Airport BODY SCANNERS: " Statistically SOMEONE Is Going To GET SKIN CANCER From These X-RAYS

[Segami]

" As Americans grow increasingly concerned by the privacy implications of what many are calling "naked" body scanners at the nation's airports, U.S. scientists are offering even more reason for worry.


The full-body screenings don't just display graphic images of airline passengers' and crew members' full, unclothed bodies, they may also pose a risk of skin cancer.


"They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays," said Dr. Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at Johns Hopkins University school of medicine, according to a Agence France Presse story.


Love's comments, reported Sunday on the AlterNet website, came amid calls for a national revolt on airport body scanners, with plans firming up for a "National Opt-Out Day" set for Nov. 24, the day before Thanksgiving, in which airline passengers are urged to refuse a body scan and opt instead for a pat down in airport security lines on the busiest travel day of the year.


-...Scientists with the University of California at San Francisco were so worried that they wrote a letter to the White House Office of Science and Technology in April raising "a number of red flags" on the scanners' safety.

<http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf>


"While the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high," the letter said in part, adding concerns that "independent safety data do not exist" and raising the potential for further harm if a high dosage was accidentally emitted.


"Any glitch in power at any point in the hardware (or more importantly in the software) that stops the device can cause an intense radiation dose to a single spot on the skin. Who will oversee problems with overall dose after repair or software problems?"


The Office of Science and Technology last month responded to the concerns with a nine-page letter assuring the UCSF scientists that the doses met safety standards and had been adequately tested.:rofl:


"The potential health risks from a full-body screening with a general-use X-ray security system are miniscule," the government agency wrote. :rofl: "Several groups of recognized experts have been assembled and have analyzed the radiation safety issues associated with this technology."


But one co-author of the UCSF letter, biochemist John Sedat, told AFP in Sunday's AlterNet story, that the government's explanation was "deeply flawed" and insufficient to ease scientists' concerns.


So are the scanners safe? I guess the verdict's still out. But I for one am going to be thinking about more than my nether-regions being exposed the next time I venture through an airport security line.


<http://www.latimes.com/health/fl-nbcol-body-scanner-cancer-brochu-120101117,0,3026203.column>


.

[NoPasaran]

1. Unrecced and hidden

I'll be so happy in a couple of days when we switch to hating people who shop at WalMart.

[boppers]

2. Statistically SOMEONE Is Going To GET SKIN CANCER from flying.

Junior high science fail.

[Pholus]

3. Really? Where are dosages (Number of photons vs. exposure time vs energy) you promised?

Thought you said those were already released.

Your IQ test results are on the line there pal. Don't let me down!

[boppers]

4. Never argue with a Sicilian when death is on the line!!

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-12/travel/body.scanning.radiation_1_backscatter-radiological-research-radiation?_s=PM:TRAVEL

Do you eat food, or breathe air? Congratulations, you are irradiated.

Oh, and BTW, Photons? WTF do photons have to do with it?


edit: add a plural

[Pholus]

6. Those aren't radiation dosages. Those are INTERPRETATIONS from dosages.

Grade school science FAIL.

"What do photons have to do with it?" *SNORT*

[boppers]

7. Photons are not radioactive.

You need to study alpha, beta, and gamma.

[Pholus]

9. FAIL FAIL FAIL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray

X rays are these little things called PHOTONS, boppers. Or "Gamma" radiation, if you will.

Sheesh

[boppers]

11. LIGHT, if you will.

It's not that simple.

[Pholus]

12. You're out of your league on this one. I TEACH radiation physics. Your words are even wrong.

[notesdev]

18. This doesn't need to be a physics discussion

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The TSA has no Constitutional authority to search any US citizen unless there is specific reason to believe they are committing a crime.

Arguing over the physical details of the scanners implies acceptance of the eradication of the 4th Amendment. I for one don't accept that.

[Pholus]

19. Absolutely agreed. But even on the question of safety the TSA is not forthcoming about this.

And that is a starting point to demolish everything about these scanners.

[boppers]

28. Is "demolish" a neutral point of view?

Perhaps it has an agenda built in?

Perhaps you could have said:
"And that is a starting point to gather more quantifiable information about these scanners."

[Pholus]

33. No it isn't neutral and it doesn't need to be. We had two technologies to consider, TSA chose

the more invasive AND more harmful one. There is plenty of evidence of conflict of interest with Chertoff being involved. The TSA story about the capabilities of the machine changed weekly last summer. The TSA refused to consider even a tiny bone that would have at least gotten rid of many of the privacy concerns of the rape-i-scans. There is evidence that the freedom pats are retaliatory to get the American public to accept the scanners. Seems to be working too, the Today show this morning almost seems worried that the protests will cause disruptions to the airlines' bottom line, so corporate America must be worried as well.

So, no, I feel no need to be "neutral" or well balanced. I wasn't about "free speech zones," warrantless wiretapping, the right to marriage, the Iraq war, the Bush tax cuts -- why am I supposed to check my feelings on this one when it stinks to high heaven?

[Chan790]

34. This isn't the Wikipedia.

(I would know, I'm a rather prolific editor of Wikipedia.)

There is no requirement of NPOV on DU, nor should there be...this is a strictly partisan message board.

Oddly, the one thing the base-left and the far-right have always agreed upon was privacy concerns. If the scanners are privacy-invasive (and that seems to be a prima facie fact) then "demolish" is the correct word choice...all non-cause government-intrusions or invasions of privacy not only should, but must, be resisted lest we all end up living in an East German style police state after all of our civil liberties are chipped away "in the public interest".

[boppers]

27. Fair enough, I assumed I was talking with somebody who didn't know much about the spectrum.

...or kinds of radiation (specifically, the difference between, oh, radio waves, and potentially lethal sources).

[Pholus]

5. Nice comeback but you said the numbers are available. I want them, so tell me where!

[boppers]

8. Please visit a science class.

If you cannot afford a science class, here's a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

[Pholus]

10. Read your own link before you post it.

Radiation on the short-wavelength end of the electromagnetic spectrum—high frequency ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays—is ionizing.

[boppers]

13. A lightbulb is ionizing, and radioactive.

Do you have such things in your house?

You know, light bulbs?

[Pholus]

14. Hahahaha. Yup. Why doesn't the TSA use light bulbs to see through clothes then?

You're getting funnier by the minute.

[boppers]

26. Well, in a sense, they are.

They're using radiation most human eyes can't see, but can pass through clothes.

[Pholus]

31. W=qV pal. TOTALLY different particle energies.

[CreekDog]

36. your clumsy, innaccurate defense of these scanners is making me even more concerned about them

and likely everybody else.

i suggest you stop arguing and get somebody who actually can argue with a biophysicist to post for you, like the two quoted in the article (heck, one has a Nobel Prize and UCSF is warning their patients about the machines by the way).

Until then, just know that your arguments are undermining your obvious purpose.

[CreekDog]

35. It's also scientifically valid to assume that the truth is opposite of whatever boppers says

there have been a lot of studies on this. :D

[HipChick]

15. Statistically SOMEONE Is Going To GET SKIN CANCER from being out in the SUN

[Pholus]

16. At least I get something in return when the Sun irradiates me. A peaceful feeling.

[boppers]

29. Perhaps, if feelings are your thing, you should opt for the pat down.

Very touchy-feely!

[Pholus]

32. Seems I'll get in trouble asking for the happy ending though.

[readmoreoften]

30. When the Obama Administration and Rapescan invent the sun, you let me know.

I know you think that Obama brought the moon and the sun and the stars down to earth, but if he did we'd ask him to modify the carcinogenic properties.

It's called FAULTY ANALOGY. You should look it up.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pholus]

20. Who's laughing? I'm crying because once again our government takes a basic freedom from us.

with the aid of apologists just like you.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SoCalDem]

21. insignificant because there is NO way to isolate this one source

as a "cause"..any more than any one of the bazillions of other sources we encounter daily..

[Pholus]

23. And a single ice cube couldn't sink the Titanic. But add enough of it up...

[SoCalDem]

24. when brain tumors the same size & shape of cell phones cannot get

favorable litigation, it's likely that random radiation from TSA over a long period of time will face the same result.

don't want the irradiation..don't fly..

perhaps it will change someday, but we have what we have & we can deal with it or not fly.. it's just that simple.

[Pholus]

25. It isn't when flying is a condition of the job and the economy doesn't make job mobility easy.

So it is NOT simple.

[CreekDog]

37. don't give up...your arguments are based on science and everyone can see that

the people who are arguing against you are not talking about science but are quoting TSA pamphlets.