Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Airport Full Body Scanners destroy DNA

page: 1
39
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+10 more 
posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Terahertz wavelength radio waves can destroy DNA, and 'airport full body scanners' are akin to THz 'cannons'.


Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they’ve found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. That’s a jaw dropping conclusion.
...
But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe.
www.technologyreview.com...


This may be a blow to this Orweillian technology, similar to how Verichips can cause cancer tumors. If you plan on flying I recommend you print out the articles related to this new issue.

[edit on 1-1-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]




posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I had a feeling these scanners would not be safe. Hell, might as well set up x ray machines.

Remember the movie where they guy stuffed the bomb up the bad guy's bum.

I cannot remember it, I picture the guy from The Transporter for some reason.

Anyway, what will stop a terrorist from doing that.

Next we will have x ray machines set up.

WTH.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
holy crapola!

If this is true. then this is very wrong. that they are being installed everywhere.

Surley they should be tested for like 10 years, in private studies before they are used on the public on a daily basis.

Its not like X-rays were invented, then a year later they are used on everyone to check their bones...



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


I've never seen that, but in the "Snuke" episde of South Park a nuclear bomb is hiden in Hillary Clinton's "snatch' (they word they actually use in the episode). "I de-clair"!

You can watch the episode for free at the official South Park Studios website!



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


I wondered about this.

Nice find.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
This is very scary. Esp. considering how dangerous we are just now discovering the widely over utilized CT scan to be years after it's introduction. To "protect" us, they will be irradiating us to a crisp. Gods help the regular traveler.

And if they only use it selectively (such as extra pat down searches now), knowing it is so dangerous, along w/ racial profiling, that opens a WHOLE other kettle of radioactive fish.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
It seems they cant wait to get these body scanners in all airports. seems like a massive over reaction to me, but tptb want these scanners now. Orwell would be rolling in his grave.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
This is by far the most ridiculous scare tactic someone could generateon this website to encourage the public to disagree with the implementation of full body scanners. Nice try OP.... Really?!?! How about you just raise your hands now, embrace change, and finally accept that you can run but you can not hide any longer. Wait....How about we just go directly to RFID chips instead, and take away your dirty dollar bills. You know what they say.... "No mun, no fun" LOL...



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by PreyBird
 


Dear G, please actually attempt to refute the cited data by citing other data that contradicts it. Or are you being sarcastic?



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by PreyBird
 

say what?

got anythin' other to say than: your wrong lololololol. im a freemason im also in on all the world secrets lololololololol. your all screwed lolololololol. Im an expert I read the davinci code lololololol.



like the op said show us some data to back your claims. i also dont think you are freemason. because you have to be at LEAST age 18-25. and from the way you type i thin you are way off from that.

[edit on 1-1-2010 by MR BOB]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Just a thread to expand on the entire scanner issue

www.abovetopsecret.com...

great OP - I agree 1000%

[edit on 1-1-2010 by Janky Red]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by PreyBird
This is by far the most ridiculous scare tactic someone could generateon this website to encourage the public to disagree with the implementation of full body scanners. Nice try OP.... Really?!?! How about you just raise your hands now, embrace change, and finally accept that you can run but you can not hide any longer. Wait....How about we just go directly to RFID chips instead, and take away your dirty dollar bills. You know what they say.... "No mun, no fun" LOL...


And why specifically do you say that? Please provide at least the level of data/research that the researchers provided in your response. To make it easy on you, the report is here: DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
What is wrong with what OP posted? There could be danger in those scanners and it needs to be checked. Article appears a legitimate research, though only modeled in computer. Still, it has to be checked. Scanners that prevent dying of hundreds in terror attacks but ensure death of tens of thousands from cancer later on are not doing their job, me thinks.
Personally i am glad i read it - was not aware of the issue at all. So thanks to OP.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 

G'day IgnoranceIsntBliss

This is an interesting topic & whilst I don't enjoy the fact these scanners are being deployed, I don't believe they are a danger to us.

Here’s a link to another current thread about these devices, wherein the op has linked to technical data, in case it is of interest.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'll also repeat a post I made in another current thread regarding this topic, also in case it is of interest, as follows:

Here's a link to one of the Co's that makes these things:

www.global-security-solutions.com...

Here's a link to a Yahoo Q & A page:

news.yahoo.com...

This seems to confirm my previous understanding of these devices, based on my background in medical imaging & medical radiation.

I don't believe these devices are dangerous from a radiation perspective.

However, the embarrassment factor & various means of working around this are being developed & implemented.

Maybe this will get everybody jogging & going to the gym more!

Maybe it could be a positive health factor!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Edits to get links working...

[edit on 1-1-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

[edit on 1-1-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

[edit on 1-1-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I have been through multiple times and my DNA is still intact . . . I think



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
star and flag nice find,when i saw on the news about them having one at manchester airport on trial,i instinctively didn`t like it and wondered what amount of radiation your body was getting bombarded with.then seeing obama and brown announcing implementing these everywhere on the first day of the year(as if they`re working hard on years day) and couldn`t they have waited until they came back to office on monday,it seems like more masonic numerology to me 01/01/10



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


It appears we have to take the AP's and the manufacturers word for it? Kind of how cell phones 'cant' cause brain damage when most indepenedent studies show otherwise? An important issue with this new study is that they've had problems studying tHz effects in the past, no?



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by l77way
 


They did did they? Does everyone have to walk thru them or just those 'not profiled'?



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 

G'day again IgnoranceIsntBlisss


It's a complex area.

That's why we all need to keep reading & keep on top of all of this technology.

I know from long experience & detailed clinical, technical & commercial knowledge there are problems out there regarding radiation exposure & dose in the imaging world.

However I don't believe these body scanning systems are a problem.

Thanks again for starting your interesting thread.

I'm sure I will enjoy following it & adding something useful if I can!

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
This seems to confirm my previous understanding of these devices, based on my background in medical imaging & medical radiation.

I don't believe these devices are dangerous from a radiation perspective.


They may not be dangerous from an ionizing radiation perspective but what about the danger express by non-ionizing radiation in OP's article? Remember terahertz radiation is non-ionizing.


We consider the influence of a terahertz field on the breathing dynamics of double-stranded DNA. We model the spontaneous formation of spatially localized openings of a damped and driven DNA chain, and find that linear instabilities lead to dynamic dimerization, while true local strand separations require a threshold amplitude mechanism. Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication.


Edit to ADD:


Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Here’s a link to another current thread about these devices, wherein the op has linked to technical data, in case it is of interest.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


All of the technical data in that link states only that "no ionizing radiation is used". It says nothing about non-ionizing radiation. That statements actually infers that non-ionizing radiation (terahertz radiation) IS used.

[edit on 1/1/2010 by Iamonlyhuman]






top topics



 
39
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def