It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 7
60
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Assessing the carcinogenic effects of radiation is a difficult thing to quantify. What is the frequency of the radiation ? One frequency might be safe but another will be very unsafe. We are living in a soup of superimposed frequencies with harmonic resonances that might do harm when put together even when by themselves alone might be regarded as safe. Linked to this investigation into the Airport Scanners is the increased awareness that Mobile Telephones are now being shown to cause cancers in the brain. My advice is to use the Mobile Telephone in a way such that the antenna is at a distance, not held up close to the head as is the common practice. You can buy microphones and ear plugs that will make it possible to hold the antenna at arms length and thus avoid any possibility of a cancer being induced. Unfortunately the TSA workers are exposed to the what I presume are X-Ray discharges emitted by the scanner machines at public transport terminals. Air safety is coming at a high price if the TSA workers are going to get cancer from their job. Would you want to be a TSA worker ?

Bedöma cancerframkallande effekterna av strålning är en svår sak att kvantifiera. Vad är frekvensen av strålning? En frekvens kan vara säker, men någon annan kommer att vara mycket osäkra. Vi lever i en soppa av pålagd frekvenser med harmonisk resonans som kan göra skada när de sätts samman, även om dessa i sig kan betraktas som säkra. Kopplat till denna utredning om flygplatsen Skannrar är den ökade medvetenheten om att Mobiltelefoner nu att visas för att orsaka cancer i hjärnan. Mitt råd är att använda mobiltelefonen på ett sätt så att antennen är på distans, inte höll upp nära huvudet vilket är vanligt förekommande. Du kan köpa mikrofoner och öronproppar som gör det möjligt att hålla antennen på armlängds avstånd och på så sätt undvika varje möjlighet till en cancer som framkallas. Tyvärr TSA arbetarna utsätts för vad jag antar är X-Ray utsläpp från scannern maskinerna i kollektivtrafiken terminaler. Flygsäkerhet är på väg till ett högt pris om TSA arbetarna kommer att få cancer från sitt jobb. Skulle du vilja vara en TSA arbetstagare?

SHIMONO

AVE RAEGINA CAELINA LA DEUS NOSTRA CAELI LA VERA DEUS




posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Jezus
 

Yes. Intensity is an important factor in whether and where cancer develops. But not so much in the latency period, which is what we are talking about.


Well it might not be as much of a factor but it certainly is a factor.

The point is that coming to a conclusion about the potential risk of these machines by comparing them to something similar isn't very scientific because too many variables are involved.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


The point is that coming to a conclusion about the potential risk of these machines by comparing them to something similar isn't very scientific because too many variables are involved.

What variables? When you are talking about radiation exposure you are talking about 2 variables; intensity and duration.

But you have missed the point entirely. Please note the thread topic. The claim is that TSA workers have contracted cancer from the full body scanners.

Based on the "evidence", the claim is nonsensical. The first backscatter scanners were installed in March of 2010. The emails claiming cancer clusters in Boston are dated May of 2010. The email about Altanta is dated April. Even if all the reported cases of cancer were diagnosed at the same time as the emails (doubtful), 2 months is far to short of a period of time for cancer to develop.

As I have said, If the TSA workers have contracted occupational cancer, it cannot be from the AIT machines. Radiation induced cancer takes years to develop (no matter the intensity), not 2 months.

edit on 6/29/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
2 months is far to short of a period of time for cancer to develop.


Your probably right.

But to use studies about different sources of radiation as proof it is "impossible" this device could cause cancer that fast isn't logical.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 

I don't think anyone has said it is impossible that the machines can cause cancer.

What has been said is that because the levels of radiation produced by the machines is so low, it would be impossible to isolate the machines as the cause of any particular case of cancer. What has been said is that there are other environmental sources of radiation which are more intense and of greater duration. What has been said is the risk factor is extremely low, low enough to be considered negligible.

edit on 6/29/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
This spells KARMA all over it...
Sad that frequent fliers are subjected to such things as well, but if you choose your profession to look at people naked without 100% consent then this is what happens to you, and yes another lie to add to the pile. It's either that or frisking, in which I am sure some of them enjoy... seeing all the radical fantasies these days. Then there is always the power trip you must endure in order to take a trip that more than likely gets the workers off like cops in heat. Side point: Who's to say I can't have a stick of dynamite in my vagina and request the frisk to avoid scanners pick it up. Not trying to be gross... but if they are trying to be so thorough while irradiating people with a walk in microwave, might as well strip search next. I am thankful I haven't been on a plane since the 80's when only smoking on board was a concern.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
What has been said is that because the levels of radiation produced by the machines is so low, it would be impossible to isolate the machines as the cause of any particular case of cancer.


I agree these machines probably did not cause anyone cancer.

My point is that you can't be certain because we don't really know their effect.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I would like to see some TSA agents come forward and protest the policies that are pissing off so many people. That would be a good start.
If they are just following orders, that is no excuse. It is never a good excuse.
The people that are doing these things apparently see no harm, they are brainwashed. We the people have to do more to put some sanity and common sense into their apparently small minds.
If they are trained not to think, not to interact with a human...like a human, then they are not human, and they should not be treated as such.
Going forward, into this trap that has been laid, requires a plan from each of us.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
My God...what have I done?




In reality though, I don't believe in Karma. There are simply too many evil people in the world for Karma to exist.
I hope none of the TSA agents get cancer. Frequent flyers are already getting an elevated dose of radiation simply due to the nature of flight. Many of these people may already have cancer that is undetected. Can they afford to be exposed to any more than necessary? My son in law had leukemia and is in remission. he may have to fly due to his job, should he trust the government and ignore the potential danger from radiation from the scanners?
I wouldn't.
edit on 6/29/2011 by Sparky63 because: toned it down a bit.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Browse > Conferences> Particle Accelerator Conferenc ...
Investigation of X-Ray Harmonics of the Polarized Inverse Compton Scattering Experiment at UCLA
An Inverse Compton Scattering (ICS) experiment, which will investigate nonlinear properties of scattering utilizing a terawatt CO2laser system with various polarizations, is ongoing at the UCLA Neptune Laboratory. When the normalized amplitude of the incident laser's vector potential a0is larger than unity the scattering occurs in the nonlinear region; therefore, higher harmonics are also produced.

ieeexplore.ieee.org...

I wonder about the harmonics produced by the backscatter machines....

ya never know what frequencies higher and lower they produce as well do we?
but as we saw earlier the higher frequencies just might produce unzipping of DNA
EVEN at LOW POWER

just sayin
they wouldn't tell us if they did
thats for sure.



edit on 30-6-2011 by Danbones because: added link

edit on 30-6-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 

The backscatter machines are using high powered CO2 lasers and different polarizations to produce x-rays?
Interesting, seems pretty inefficient. I thought they used ordinary x-ray tubes.

You can read the whole paper here:
pbpl.physics.ucla.edu...
edit on 6/30/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

There are two types of AIT machine commercially available, using either ionising or non-ionising radiation. The former involves backscatter X-rays and the latter involves tera-hertz electromagnetic radiation (which includes `millimetre wave' technologies).
Here are some simple facts:-

www.unitetheunion.org...

Phage didn't you say they werent using tera hertz scanners back there somewhere?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Danbones
 

The backscatter machines are using high powered CO2 lasers and different polarizations to produce x-rays?
Interesting, seems pretty inefficient. I thought they used ordinary x-ray tubes.

You can read the whole paper here:
pbpl.physics.ucla.edu...
edit on 6/30/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I was refering to the fact that they haven't considered harmonics which occur commonly with wave generation and local resononances



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Danbones
 

You are misreading the statistic. It does not say that 10% of children exposed got cancer. It says that up to 10% of childhood cancers were caused by radiation. In 1977 (the year of the statistic) the childhood cancer rate in children (1-14) was 11.5 per 100,000. 10% of that is 1.1 per 100,000. In 1977 that would be 37 of the children born that year. That is not a lot of people.
www.cancer.gov...

TSA uses two types of scanners. One uses millimeter waves, the other x-rays. What is being discussed here is the x-ray backscatter machines (ionizing radiation).

The millimeter wave scanners operate at microwave frequencies, non-ionizing radiation. Gigahertz, not terahertz. Like a cell phone.


edit on 6/28/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



yeah you did



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
im all about solutions
here is one
tera hertz unzipping preventation at its finerest!

Protect growing boys
Fun assorted (blue, gray, Green) Camouflage colors
Non-toxic lead free shield glows in the dark
Easy care durable machine washable
Blocks/diminish T-Wave/Tera hertz radiation from remote strip cameras
Blocks/diminish X-ray radiation from back scatter x-ray machines.
Insures privacy of underage body scanner images
Made in USA

www.rockyflatsgear.com...

and
It helps solve the ecomomoic crisis due to the death of tourism in the good ol US of A...
restoring american made...
Nudism is like good at the beach..where it is voluntary..
Europeans like it like that ( its a personal choice not a fascist directive )
I guess.
who knew..

its all mute now anyway
with the flooded reactors and the fukushima jet steam fallout
and th contaminated flotsam from japan and the missouri river too I guess



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 




Phage didn't you say they werent using tera hertz scanners back there somewhere?

Yes, I did say that. Unite (the labor union) is incorrect, big surprise.

Millimeter or GHz scanners are often wrongly cited as emitting terahertz radiation. Currently adopted scanners operate in the millimeter or sub terahertz band. The use of terahertz radiation (between 1 and 10 THz) shows promise but is currently not commercially available for body scanning.

en.wikipedia.org...

1.0 THz = 1000 GHz
A wavelength of one millimeter is equal to a frequency of 299.79 GHz. Terahertz radiation has a wavelength of less than 0.35 millimeter. The body scanners do not use submillimeter wavelengths. They do not use terahertz radiation.

edit on 6/30/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones

I was refering to the fact that they haven't considered harmonics which occur commonly with wave generation and local resononances

And you know this, how?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Your medical records?
Come on Phage.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Once Again Unite The Union Gets The Facts Wrong Regarding The British Airways Strike/

boardingarea.com...

OK Phage I'll give you that one
it looks like they are as full of it as the OS of 911

and you are probably right the x ray machines are safe...
resonances...
As a sound man..It has been my experience sometimes they just show up because of the mathematical relationships the principle waveforms encounter on their way from emission to dissipation.

but considering we have all these reactors getting flooded and and all that jazz
it may not really matter.. It is said there are NO safe LEVELS of radiation

so I will concede this debate


the good point
there aren't many arguements left here that you haven't tackled well

one last thing before I go...


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 30, 2005

All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer.


Washington, DC July 30, 2005 The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation—that even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells.

Among the reports conclusions are:

There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure.

www.nirs.org...


edit on 1-7-2011 by Danbones because: added last point and quote

edit on 1-7-2011 by Danbones because: edired personal contact info out of quote its at the link

edit on 1-7-2011 by Danbones because: quote box spelling

edit on 1-7-2011 by Danbones because: spelling aaargggh haha



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

The BEIR VII risk numbers indicate that about 1 in 100 members of the public would get cancer if exposed to 100 millirads (1milliGray) per year for a 70-year lifetime. [1] This is essentially the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's allowable radiation dose for members of the public.

In addition, 1 in about 5 workers [2] would get cancer if exposed to the legally allowable occupational doses [3] over their 50 years in the workforce. These risks are much higher than permitted for other carcinogens.

Specifically, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows members of the public to get 100 millirems or mr (1 milliSievert or mSv) per year of radiation in addition to background. The BEIR VII report (page 500, Table 12-9) estimates that this level will result in approximately 1 (1.142) cancer in every 100 people exposed at 100 mr/yr which includes 1 fatal cancer in every 175 people so exposed (5.7 in 1000).[4]

The risk of getting cancer from radiation (in BEIR VII) is increased by about a third from current government risk figures (FGR13): BEIR VII estimates that 11.42 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem (1,000 millirems or 10 mSv). The US Environmental Protection Agency Federal Guidance Report 13 estimates that 8.46 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem.


www.nirs.org...

so...does this apply to this OP?



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join