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.


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

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 04:00 PM
Not really being a scientist..
but we know that)
does this apply to the subject at hand?

In a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, EPIC has just obtained documents concerning the radiation risks of TSA's airport body scanner program. The documents include agency emails, radiation studies, memoranda of agreement concerning radiation testing programs, and results of some radiation tests. One document set reveals that even after TSA employees identified cancer clusters possibly linked to radiation exposure, the agency failed to issue employees dosimeters - safety devices that could assess the level of radiation exposure. Another document indicates that the DHS mischaracterized the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, stating that NIST "affirmed the safety" of full body scanners. The documents obtained by EPIC reveal that NIST disputed that characterization and stated that the Institute did not, in fact, test the devices. ....

.....Also, a Johns Hopkins University study revealed that radiation zones around body scanners could exceed the "General Public Dose Limit." For more information, see EPIC: EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security - Full Body Scanner Radiation Risks and EPIC: EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program).
edit on 1-7-2011 by Danbones because: added to quote

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 06:25 PM
Here is a little more material on the Johns Hopkins study:

Unlike other x-ray machines, doctors say most of the radiation is concentrated on the skin and underlying tissue. It's a design that enables the machines to see what's hiding under clothing. It's a technique that some doctors say could increase the risk of skin cancer, particularly with frequent fliers....

...A spokesperson with Johns Hopkins University told WFTV Monday their report only states the facts and does not offer up conclusions on the threat of skin cancer. However, one Johns Hopkins doctor is quoted as saying, "Statistically, someone is going to get skin cancer from these x-rays."...

...Another researcher said a type of cancer called basal cell carcinoma is the most likely concern, but a Food and Drug Administration review found the scanners pose no health threat.

That would be the same FDA that said aspartame is safe...and ephedra is not

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 07:44 PM

The internal emails between NIST and the DHS show how NIST was “a little concerned” by a USA Today article published November 15, 2010, in which Janet Napolitano, the head of DHS, claimed that NIST had “affirmed the safety” of the airport scanners.

from the usa today email

Nist does not do product testing
Nist did not test AIT machines for product safety
Nist measured the dose from a single machine and compared it against the standard

He said he is not looking for corrections, just doesn't want any mischarachterization of the work continued. I attached a fact sheet that they cleared on from a while ago

here is an email about nist saying to USA today that they didn't really test much of anything for safety

which napolitano seems to have said they did
and it was all safe
so why would napolitano lie?
edit on 1-7-2011 by Danbones because: edit to show fro PDF and clarify content

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

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:21 PM

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)
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:

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

Interesting points.

Well I have not heard of any problems with other groups of Airport workers, although obviously they could have covered it up if there was some type of wide-ranging issue.

Without any other groups of workers getting diagnosed like this, what possibly could be the cause?

It would have to be isolated to the particular work station area since we do not have pilots, janitors, flight controllers, airport shop workers, etc, coming forward with such information.

I admit it is quite confusing and that it seems we are missing far too much data to actually know what's going on here.

You make a good point about the time it takes for cancer to form under these conditions. It would take years to be noticeable.

Maybe they have had something like this for years and we never realized? However the TSA hasn't exactly existed for very long, it's a really new agency.

Hmmm, it could be a coincidence, although it seems rather unlikely.

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:27 PM
reply to post by Danbones

Sadly you really don't need testing to prove it's a danger. That is just mere formality.

All you need to know is how the machine works.

Once you realize that, you immediately realize that those exposed to this machine are taking a big risk.

Ionizing radiation causes complex molecules to collapse. What more is there needed to know?

If you want to lower the dosage to a "safe" level, you won't have a scanner anymore. It probably won't be strong enough to work.

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 07:21 AM
reply to post by muzzleflash

well Muzzleflash:
I'm wondering if they are safe
why would Naplitano LIE
about the testing ?

edit on 2-7-2011 by Danbones because: undoing the "the"

edit on 2-7-2011 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 08:19 AM
I wonder if airport scanners might be causing cancer maybe it is these thinggys?
may be Phage will know:

Check Your Bags: CT Scanners
The first security check that your checked bags go through depends on the airport. In the United States, most major airports have a computer tomography (CT) scanner. A CT scanner is a hollow tube that surrounds your bag. The X-ray mechanism revolves slowly around it, bombarding it with X-rays and recording the resulting data. The CT scanner uses all of this data to create a very detailed tomogram (slice) of the bag. The scanner is able to calculate the mass and density of individual objects in your bag based on this tomogram. If an object's mass/density falls within the range of a dangerous material, the CT scanner warns the operator of a potential hazardous object.

haven't they been scanning luggage with these leaky things or similar for years...?

Heimann Systems was founded in 1946 by Prof. Dr. Walter Heimann, one of television technology's early pioneers.

In the early 1970s Heimann diversified into markets for security technology. Completely new product lines were developed, among them X-ray inspection units for baggage screening which became an international requirement in the 70s & early 80s when aircraft hijacking became a global menace.

In response to the requirements of the 1990s, systems were developed for truck and container inspection and for the automatic detection of explosives in baggage.

Today more than 65,000 Smiths Heimann X-ray inspection systems have been supplied to more than 150 countries, screening mail, baggage, merchandise, containers and trucks. Heimann regularly exports around 80% of its products and earned a worldwide reputation for product quality, which has its roots in the in-house development department, with experienced scientists and engineers covering the entire R&D spectrum, from basic development through to the integration of complex systems.

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 11:19 AM
reply to post by Argyll

I would blame Islam or the CIA, Historically speaking (for the most part anyway)the people who blow up airplanes are Muslims and CIA agents dressed as Muslims.
edit on 04/28/2011 by 4Starlight2Decay0 because: forgot my parenthesis!

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 06:56 PM
reply to post by 4Starlight2Decay0

well there may be something to what you say
entebbe may have been faked for example
and the underwear bomber certainly was

and we have Napolitano lying about the testing and safety of the scanners (above)


U.K. file on Entebbe contains claim that Israel behind hijacking
Unnamed contact cited in newly released documents as saying Israel worked with PFLP

State Department Admits: Detroit Christmas Bomber Was Deliberately Allowed to Keep US Entry Visa, Board His Flight

posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 04:40 PM
I was just listening to Ron Paul on Alex Jones sunday show and he said they have been using radiation body scanners at Logan Airport and a couple others for over seven years...

this is at odds with the "we haven't been ussing the scanners long enough" arguement...
is this true that some airports have been testing them for far longer then we have just been told?

I mean a Doctor at Columbia university ( see below) thats not an amature
and with Napolitano caught lying and all.....

the high rates of cancer seem to correlate with the scanners according to this article:

Transportation Security Administration workers in Boston, Puerto Rico, and Portland have reported elevated rates of cancer, strokes, and heart disease among employees whose job it is to ogle travelers' naked bodies as they pass through full-body scanners. Does that mean the universally loathed machines are actually causing the deadly diseases? And are frequent flyers equally at risk of getting sick? Perhaps, but the sad part is the TSA doesn't seem to care much either way.

News of the health concerns broke when the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a public-interest research center headquartered in Washington, D.C., released a cache of documents they obtained in response to a records request under the Freedom of Information Act.

EPIC learned that TSA employees at Boston's Logan International Airport reported a suspected "cancer cluster" to their supervisors, only to have the higher-ups downplay the problem and refuse their request for dosimeters, badges that monitor radiation exposure and are routinely used in other industries where workers come in contact with X-rays and other potentially harmful forms of radiation.

"The Department, rather than acting on it or explaining its position, seems to have just dismissed it," EPIC's Marc Rotenburg told reporters earlier this week. "I don't think that's the way most other agencies would have acted in a similar situation if they were confronted with that question."

In response, TSA issued an official statement, saying they have "implemented stringent safety protocols to ensure that technology used at airports to screen people and property is safe for all passengers, as well as the TSA workforce." TSA also said the body scanners are "regularly tested to ensure the radiation emitted falls within the national safety standards."

But Milly Rodriguez, an occupational health and safety specialist for the American Federation of Government Employees (the TSA union), says that the government has been less than forthright when it comes to the potential health risks of the scanners.

"There's no independent studies right now that prove these things are safe," says Rodriguez, who testified before Congress last year on the same issue. "We've said to TSA, 'If there's all this info that you have that can show people than they're not at risk, that the levels are that low, why not share that information?' It has given employees the idea that if they're not given the information, there must be something to hide."

Locally, Ed Terry, the Pacific Northwest organizer for the TSA employee union, tells Seattle Weekly that workers at Portland International Airport have reported elevated rates of illness among people who spend their days in close proximity to the body scanners.

"They were concerned because of the high rate of employee cancer," Terry says. "But there's no data to back that up. Right now it's just employee concerns because so many of their co-workers had been going out with cancer."

Terry didn't know if TSA employees at SeaTac were similarly spooked. But, according to various experts who have analyzed the body scanners' radiation risks, they probably ought to at least be a little wary.

Reports from Johns Hopkins University and the National Institute of Standards and Technology--both of which were "publicly characterized" by TSA, according to EPIC--found that the radiation from the scanners could exceed the "general public dose limit." Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at the Johns Hopkins school of medicine went so far as to say that, "statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays."

Another study, conducted last year by Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University's center for radiological research, found that the scanners are likely to lead to an increase in a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma, which affects the head and neck, according to a report from the website Info Wars, which has doggedly covered the TSA scanner issue."

edit on 3-7-2011 by Danbones because: fixed link

posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:22 PM
here is another article which indicates the scanners have been operational in some places for "a few years"

It took only a few years for the consequences of exposure to airport scanner radiation to come out. TSA airport scanner operators and other personnel discovered what are called clusters of cancer in their bodies after only a decade or so of working with these machines. The discovery of this information was done after the Electronic Privacy Information Center obtained documents that show how TSA workers got sick with cancer, heart disease and stroke

makes a person wonder if they are safe why the subterfuge(s)?

posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 10:05 PM

Big Sis Janet Napolitano Lies

here is big sis lying about other aspects of the porno scanners..
so if she lied about the kiddy porn departement
and she is demonstartably dishonest about the safety testing

why would she be so paranoid of the truth?
edit on 3-7-2011 by Danbones because: added title of youtube vid

posted on Jul, 4 2011 @ 08:52 AM
Well considering the attitude of most TSA agents("Ive got the power") all Im saying is it couldt happen to a bunch of nicer people....fry you bastar*s...from the inside out

posted on Jul, 5 2011 @ 04:05 PM
reply to post by Homedawg

ya know
there may a few that think they are doing the right thing
look at the oilspill cleaners
and the first responders from the clean up crew from 911
LIED to and very much sick and dying ...
but certainly lied to about sfety

posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 05:16 PM
I guess maybe it's true :
There are NO safe limits

Nuclear plant workers developed cancer despite lower radiation exposure than legal limit

...Of 10 nuclear power plant workers who have developed cancer and received workers' compensation in the past, nine had been exposed to less than 100 millisieverts of radiation, it has been learned.

posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 05:31 PM
reply to post by Danbones

I had cancer and I had never been exposed to anything but background radiation.

Not all cancer is caused by radiation. There are other environmental as well as genetic causes. When low exposure levels are involved it's not possible to pin the cause on it. That's why workers' compensation claims are not supported when exposure levels are low, there is no way to determine the actual cause.

edit on 7/30/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 02:43 AM

Originally posted by Phage
Not all cancer is caused by radiation. There are other environmental as well as genetic causes.

What environmental causes could there be? Nothing in nature? All man made and likely electrical?

The only argument against genetics is that cancer is a relatively recent condition. I've seen no evidence of the same "wasting away" from pre 20-th century. No they didn't have our medical geewhiz, but they knew enough to have identified it.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in