It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Another body scanner thread.

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 06:42 PM
You know, we should be thanking these TSA folks. Some of them may be giving up 20 years of their life span keeping us safe. Though the reports say, this is our government remember, the most you might get is skin cancer or even more if you are a child or have genetic problems, most of that won't show up until decades down the road. These dedicated TSA workers are around this active scanner day in and day out with little or no protection. The exposure they will be getting is much more then the average once a year scan or what frequent fliers may get. These people will be literally dying to protect our lives.
EPIC Presses for Release of Government Documents on Health Risks of Airport Body Scanners: EPIC has filed an appeal with the Transportation Security Administration, challenging the agency's denial of expedited processing and fee waivers for an EPIC Freedom of Information Act request. EPIC's is seeking documents from the TSA concerning full body scanner radiation risks and testing. EPIC challenged the TSA's denial of expedited processing, arguing that by delaying to release of the records, the agency was risking the health of travelers and its own employees. EPIC also argued that the record request was particularly timely, as three US Senators recently wrote to the Department of Homeland Security about the safety of the airport body scanners and the risk to air travelers. Separately, EPIC has urged a federal court to suspend the program, pending an independent review of the health risks and privacy impact. For more information, see EPIC: Body Scanners and EPIC v. DHS (suspension of program). (Aug. 30, 2010)
According to David Brenner, the head of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research, the concentration on the skin -- one of the most radiation sensitive organs of the body -- means the radiation dose is actually 20 times higher than the official estimate. Brenner says the most likely risk from airport scanners is basal cell skin cancer, which mainly occurs on the head and neck. Brenner was consulted to write the guidelines for the security scanners in 2002, but now says he would not have signed the report had he known the devices were going to be used so widely.

Naturally our government and the Transportation Security Administration are assuring us that these devices are safe and there is no reason for concern. Tell that to the families of first responders and emergency workers at Ground Zero who were assured that the air around the site was safe to breathe. Nine years later, many of these heroes and Good Samaritans, who trusted their government, are dying or facing serious medical issues from breathing toxic air.
(my underline)
“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.

'If there are increases in cancers as a result of irradiation of children, they would most likely appear some decades in the future. It would be prudent not to scan the head and neck,' he added.

The only benefits they get is a paycheck and maybe some pictures to take home & treasure.
Now it turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images after all. The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.

This follows an earlier disclosure (PDF) by the TSA that it requires all airport body scanners it purchases to be able to store and transmit images for "testing, training, and evaluation purposes." The agency says, however, that those capabilities are not normally activated when the devices are installed at airports.

Remember these brave souls who are shortening their lives to extend ours.

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 06:57 PM
I just finished trying to make a point in another thread similar to this and you post this and change my opinion of this technology a bit. If it is true that this type of scanner is dangerous to children and others then it should be discontinued for the purpose of checking kids under 18. My dentist will not even allow my 4 year old in the same room when taking x-rays of my teeth (in which x-rays are generally localized to my face only).

edit on 11/16/2010 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/16/2010 by AnteBellum because: I'm stupid

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by AnteBellum

Just throwing this out there before the radiation rhetoric starts...

You get 0.02 microsieverts from a body scanner, you'll get around 5 microsieverts per hour of flight at at average altitude (Higher altitude means less is blocked by the atmosphere), you'll get 1100 microsieverts from a CAT scan.

Some random links that also contain many other informative links:

Scientists Question Safety Of New Airport Scanners

Radiation Risks from TSA Scanners?

Radiation Risk "Tiny"

Try not to make the topic about pseudoscience and have random posters making claims about radiation.

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 07:28 PM
reply to post by Whyhi

I truly have no idea what point your making in reference to mine so I'll be more clear.

I do not care if they scan me or put my scanned pictures on the internet.
I do not believe this is a complete violation of our freedom - TO A DEGREE! I can think of much worse things that would bother me like full body searches (bend over and cough) or seeing my family flown into a building at 500 mph or blown up, whether the USA did it or not. (Notice I didn't say me flown into a building or use the word terrorist)

I do believe if children or others are at risk of 'something' due to these machines they should stop using them for that purpose. That was my point and is the only one I was trying to make, whether or not this is true is what is in debate right now and I do not care to debate it enough anymore.

But I do like this thread for it is enlightening on a angle of this subject I am not really familiar with but unfortunately felt the need to say something. Excuse my arrogance for doing so.

top topics

log in