TSA employees diagnosed with cancer, naked body scanners to blame.

Just think how these scanners work. Hmm... yeah...

They didn't see this coming?

Seriously?

Originally posted by samkent
Since when do you get cancer from low level radiation in less than two years?
The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

You could, in theory, but not enough people could for it to raise any flags, statistically...

However, why would you trust that only low-level radiation is coming of of the machine? If just one machine is defective, and accidentally beaming x-rays out of the side at some angle, and some worker is sitting right there all the time, they could have gotten a cancer-causing dose in weeks or months, theoretically. Any machine can be defective.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Already posted that last nite.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But yes. It looks like cancer clusters are forming and the dam things are not as safe as they claim them to be.

reply to post by dethduck


Are you serious? as a As sentient, sovereign individuals of any intelligence I see that thinking getting cancer is justice for violation of laws (because they are violating the 4th amendment) is cruel and stupid.

If you ever dealt with the end stages of cancer in someone you love you know what I am talking about.

Would you be saying that about cops getting cancer from their radar guns? they have a right to job safety as everyone else, the attitude of the employee should of known better is the reasons unions exist.

Originally posted by relocator
I thought you can only get cancer from smoking or second hand smoke. At least that's what the media pounded into my head. Didn't the news just report that radiation is good for you? Once again media reporting that there's no danger in being exposed to low level radiation.

It is not smoking that causes cancer. It is the substances placed on the cigarretes that do it. You would get cancer from those substances if you smoke, drink, eat, rub on your skin, inhale, inject with a seringue or by any other possible mean of getting those substances within your body.

Very small doses of radiation is good for you, due to hormesis. Those people getting cancer are not being subjected to very small doses. If I understood it right, they're receiving above the recomended daily limit of radiation on themselves, and for benefitial effects, you should stay way below this daily limit.

No one can say those TSA agents weren't warned!!!

Well for years they have been telling us to not take a lot of Xrays if you can avoid it, and when you do get an Xray the nurses run behind a special really thick window. I feel sorry for people that fly all the time. Dang!

News clip about it....



I've talked to Alex Jones about these scanners and I did what I could to get this info out there before it's too late for these people.... it's not just the "was following orders" people that get hurt by their ignorance, it's their families too. Who wants to grow up with a mom or dad with cancer at age 35?

reply to post by dethduck


You know I found myself almost thinking the same thing. Regardless of my personal feelings about people who work for such agencies that actively destroy our rights they are still people. I will not give in to the programming of hate.

This is a sad way to find out about the health effects of these scanners,
My heart goes out to these people and their families who have been affected.

No you don't get it.

All of these scanners cause cancer pretty much.

X-rays cause cancer in organic tissue.

The scanners emit very high dosages compared to natural background radiation sources.

I don't think there is such a thing as a safe scanner.

There is even quite a debate about Ultrasound being dangerous going on.

Good serves em right for playing for the wrong team

wouldnt surprise me at all if it was induced from body scanners :/

Those of you saying "serves em' right!" should be ashamed. You are losing credibility for anyone who truly promotes positive change in this world.

Turn the NASCAR off and think about what you've done.

I fully believe scanners and pat downs are a violation of my rights. This doesn't mean I would wish slow, horrible, cancerous death on the TSA's pawns. Rather than say "serves' em right" I will say that I hope this presents an opportunity for them to rethink their careers.

reply to post by samkent


Oh, do be quiet.

reply to post by dethduck


I totally get what you're saying. I think they're flippant attitude towards their part in the erosion of our liberties is also what has gotten them into this. Think about it... You take a job that many find controversial because they see you as taking part in subverting their liberties. But you think nothing of it and that is why you took the job. These same people complain about the radiation risks from the body scanners. You scoff at them because a little radiation never hurt anybody. You're complete lack of an ability to see the big picture, i.e. the body scanners and pat downs are part of the governments agenda to circumvent the constitution little by little, has caused you to get cancer because you didn't even consider the fact that you work around this radiation machine EVERY SINGLE DAY for hours on end.


ETA: I am not saying TSA workers deserve this. Of course they don't! I am only saying that if they had the ability to look at the big picture and use some critical thinking skills, something this world is completely lacking, they wouldn't be in this mess. Unemployed, maybe. But not cancer ridden.

Radiation induced cancer does not appear until years after exposure.

Radiation (and other agent) induced cancer always are associated with a latent period (2 --> 40 years or more)

www.uic.edu...
The body scanners have been in use for how long? Less than a year? If TSA workers are getting occupational cancer it's not from the body scanners.

The NIST did not say it did no testing. It said it did not test for "product safety". Product safety testing would involve testing for things like this: ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com...

The NIST did test the radiation dose of the machine and found it within standards.

Originally posted by Phage
Radiation induced cancer does not appear until years after exposure.

Radiation (and other agent) induced cancer always are associated with a latent period (2 --> 40 years or more)

www.uic.edu...

That link is from 1994.

Not all radiation is the same...

reply to post by Jezus

As far as cancer goes, ionizing radiation is ionizing radiation.
Can you show me a study or two which shows radiation induced cancer appearing in less than a year?

i think some may be missing the point here
while patronizing their emotions.

Demonizing the scanners to create a health
hazard just means they will do more pat downs.
This info will not stop the Gestapo.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Jezus

 

As far as cancer goes, ionizing radiation is ionizing radiation.

Not all sources of ionizing radiation are the same.

Originally posted by Phage
Can you show me a study or two which shows radiation induced cancer appearing in less than a year?

Like you said these devices have been out for a year...