Full Body Scanners and Radiation

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
Montana Native's picture
Montana Native
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 17 2009
Posts: 166
Full Body Scanners and Radiation

I 've read several articles on full body scanners the last few days.  This article in particular states, "The TSA has paid for 150 of the new scanners and plan to deploy them nationwide after the first of the year". http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/ohare-airport-security-full-body-scanner-80286952.html

These scanners use ionizing radiation that form free radicals and destroy the DNA of cells. Radiation protection is considered very important in the medical imaging field. All that work so some flunkie at TSA can irradiate you for no good reason. What on earth are these idiots thinking?

Heres a link concerning ionizing radiation, note the hazard symbol.        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

VeganDB12's picture
VeganDB12
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 18 2008
Posts: 757
Re: Full Body Scanners and Radiation

What a boondoggle for L3 Comm.

Morpheus's picture
Morpheus
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 27 2008
Posts: 1200
Re: Full Body Scanners and Radiation

The government says that it's good for America. Are you with us or are you with the terrorists? 

Hmm? ;)

rowmat's picture
rowmat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 15 2008
Posts: 358
Chertoff Now a Pitch Man for Scanners and Security

You might be interested in this...

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/284904

Quote:
Ever since the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a passenger, former Bush administration Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff has been all over the media extolling the virtues of full body scanners. What he neglects to mention is that the manufacturer of the controversial devices is a client of his.

As always, follow the money and the agenda becomes clear.

VeganDB12's picture
VeganDB12
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 18 2008
Posts: 757
Re: Full Body Scanners and Radiation

Interesting article in digitaljournal.

Why is it that  intelligence guys like CIA and military can't always go to private sector but the entire DHS can?  Whatever happened to that "loose lips sink ships" philosophy in wartime. These are multinational corporations that are getting their info.

...I admit I am against the terrorists....but I need to understand how it defeats the terrorists to give detailed explanations of exactly how, exactly when, exactly where and why we will be looking for them, as well as explaining exactly what we can and cannot see with our great new technologies :)

at 100k a pop times 300 or so

 

 

 

Montana Native's picture
Montana Native
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 17 2009
Posts: 166
Re: Chertoff Now a Pitch Man for Scanners and Security

Thanks for the link rowmat, makes my stomach turn.

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1208
Re: Full Body Scanners and Radiation

From what I had read earlier it looked like the radiation exposure was very minimal, substantially less than what you receive in the course of an average airline flight.  I looked it up again (here are some links)

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/01/05/f-airport-scanners-radiation-risk.html

http://casesblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-is-radiation-exposure-from-full.html

We get exposed to small levels of ionizing radiation constantly via natural sources, and a 10 microrem exposure per scan is not very significant compared to that.  And that's just the x-ray body scanners... the millimeter wave body scanners don't use ionizing radiation.  I would see the only potential radiation concern would be for the TSA and other personnel standing next to the machines for 8 hours a day, and even that only in the event of an improperly shielded machine (maybe a manufacturing defect, or some TSA yahoo damaging it by leaning his fat butt against it all day every day). 

I still think it's a questionable approach to security, but more because of privacy concerns and common sense.  You'd probably get much better returns on your money by providing better security and awareness training to TSA and other airport personnel rather than this 'gadget' approach (and this is coming from a nerd who appreciates gadgetry of all kinds Wink).  Seriously... while some TSA people have seemed to be on the ball, how many others have we seen that were the equivalent of a bad-tempered primate who has been trained just barely enough so he doesn't throw his poop around?

- Nickbert

jhelge's picture
jhelge
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 7 2009
Posts: 43
Re: Full Body Scanners and Radiation

I say we just make it so everyone has to fly naked. Cut out the middleman. Also the walls on the airplane should be padded, so no one can hurt themselves. Also we should sedate everyone just to be sure. But I personally don't see why this all should end at the airport check-in. Everyone alive should be naked, sedated and isolated in a padded room. Only then can we all be truly and absolutely safe from the ALL POWERFUL terrorists who set themselves on fire and embarrass themselves.

Seriously though, people's paranoia is ridiculus. Maybe we should all accept the fact that we are not always safe. Maybe 100% is way to expensive in more than money terms.

And by the way, no amount of radiation is safe, especially for our reproductive cells. Albert Bates has a pretty good article on this at http://peaksurfer.blogspot.com/ . The scary part is that we wouldn't realize our genetics could cause extiction (human) until it's too late(talk about expensive).

 

Don't be afraid. The universe is benevolent.

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Full Body Scanners and Radiation
jhelge wrote:

And by the way, no amount of radiation is safe, especially for our reproductive cells. Albert Bates has a pretty good article on this at http://peaksurfer.blogspot.com/ . The scary part is that we wouldn't realize our genetics could cause extiction (human) until it's too late(talk about expensive).

Not quite.

Radiation from alpha particle decay is stopped by the layer of dead skin and is not a threat to reporductive organs/cells.  You have to ingest an alpha emitter for it to be an issue.  And you will be long dead from a GI system shutdown before damage to reproductive cells manifests itself in your offspring as eyestalks growing from the forehead.

Radiation from beta decay is also easily shielded by clothing and not an issue.

The amount of whole body radiation exposure from the new airport scanners is not an issue.  The only hazard associated with radiation exposure from the scanners is having to listen to uninformed, clueless, glossy lipped news bimbos sensationalizing a story that doesn't exist.

rowmat's picture
rowmat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 15 2008
Posts: 358
Passenger says accused terrorist got help boarding

Something else about the so called underpants bomber that the MSM universally failed to report...

http://www.detnews.com/article/20091228/METRO/912280382/Passenger-says-accused-terrorist-got-help-boarding

and here...

Flight 253 passenger Kurt Haskell: 'I was visited by the FBI'

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_kurt_hask.html

Some questions that need to be answered

  • Who was the 'sharp dressed' Indian man that assisted the bomber board the plane in Amsterdam?
  • Why did the FBI refuse to acknowledge his existence?
  • Who was Indian man who was arrested after a bomb sniffing dog targeted his bag in Detroit?
  • Why won't the FBI release the Amsterdam airport video showing the Indian man with the bomber?

Something smells here.

  • The bomber was already on a watch list but not on the 'No Fly List'- Why?
  • The bomber's father is a Nigerian banker with connections to Yemen and the IMF
  • On December 24th the US Administration ramps up the rhetoric concerning the Yemen terrorist threat.
  • The next day the 'underpants bomber' incident occurs which is immediately connected to a Yemeni Al Quaeda cell.
  • Immediately after the airline incident the 'Yemen solution' is ramped up by the US.
  • The introduction of full airport body scanners had been stalled for sometime over privacy and health concerns
  • Now announcements are made concerning immediate rollout of body scanners at airports around the world

Excuse my cynicism but this sounds like there were several agendas ready and waiting for a trigger to implement them... a solution looking for a problem.

And absolutely NO TIME was wasted in the process!

nickbert's picture
nickbert
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 14 2009
Posts: 1208
Re: Full Body Scanners and Radiation
jhelge wrote:

And by the way, no amount of radiation is safe, especially for our reproductive cells. Albert Bates has a pretty good article on this at http://peaksurfer.blogspot.com/ . The scary part is that we wouldn't realize our genetics could cause extiction (human) until it's too late(talk about expensive).

Radiation exposure is not black-and-white (exposure bad, no exposure good), just like anything else it's the degree of risk which is more important, not the presence or complete absence of risk.  There is a tiny bit of risk associated with each interaction of ionizing radiation with the body's cells, but that's true for just about everything in life.  You take a bit of risk just leaving your house each day.  It's all about weighing the benefits vs the risks, and isn't an all-or-nothing game.

The article in the link you provided makes some puzzling statements and conclusions.  It states that low-range exposures are more dangerous than middling range ones because it has the potential to leave mutated cells alive.  Well aren't all natural radiation sources we are exposed to daily "low-range"?  Mutation as a result of ionizing radiation has always been a fact of life for just about every lifeform on the planet, and can be either positive or negative.  It's not always a pretty process for the lifeform involved (re the potential negative mutations), but that's the way nature and life happens to work.  The article does a great job of describing the potential damage caused by ionizing radiation, but that's all it does.  Given that it doesn't give any real mention of relative risk, in my mind It's barely more than scare-mongering.  If I were to take the article seriously, I should come to the conclusion that I shouldn't be flying in the first place (more radiation exposure!) or in fact never leave my shielded underground bunker.  Oh wait, then there's radon gas seeping up from deep underground... dang, there's no way to win.

The biggest mistake the author makes, however, is describing how the ionizing radiation is small but the fact that it's terahertz radiation makes it particularly damaging.  The problem there is terahertz radiation is non-ionizing radiation.  Which machine is he/she talking about, the millimeter wave or the X-ray backscatter one?  I'm sorry, but that article appears to be poorly informed and mostly about fear-mongering.

- Nickbert

jneo's picture
jneo
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 7 2009
Posts: 742
Re: Full Body Scanners and Radiation

 

Scanners, new laws, enforcement agents, RFID, threat level charts, new airport regulations, strip search, Radiation Scanners and so on, it does not matter.  They (real or false flag terrorists) will carry out whatever attack they can.  

It makes no sense.  What's to stop them from wearing explosive underwear and blowing themselves up inside the airport?  

 If someone is on a terrorist watch list then why do they get to fly/bored a plane?  Oh I forgot,  ICTS (isralie company) will let dormant terrorist and Richard Reed (shoe bomber) through security just like on 9/11.  

 

Montana Native's picture
Montana Native
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 17 2009
Posts: 166
Re: Full Body Scanners and Radiation

Nickbert thanks for the links concerning the actual rem exposure. These exposure numbers are far less than I had imagined they would be, although it was hard to know because most articles fail to even mention radiation is used. Now I'm left wondering which of the two types of scanner is the most common, preferred. Tried the TSA site but found little information.

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Full Body Scanners and Radiation

Group slams Chertoff on scanner promotion  - link to complete Boston Globe article

WASHINGTON - Since the attempted bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports.

What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. Chertoff disclosed the relationship on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.

“Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosive,’’ said Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, which opposes the use of the scanners.

coincidence.....I'm sure...rowmat you are too cynical

The TSA and the full-body-scanner lobby  - link to complete Examiner article

President Dwight Eisenhower tried to warn us about the growth of a "military-industrial complex," but these days we also have to worry about a Homeland Security-industrial complex.  One manufacturer, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, is American Science & Engineering, Inc. AS&E has retained the K Street firm Wexler & Walker to lobby for "federal deployment of security technology by DHS and DOD." Individual lobbyists on this account include former TSA deputy administration Tom Blank, who also worked under House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

I never thought I would see my fellow Americans become such wimpy cowards and worse, gullible morons.  You want to make us safe?  Get rid of the Federal Reserve and bring our troops home - stop the insane and immoral wars!  We need to focus on America's real enemies in Washington and Wall street.

Larry

Gungnir's picture
Gungnir
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 2 2009
Posts: 643
Re: Full Body Scanners and Radiation

Not brushing Larry's concerns, I happen to agree with the sentiment, indeed I think we need to remove the Federal Government and return to Constitutional rule, but getting back on exposure.

Flying itself leads to between 3 micro Sieverts, and 8 micro Sieverts (depending on the level of Sun activity and altitude) per Hour. Maximum industrial exposure is limited to 1000 micro Sieverts. To make things worse during solar storms this can increase to 200 micro Sieverts per hour, so a 5 hour flight could lead you to being classified as over exposed  if for instance you worked in a Uranium mine.

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: Full Body Scanners and Radiation

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments