Posted on 11/15/2010 12:21:52 PM PST by george76
Some US scientists warned Friday that the full-body, graphic-image X-ray scanners now being used to screen passengers and airline crews at airports around the country may be unsafe.
"They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays," 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.
"No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner," he said.
The possible health dangers posed by the scanners add to passengers' and airline crews' concerns about the devices, which have been dubbed "naked" scanners because of the graphic image they give of a person's body, genitalia and all.
...
The scientists say the X-rays could pose a risk to everyone from travelers over the age of 65 to pregnant women and their unborn babies, to HIV-positive travelers, cancer patients and men.
"Men's sexual organs are exposed to the X-rays. The skin is very thin there," Love explained.
The Office of Science and Technology responded this week to the scientists' letter, saying the scanners have been "tested extensively" by US government agencies and were found to meet safety standards.
But Sedat told AFP Friday: "We still don't know the beam intensity or other details of their classified system."
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...
The US just finished apologizing to some poor country for deliberately infecting them with experimental Syphalis. I can’t imagine they would deliberately expose any of us to dangerous radiation. No way.
I consider flying to be occupational, and the associated rad doses part of occupational exposure. So I wear my badge.
There are two types of full-body scanners. Some are THz and some are xray backscatter machines.
Both technologies apparently scare the willies out of people.
TSA Bookmark.
Southwest Airlines just put Christmas time tickets on sale for, in some cases, $59.00, so it looks as if a lot of people are not going to fly this year.
Predictable results.
I hope you have a 10CFR19 training program for your employees and keep adequate records.
Human folly is ever present. The pride people take in being able to develop and analyze the science, physics, engineering and math of these marvelous canning technologies can blind them to those things which they have not yet learned about them. The known unknowns and unknown unknowns both get highly discounted by the profane calculus of hubris and overweening intellectual pride.
"Gin Alley" -- the development of distilled spirits was a technology jump that had many many horrid side effects before society could learn to handle it. If you peruse the link to Wikipedia, you'll there be reminded that the problems with gin were on account of excessive governmental encouragement of the industry.
“canning” -> “scanning”
I still think it’s a bit rediculous that the pilot, who could fly the plane into a building, is being scanned to make sure he isn’t carrying a bomb or a weapon.
You’d think they would have already run an extensive background check and cleared the pilots. And if the pilot decides to be a terrorist, what are we really going to do to stop him?
“scanned to make sure he isn’t carrying a bomb or a weapon.”
Or drugs, money, diamonds, securities, illegal data on memory cards.
“You are a smart guy, but you take other people’s health too much for granted, I think.”
Yes, I use too much logic, and that’s a fault.
Look at the health assessments out there to date, though, and logically, an exposure at or less than background and much less than the subsequent aviation dose should be a minor concern.
What is your recommendation for health studies?
First, though, I want to be clear that these scanners are not going to solve all problems of terrorism, in fact, few indeed. I don’t think they are needed for primary screening. HUMINT and intuition will work better.
Look at the BIER report I linked above, it has some relevant risk data.
Logic isn’t truth, that is it is only a tool, and not a tool that gives complete access to the truth. Logic is in the most meta sense, tautological, for a logic “proof” starts at the name of rose and ends at a different name for the same rose. The rose is still the rose.
So what do you recommend for a health assessment for these two new technologies?
Amazing, isn’t it? The group of people known to commit acts of terrorism are the only ones who can be exempt from the invasive searches...stunning.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2627592/posts
Wow!
Course, we can use our own taqqya and claim to be muslim...
TSA is pretty sure these scanners are mostly safe.
History. Get thirty years of history behind them, before such a widespread application.
It would be nice to see / read some other independent ( second and third ) opinions from independent / knowledgeable scientists.
That Soros and Chernoff are involved does not offer any warm and fuzzy feelings.
“TSA is pretty sure these scanners are mostly safe.”
“I wonder if these would have any effect on a newly developing baby.....???”
They might very well harm a developing baby, and more exposure, like freqent fliers would probably increase that risk. And some business women, who travel frequently, could be pregnant and not even know it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.