way is indicative of something and it’s called Christianity.

Slam freaking dunk bisnatch!

Jettexas, actually “Thou shalt not kill” is the sixth commandment

Statement of Ignorance No. 1:
“If we as a country did not believe in God, our Constitution would be useless.”

Hey, Jettexas, I don’t believe in God, and I value the Constitution.  Gee, how is that possible?  Hold onto your head in case too much cognitive dissonance makes it explode (or maybe that’s Al Qaeda!).

Statement of Ignorance No. 2:
“The first commandment is Thou Shalt Not Kill.”

I just love these holier-than-thou people who don’t even know their own religious precepts.  It’s not the 1st Commandment, darlin’, it’s the 6th.

Too many other statements of ignorance to dissect.  Bottom line: No bombs were brought onto planes on 9/11.  And planes weren’t being blown out of the sky left and right before the TSA’s Reign of Molestation was implemented.  The only things that have mattered since 9/11 are that the cockpit doors have been reinforced, and that passengers will no long silently submit. Which is more than I cay say for TSA apologists like you.

I realize facts may not be your best friend, but there they are.  Stubborn things.

Ira, you’re right about the Sixth Commandment, but the original Hebrew does not say “You shall not KILL”.  It makes a distinction between premeditated murder and other killings.  Here’s a brief explanation:

“... like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament (MY EDIT—SHOULD BE REFERRED TO AS THE HEBREW BIBLE, NOT ‘OLD TESTAMENT”) was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated “Thou shalt not kill” in the KJV translation, is translated “You shall not murder” in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, “Do not put anyone to death without cause.” The Hebrew word used here is ***ratsach*** which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as “cities of refuge,” so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution. The Hebrew word for “kill” in this instance is not ratsach, but ***nakah***, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context. Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing. The punishment for murder was the death sentence However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.(WHO WARNED THE PERP IN ADVANCE OF THE CRIME WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES WOULD BE ).The HEBREW Bible also prescribes that people have a right to defend themselves against attack and use deadly force if necessary.”

Furthermore, the death penalty was considered so extreme that a Sanhedrin (religious court) that had one person executed in decades was called a hanging court.  All kinds of pretexts were found to avoid imposing the death penalty.

Last, it should be pointed out that there is no THEE or THOU in Hebrew.  It’s just YOU.  The KJV used Christian grammar which does feature THEE and THOU, thus misleading centuries of scholars and just plain people.

Meanwhile.. back on topic.

  Former TSA deputy administrator Tom Blank, former member of the US House of Representatives Robert Cramer and former assistant director for transportation issues at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Timothy F. Hannegan all lobby on behalf of K Street firm Wexler & Walker. Wexler & Walker have, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, been retained by scanner manufacturer American Science & Engineering Inc. to lobby for “federal deployment of security technology by DHS and DOD.”
  Former TSA assistant policy administrator Chad Wolf is also lobbying on behalf of scanner manufacturer American Science & Engineering Inc.
  Lobbying firm Van Scoyoc Associates is employed by scanner manufacturer Smiths Detection. Kevin Patrick Kelly, a former top staffer to senator Barbara Mikulski, D-Md, who sits on the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee and former congresswoman Helen Delich Bentley, R-Md are both retained by Smith Detection.
  L3 Systems is represented by Former Sen. Al D’Amato R-N.Y. who lobbied on their behalf in the 3rd quarter of 2009.

(source - http://www.nomorebodyscanners.com/6/who-really-benefits-from-airport-body-scanners)

phf, yes, almost everyone in Congress, from both parties, are on the take:

“. . . An important tidbit that often goes unmentioned in discussions in Congress, and in the general public, is that there’s money to be made in the “security” business — big money . . . .”

http://tsanewsblog.com/1204/news/dhs-scanning-people-everywhere-even-without-their-knowledge/

This article is part of an ongoing investigation:
Body Scanners

Body Scanners: Risking Health to Secure Airports

In an effort to detect explosives hidden under clothing, is the TSA jeopardizing passenger safety?

The Story So Far

The Transportation Security Administration is planning to roll out body scanners at nearly every airport security lane in the country by 2014. Right now, it has deployed more than 500, split about evenly between two technologies—one using X-rays and another using radio frequency waves.

Several prominent radiation safety experts have raised concerns about exposing millions of airline passengers to X-rays.

More »

Get Updates

Stay on top of what we’re working on by subscribing to our email digest.

optional