damned if you do, damned if you dont let the TSA either fondle you and the kids ala manual pat-downs or cook the family in a microwave 5G oven in the prisoner 'hands up don't fry' pose, but if you talk frankly with your kids and give them a 'dont touch me there' rape whistle to get through TSA checkpoints. which is less scarring? its a 50/50 coin toss. go to the TSA with the metal detector wand, that's is likely our best bet (until the europeans ban that too). note: europe banned these body scanners in 2011.
takeaway:
- investigative report in 2011 by ProPublica and PBS NewsHour concluded that the X-ray scanners, then still in use, could cause cancer in 6 to 100 U.S. airline passengers every year, and that the European Union banned those machines because of health concerns.
Anxiety: Showdown at the Airport Body Scanner - The New York Times
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/.../showdown-at-the-airport-body-scanner...
May 25, 2013 - In these cases I look directly into the eyes of the officer and explain that I ... T.S.A.officers do not like to hear about the Logan cancer cluster.
Media Ignores Growing Number of Cases of Cancer Among TSA Body ...
https://realfarmacy.com/media-ignores-growing-number-of-cases-of-cancer-among-ts...
Union representatives in Boston have cited rising cancer cases (PDF) in the TSA's workforce there and asked the agency to allow its members to wear radiation ...How Safe is an Airport Full Body Scanner? - The Truth About Cancer
https://thetruthaboutcancer.com › Cancer Causes
Mar 16, 2016 - The TSA claimed the amount of low-intensity radiation emitted by these ..... I would like to know if there are other cases like mine — where ...
Milliwaves (5G technology) used in airport scanners linked to cancers
www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/.../2017-08-08a-milliwaves-5g-technology-used-in-airp...
Aug 8, 2017 - www.trinfinity8.com/tag/tsa-cancer-rates/. 19 Aug 2015 … TSA cancer rates. You are … Los Alamos Study Finds Airport Scanners Alter DNA …
U.S. Government Glossed Over Cancer Concerns As It Rolled ...
https://www.propublica.org/.../u.s.-government-glossed-over-cancer-concerns-as-it-rol...
Nov 1, 2011 - The TSA has designated the scanners for "primary" screening: Officers will direct ... By charting exposure levels and cancer cases, researchers ...
https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/airport-full-body-scanner/
How Safe is an Airport Full Body Scanner?
March 16, 2016
Article Summary
- The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) claims their "advanced imaging technology" devices are just as safe as traditional metal detectors. Research shows this isn't the case and that the doses of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the TSA's millimeter wave technology machines can cause cancer.
- Millimeter wave technology is used in the treatment of skin cancer (due to its known skin-heating properties), which means it undeniably has an effect on human cells.
- Like all other forms of radiation, millimeter waves don't differentiate between healthy cells and malignant cells. In the case of concentrated radiation blasts from millimeter wave body scanners, it means every cell on the surface of your body is targeted.
- A World Health Organization (WHO) report revealed that millimeter waves not only heat the skin but also damage eyesight and cause cancer − particularly skin cancer.
- By choosing a manual pat-down, air travelers can minimize their radiation exposure and thus minimize the risk of developing cancer.
"Step onto the body scanner platform and place your hands in the air; it's for your safety and security."
If you've traveled through a U.S. airport within the past few years, you've probably had a government screener say something along these lines. Every day travelers are herded through the checkpoint corrals into one of these anti-terrorism full body scanners. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) claims these so-called "advanced imaging technology" devices are just as safe as traditional metal detectors. But is this really true?
When they were first rolled out post-911, backscatter X-ray tunnels quickly became standard fare at commercial aviation facilities nationwide. The TSA claimed the amount of low-intensity radiation emitted by these machines was safe, releasing less than 10 microREMs of radiation per screening. This is an amount equivalent to what an airplane passenger might incur after just two or three minutes of flying at cruising altitude.
This claim was later debunked. It was revealed that concentrated radiation blasted directly at a person's body is much more harmful than the random patterns of ionizing radiation sent in all directions from the cosmos and by an airplane's navigational equipment during flight. Not long after these facts came to light, the TSA came up with a different type of screening technology that it said was safer − the millimeter wave machine.
According to the TSA's Frequently Asked Questions page, millimeter wave imaging technology "uses harmless electromagnetic waves to detect potential threats, which are highlighted on a generic outline of a person appearing on a monitor attached to the unit. If no anomalies are detected, an 'OK' appears on the screen with no outline."
It all seems simple enough, right? Unfortunately, this explanation by the TSA is trite at best, and deliberately misleading at worst. A closer look into millimeter wave technology and the ways in which it affects the human body during an average TSA screening reveals a truth that the government doesn't want you to know. The doses of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the TSA's millimeter wave technology machines can cause cancer.
What's Wrong With Millimeter Wave Radiation?
The fact that millimeter wave technology is used in the treatment of skin cancer (due to its known skin-heating properties), means it undeniably has an effect on human cells. This heating is a direct result of microwave frequencies entering the skin and inducing a certain level of atomic motion within the cellular structure. This is really just a fancy way of saying that millimeter wave radiation microwaves your skin.
Just how much this millimeter wave radiation microwaves your skin is where push comes to shove. But most scientists are in agreement that any amount of radiation poses at least some level of risk. The public deserves to know both this level of risk and what they can do to minimize or eliminate it.
Though not ionizing in nature, millimeter wave radiation is still potentially damaging to the human body. A 2012 paper published in the journal Radiation Research admits that the safety of millimeter wave body scanners is "difficult-to-impossible to prove using publicly accessible data." This means that TSA claims of negligible risk associated with their use represent the opinion of the TSA, and not scientific fact.
What we do know is that millimeter waves, which exist in the 30-300 GHz range, cause "multiple biological effects," according to another study published the same year in the International Journal of Oncology. Though this study looked specifically at millimeter wave radiation in the context of cancer treatment, the morphological effects demonstrated reveal that this supposedly "safe" form of radiation causes cellular change that inhibit cellular growth.
Like all other forms of radiation, millimeter waves don't differentiate between healthy cells and malignant cells. Whatever cells they're targeted at are the cells they destroy. In the case of concentrated radiation blasts from millimeter wave body scanners, it means every cell on the surface of your body.
How Millimeter Waves From a Full Body Scanner May Cause Cancer
What this all means is that millimeter wave body scanners act as giant microwaves that literally heat travelers' bodies at the cellular level using ultra-high frequencies not normally found in nature. Microwave ovens operate at nearly the same frequencies as these machines. They induce cellular vibrations strong enough to generate heat in food, so imagine what it's doing to your skin.
But these are just minor thermal effects, you might be thinking, since an airport body scan only lasts a mere two seconds or so as opposed to 30 seconds to a minute to warm a bowl of soup in a microwave oven. But the principle is still the same, especially when taking into account repeated exposures.
And you also have to consider the non-thermal effects of millimeter wave radiation, which disrupt cellular communication in ways that science has yet to fully delineate. The United States Air Force conducted its own research into ultra-high frequency, non-ionizing radiation as a potential weapons technology. Interestingly, in the process they uncovered evidence that the non-thermal activity of millimeter wave radiation directly interferes with the body's ability to protect and heal itself.
A World Health Organization (WHO) report adds even more to the conversation, revealing that millimeter waves not only heat the skin but also damage eyesight and cause cancer, particularly cancer of the skin.
A team of researchers from the Center for Nonlinear Studies at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico recognized the lack of scientific research into this questionable technology. They decided to investigate for themselves how high-frequency terahertz (THz) waves, like the kind emitted from the TSA's millimeter wave full body scanners, affect human DNA. They learned that:
"THz waves … unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication."
Skip the Full Body Scanner and Opt for a Pat Down
Recognizing these inherent dangers, the best thing air travelers can do is opt out of the TSA screening process when presented with a body scanner rather than a traditional metal detector. By choosing a manual pat-down, air travelers can minimize their radiation exposure and thus minimize the risk of developing cancer.
Though physically invasive and admittedly unconstitutional, a physical pat-down is still better than being blasted with a concentrated vortex of electrical and magnetic energy. As it sweeps around your body, the full body scanner exposes each square centimeter of your body to about 0.013 milliwatts of radiation. Collectively, this is enough to induce gene mutations, nerve damage, sterility, and even cancer.
"Low levels (below 10 mW/cm2) of NIR (non-ionizing radiation) have been found to produce many adverse health effects in animals including temporary sterility, genetic changes, and changes in the transmission of nerve impulses," explains the Foundation for Advancement in Cancer Therapy (FACT).
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found preliminary evidence that these low levels may affect the immune system, which means the body may be less able to fight off disease.
2017-08-08(A) MILLIWAVES (5G TECHNOLOGY) USED IN AIRPORT SCANNERS LINKED TO CANCERS
[Bell Labs – Breast & Skin Cancer – Doctor Joseph M. Mercola – EMR – Eyesight – Free Viewing of TBYP Take Back Your Power – Health – Microcells / Small Cells – Military's Active Denial Weapon – Millimeter Waves Radiation – Pilots – Safe Manual Pat-down for Air Travelers – Security – Smart Meters Vulnerable to Hacking – TSA Transportation Security Administration – WHO – Wireless Devices | USA] & (video)
1) Airport scanners use milliwaves, apparently similar to those that will be used by microcells using 5G technology.
Article Summary
- The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) claims their "advanced imaging technology" devices are just as safe as traditional metal detectors. Research shows this isn't the case and that the doses of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the TSA's millimeter wave technology machines can cause cancer.
- Millimeter wave technology is used in the treatment of skin cancer (due to its known skin-heating properties), which means it undeniably has an effect on human cells.
- Like all other forms of radiation, millimeter waves don't differentiate between healthy cells and malignant cells. In the case of concentrated radiation blasts from millimeter wave body scanners, it means every cell on the surface of your body is targeted.
- A World Health Organization (WHO) report revealed that millimeter waves not only heat the skin but also damage eyesight and cause cancer − particularly skin cancer.
- By choosing a manual pat-down, air travelers can minimize their radiation exposure and thus minimize the risk of developing cancer.
And people working with the airport scanners are experiencing higher levels of cancers and cancer clusters.
1. Did Airport Scanners Give Boston TSA Agents Cancer?
30 Jun 2011 … Although TSA union reps at Boston's Logan Airport asked that the … worry about the risk of cancer associated with scanner-radiation exposure
2. TSA cancer rates
19 Aug 2015 … TSA cancer rates. You are … Los Alamos Study Finds Airport Scanners Alter DNA … These millimeter wave technologies are designed to bombard innocent travelers with high frequency scanner-600×450 ..
3. Can TSA's scans give you cancer? Is government covering up…
28 June 2011 … Can TSA's scanning machines give you cancer? … Boston's Logan airport have already discovered a 'cluster' of cancer cases among TSA workers there…
4. Media Ignores Growing Number of Cases of Cancer Among TSA…
4 Jul 2011 … Media Ignores Growing Number of Cases of Cancer Among TSA Body … of Homeland Security failed to properly evaluate the level of risk from airport body scanners …
5. TSA Airport Scanner FAQ – The Truth About TSA Scanners
18 Nov 2010 … What's all this about the government trying to give us cancer and … skin cancer rates for pilots were between 10 and 25 times higher than that of …
6. Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners…
2 Dec 2013 … Threats were inserted at low or high prevalence rates. … These data were collected at the TSA training facility at Chelsea, Massachusetts. ….. workflow of a breast cancer screening practice, we found that miss-error rates at low …
7. Airport Full Body Screening: What is the Risk?
To estimate the risk of these scans we must rely on … higher dose studies, yet extrapolation of cancer risks from high dose to … The TSA asserts that the machines have been …
IC wants 24, 28 and 38 GHz Bands
"The military's Active Denial weapon uses millimeter wave technology to create an intense burning sensation on the skin's surface using a 95 GHz (3.2mm wavelength) beam. But the TSA tells us not to worry about their millimeter waves because, "Millimeter wave technology bounces harmless electromagnetic waves off the body to create the same generic image for all passengers." This is completely inaccurate because the nature of millimeter waves is that our bodies and water are excellent absorbers of these waves.
Millimeter waves do penetrate and absorb into our skin.
At the microwave technology center in Malaysia, health subjects were exposed to microwave radiation between 20 – 38 GHz, the range in which the TSA scanners operate. They found that millimeter waves penetrated the subject's skin at depths of between 1.05 mm at 20 GHz to 0.78 mm at 38 GHz. This is enough to penetrate below the epidermal layer of the skin."
2) In addition to health concerns, smartmeters and 5G technology are extremely vulnerable to hacking. Really, any wireless device is much more vulnerable than a hard wired device.
According to Bell Labs, the smart meter is actually the weakest element in the data security system used by utility companies. Security systems designed to prevent unauthorized use of smart meters would be very expensive, and utility companies do not have the resources to apply high security control over hundreds of millions of smart meters. [4]
This means that the likelihood of smart meters being hijacked and adapted for harmful purposes without utility company cooperation is high. Smart meters are definitely not secure air-gapped devices.
Smart meters are designed to send and receive microwave signals and they perform that function well. If they can receive transmissions from the utility company and send responses, then they also could receive and respond to signals from unauthorized sources.
3) For those who haven't seen "Take Back Your Power", it is available online for free thru August 11, 2017 through Dr. Mercola.
Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice — it is conformity. ~Rollo May
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/showdown-at-the-airport-body-scanner/Showdown at the Airport Body Scanner
MAY 25, 2013
MAY 25, 2013
I have never walked through an airport body scanner — or, as I think of it, "the cancer machine." In the years since these radiation chambers began appearing in airports across the United States, I have developed a variety of tricks to avoid submitting myself to them.
At checkpoints that use a combination of cancer machines and traditional metal detectors, it is just a matter of choosing the right queue. Often, however, a single line feeds into both machines, making the Transportation Security Administration officer responsible for directing passengers to one or the other. Since the officer gives priority to the cancer machine, relatively few passengers end up walking through the metal detector.
Confronted with this situation, I create delays, futzing with my shoes or laptop, until the line has bottlenecked at the cancer machine. At that point I walk confidently — or as confidently as one can possibly walk without wearing shoes — to the metal detector, at which point the officer usually waves me through.
Sometimes, however, there is no escape. In these cases I look directly into the eyes of the officer and explain that I refuse to go through "that machine," or "that radiation machine," or "that hateful cancer machine." The official term for this is "opting out," a phrase that suggests a reluctance to honor a simple, reasonable request. The suggestion is that the unwilling passenger is the unreasonable one. But I don't think the United States government's insistence on using these machines is reasonable. And if you think I'm crazy, then I have one thing to say to you: You're crazy.
There have been various civilian protests against the X-ray machines, but most of them were inspired by concerns over privacy; the scanners, after all, showed agents what we look like naked.
In response, the Department of Homeland Security announced several months ago that it had terminated its contract with the X-ray scanners' manufacturer — a company that actually calls itself Rapiscan (pronounced, I originally assumed, with a long "a") — because it did not meet a deadline to deliver a less revealing technology. The Rapiscan machines have recently been replaced with scanners made by another company, which produce less graphic images. They also employ millimeter waves, which produce a significantly lower amount of radiation than X-rays. But those lower doses may be temporary. In October the T.S.A. signed a contract, potentially worth $245 million, with a third company that supplies a variety of "X-ray detection solutions." It shouldn't be too long before their machines begin appearing in airports.
The T.S.A. assures us that neither the X-ray scanners nor the millimeter wave machines pose a health risk. But frankly I'd prefer to avoid being irradiated, even a little bit.
T.S.A. officers seem to take it personally when I opt out. They sigh, they roll their eyes, they snort derisively. I always have the impression that, at some point in their training, they have been told that passengers who opt out are foolish and selfish, because that is how I tend to be treated — with disgust.
After my refusal, the officer yells, "Male assist!" But nobody ever seems to hear him. I am ordered to stand to one side and wait, sometimes for as long as 10 minutes, for a second officer to appear. This person usually has been standing within five feet of me the entire time, eyeing me with irritation. Sometimes the frisker is even the original officer himself.
Once, running late, I expressed concern to an officer that I might miss my flight. It was my own fault, he replied, adding that, in the future, if I plan on opting out, I should arrive at the airport three hours early.
When the frisking officer finally appears, he rolls on a pair of latex gloves (a particularly ominous gesture, that) and leads me to a designated frisking area, which is in full sight of those passing through the security gate. I am offered the option of enduring my rubdown in private. I always refuse: Civil disobedience is worth nothing if it's not done in public.
The frisk is needlessly, superfluously sensual. The officer runs his hands slowly over every inch of my clothed body. (Another trick: whenever I go to an airport, I make sure to wear a sleeveless undershirt and, if possible, shorts, so as to reduce the extent of the frisk.) The officer slides his hands over my chest and my back, then up the inseam of each leg — all the way — and back down. Recently, at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson airport, a particularly truculent officer repeated this part of the frisk twice, with unusual vigor.
"Two times?" I asked. "Really?"
"That's how we do in Atlanta," said the agent.
Never once has a frisker made eye contact with me while rubbing his hands over my body. I point out that the manufacturers of body scanning machines have spent millions of dollars lobbying Congress to ensure their deployment. Finally, for good measure, I ask my frisker whether he has heard about the "cancer cluster" at Boston's Logan airport. Security workers there have argued that their cancers were caused by standing close to the X-ray baggage scanners.
T.S.A. officers do not like to hear about the Logan cancer cluster. Often officers make a point of questioning my decision to opt out. I have several responses ready for them. I speak loudly so that other passengers in security can hear me. I note that there is a correlation between radiation absorption over a lifetime and cancer rate. Even if the machines release an extremely low amount of radiation, significantly lower than the cosmic radiation one absorbs during the course of any flight, why not avoid it if possible? I tell them that an investigative report in 2011 by ProPublica and PBS NewsHour concluded that the X-ray scanners, then still in use, could cause cancer in 6 to 100 United States airline passengers every year, and that the European Union banned those machines because of health concerns. "Come on," said one officer at New Orleans's Louis Armstrong airport, "You're going to take directions from the Europeans?"
There are studies that show a correlation between extremely low-level, non-ionizing forms of radiation and cancer, just as there are many studies showing the opposite. Many scientists will insist that the low levels of radiation absorbed in airport security checks have no deleterious effect. That's wonderful — I'm happy to concede that my fears are most likely baseless. But as long as there is any question of risk, no matter how small, I will continue to avoid the machines.
Airplane travel is disquieting, as is dealing with peevish federal officers, as is life. Even the slightest gesture of assertiveness can create the pleasing illusion that you control your fate. Besides, I've come to treasure this particular anxiety. It has hardened into something stronger: it has become a habit, a question of principle, a ritual. As I watch fellow passengers walk into the machines, posing with their arms raised over their heads like prison inmates submitting to a strip search, I feel proud of my small act of protest. Then I spread my legs and await my public groping.
Media Ignores Growing Number of Cases of Cancer Among TSA Body Scanner Operators
Public misled on dangers of airport body scanners, watchdog saysJUL 4, 2011
Internal U.S. government documents show that the Transportation Security Administration, under the guidance of the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, deliberately misled the public on the health risks associated with body-scanning devices.
Documents recently obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reportedly revealed that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been caught covering up a growing number of cases of cancer among TSA airport body scanner operators who conduct the screenings in close proximity to the radiation-emitting devices.
Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director of EPIC, told 9News Now "We think that the Department of Homeland Security has not been forthcoming with the public about the true extent of radiation risk with the airport body scanners" after reviewing the documents. EPIC found evidence that the Department of Homeland Security failed to properly evaluate the level of risk from airport body scanners.
Some of the documents indicate that a large number of TSA workers have fallen victim to cancer, strokes and heart disease. TSA workers are concerned that they are being exposed to dangerous levels of radiation while they're conducting the screenings. Union representatives in Boston have cited rising cancer cases (PDF) in the TSA's workforce there and asked the agency to allow its members to wear radiation monitoring devices. To date, the TSA has refused requests for dosimeters.
In response to the safety concerns, the TSA issued the following statement:
"TSA has 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. In addition to regular maintenance, each individual machine that uses X-ray technology is regularly tested to ensure the radiation emitted falls within the national safety standards."
TSA Relied on Tests from Manufacturers
But some scientists are leery of the TSA's science, noting that there is still no supporting data regarding the safety of x-ray airport passenger scanners and the TSA relied on tests performed by the machines' manufacturers, and that important information has been withheld from the public. UC professors suggested a moratorium on using the radiation-emitting devices until conclusive science answers the radiation questions. Secret tests using secret techniques engineered by secret researchers were literally used to deploy devices that invade privacy and are hazardous to your health at public airports.
A Bloomberg Report from February of this year found that passengers should be made aware of the health risks of airport body screenings and governments must explain any decision to expose the public to higher levels of cancer-causing radiation. Bloomberg cited numerous health and governmental agencies that have said that pregnant women and children should not be subject to the devices. Bloomberg noted that Governments must justify the additional risks posed by passengers and should consider other techniques to achieve the same end without using ionizing radiation. A recent letter to President Obama's Science Advisor from several University of CA professors extolled that there is still no rigorous, hard, data for the safety of the body scanning devices, and recommended an immediate moratorium on using the devices until health risks from the radiation could be studied independently.
Despite the growing concerns and cancer cases among TSA airport body scanner operators, the TSA maintains that the machines are safe. Since the questionable implementation of the airport body scanner machines, the TSA has compared radiation received from the body scanner to the radiation from a chest X-ray. Some scientists note that the TSA comparison is "very misleading" since the radiation produced by airport body scanners is much higher than the official estimate. Dr. David Brenner, head of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research, states that his research revealed that radiation produced by the scanners is twenty times higher than the official estimate. Dr. Brenner's concerns were echoed in February 2010 by the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety who warned that the devices increase the risk of cancer and birth defects and should not be used on pregnant women or children. Other scientists have voiced concern over what happens if the machine's break down.
Controversy over the TSA's use of the body scanning devices is growing, but long before the lawsuits and public outcry began to pile up, the TSA was caught using the body scanning devices elsewhere. Other documents reveal that the TSA tested similar technology at a commuter train station in New Jersey and signed contracts for more scanning in public places. The documents obtained by EPIC shed more light on the growing controversy and reveal that the TSA officers and the public have, again, been deliberately misled by the TSA and the DHS, which raises a lot more questions than answers, leading some to contend (PDF) that it's time to recalibrate the nation's approach to homeland security.
Docs Indicate DHS Misled the Public on Dangers Posed by Airport Body Scanners
Concern over the use of airport body scanners and the potential health effects to travelers is also rising. Scientists have argued that the concentration of radiation on the skin of individuals being scanned poses a serious cancer risk that has been largely dismissed. Complicating the obvious radiation problems for travelers is the fact that many of the devices can also reveal quite a bit about your health history. In addition to showing everything on the surface of the skin, the scanners see everything under the skin and close to the skin such as piercings, catheters, colostomy bags, breast implants and prosthetic testicles -- items most people want to keep private and out of the prying eyes of public and government officials.
The documents obtained by EPIC's FOIA reportedly concern radiation risks from scanners include agency emails, internal government documents, radiation studies, memoranda of agreement concerning radiation testing programs and the results of some radiation tests. Newly released internal government documentsreveal that the TSA, specifically Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), deliberately mislead the public on the dangers posed by airport body scanning devices and falsely mischaracterized safety aspects of the devices. The head of the DHS erroneously cited findings from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) -- which never actually tested the devices -- and the John Hopkins School of Medicine to claim the devices were safe. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also claimed the devices were safe and quickly approved the devices for use on millions of U.S. travelers.
One document (PDF) shows that the NIST did not affirm the safety of those devices. The NIST warned that TSA screeners should avoid standing next to full body scanners to avoid exposure to harmful radiation. Other documents (PDF) show that a John Hopkins study actually revealed radiation zones around full body scanners could exceed the "General Public Dose Limit." John Hopkins did not affirm the safety of those devices either.
The TSA, which has deployed at least 500 body scanners to at least 78 airports, is allegedly re-analyzing the radiation levels, and said three months ago that the machines meet all safety standards and would remain in operation despite its "calculation error" in safety studies. TSA workers have voiced concern over the radiation dangers of the airport body scanning devices since last December, claiming they were kept in the dark by the TSA despite multiple requests for more information. Since last December the TSA has refused to release radiation inspection reports to its employees and the public it purportedly protects.
U.S. Government Glossed Over Cancer Concerns As It Rolled Out Airport X-Ray Scanners
A 1998 safety panel was reassured X-ray body scanners wouldn't see widespread use. Today, despite having a safer alternative that the U.S. government deems highly effective, the Transportation Security Administration is marching millions of airline passengers through the scanners, parting ways with European countries that concluded radiation from routine airport use poses a health risk.
A PBS NewsHour story on X-ray body scanners, reported in conjunction with ProPublica, aired on Dec. 1.
On Sept. 23, 1998, a panel of radiation safety experts gathered at a Hilton hotel in Maryland to evaluate a new device that could detect hidden weapons and contraband. The machine, known as the Secure 1000, beamed X-rays at people to see underneath their clothing.
One after another, the experts convened by the Food and Drug Administration raised questions about the machine because it violated a longstanding principle in radiation safety — that humans shouldn't be X-rayed unless there is a medical benefit.
"I think this is really a slippery slope," said Jill Lipoti, who was the director of New Jersey's radiation protection program. The device was already deployed in prisons; what was next, she and others asked — courthouses, schools, airports? "I am concerned … with expanding this type of product for the traveling public," said another panelist, Stanley Savic, the vice president for safety at a large electronics company. "I think that would take this thing to an entirely different level of public health risk."
The machine's inventor, Steven W. Smith, assured the panelists that it was highly unlikely that the device would see widespread use in the near future. At the time, only 20 machines were in operation in the entire country.
"The places I think you are not going to see these in the next five years is lower-security facilities, particularly power plants, embassies, courthouses, airports and governments," Smith said. "I would be extremely surprised in the next five to 10 years if the Secure 1000 is sold to any of these."
Today, the United States has begun marching millions of airline passengers through the X-ray body scanners, parting ways with countries in Europe and elsewhere that have concluded that such widespread use of even low-level radiation poses an unacceptable health risk. The government is rolling out the X-ray scanners despite having a safer alternative that the Transportation Security Administration says is also highly effective.
A ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation of how this decision was made shows that in post-9/11 America, security issues can trump even long-established medical conventions. The final call to deploy the X-ray machines was made not by the FDA, which regulates drugs and medical devices, but by the TSA, an agency whose primary mission is to prevent terrorist attacks.
Research suggests that anywhere from six to 100 U.S. airline passengers each year could get cancer from the machines. Still, the TSA has repeatedly defined the scanners as "safe," glossing over the accepted scientific view that even low doses of ionizing radiation — the kind beamed directly at the body by the X-ray scanners — increase the risk of cancer.
"Even though it's a very small risk, when you expose that number of people, there's a potential for some of them to get cancer," said Kathleen Kaufman, the former radiation management director in Los Angeles County, who brought the prison X-rays to the FDA panel's attention.
About 250 X-ray scanners are currently in U.S. airports, along with 264 body scanners that use a different technology, a form of low-energy radio waves known as millimeter waves.
Robin Kane, the TSA's assistant administrator for security technology, said that no one would get cancer because the amount of radiation the X-ray scanners emit is minute. Having both technologies is important to create competition, he added.
"It's a really, really small amount relative to the security benefit you're going to get," Kane said. "Keeping multiple technologies in play is very worthwhile for the U.S. in getting that cost-effective solution — and being able to increase the capabilities of technology because you keep everyone trying to get the better mousetrap."
Determined to fill a critical hole in its ability to detect explosives, the TSA plans to have one or the other operating at nearly every security lane in America by 2014. The TSA has designated the scanners for "primary" screening: Officers will direct every passenger, including children, to go through either a metal detector or a body scanner, and the passenger's only alternative will be to request a physical pat-down.
How did the United States swing from considering such X-rays taboo to deeming them safe enough to scan millions of people a year?
A new wave of terrorist attacks using explosives concealed on the body, coupled with the scanners' low dose of radiation, certainly convinced many radiation experts that the risk was justified.
But other factors helped the machines gain acceptance.
Because of a regulatory Catch-22, the airport X-ray scanners have escaped the oversight required for X-ray machines used in doctors' offices and hospitals. The reason is that the scanners do not have a medical purpose, so the FDA cannot subject them to the rigorous evaluation it applies to medical devices.
Still, the FDA has limited authority to oversee some non-medical products and can set mandatory safety regulations. But the agency let the scanners fall under voluntary standards set by a nonprofit group heavily influenced by industry.
As for the TSA, it skipped a public comment period required before deploying the scanners. Then, in defending them, it relied on a small body of unpublished research to insist the machines were safe, and ignored contrary opinions from U.S. and European authorities that recommended precautions, especially for pregnant women. Finally, the manufacturer, Rapiscan Systems, unleashed an intense and sophisticated lobbying campaign, ultimately winning large contracts.
Both the FDA and TSA say due diligence has been done to assure the scanners' safety. Rapiscan says it won the contract because its technology is superior at detecting threats. While the TSA says X-ray and millimeter-wave scanners are both effective, Germany decided earlier this year not to roll out millimeter-wave machines after finding they produced too many false positives.
Most of the news coverage on body scanners has focused on privacy, because the machines can produce images showing breasts and buttocks. But the TSA has since installed software to make the images less graphic. While some accounts have raised the specter of radiation, this is the first report to trace the history of the scanners and document the gaps in regulation that allowed them to avoid rigorous safety evaluation.
Little research on cancer risk of body scanners
Humans are constantly exposed to ionizing radiation, a form of energy that has been shown to strip electrons from atoms, damage DNA and mutate genes, potentially leading to cancer. Most radiation comes from radon, a gas produced from naturally decaying elements in the ground. Another major source is cosmic radiation from outer space. Many common items, such as smoke detectors, contain tiny amounts of radioactive material, as do exit signs in schools and office buildings.
As a result, the cancer risk from any one source of radiation is often small. Outside of nuclear accidents, such as that at Japan's Fukushima plant, and medical errors, the health risk comes from cumulative exposure.
In Rapiscan's Secure 1000 scanner, which uses ionizing radiation, a passenger stands between two large blue boxes and is scanned with a pencil X-ray beam that rapidly moves left to right and up and down the body. In the other machine, ProVision, made by defense contractor L-3 Communications, a passenger enters a chamber that looks like a round phone booth and is scanned with millimeter waves, a form of low-energy radio waves, which have not been shown to strip electrons from atoms or cause cancer.
Only a decade ago, many states prohibited X-raying a person for anything other than a medical exam. Even after 9/11, such non-medical X-raying remains taboo in most of the industrialized world. In July, the European Parliament passed a resolution that security "scanners using ionizing radiation should be prohibited" because of health risks. Although the United Kingdom uses the X-ray machine for limited purposes, such as when passengers trigger the metal detector, most developed countries have decided to forgo body scanners altogether or use only the millimeter-wave machines.
While the research on medical X-rays could fill many bookcases, the studies that have been done on the airport X-ray scanners, known as backscatters, fill a file no more than a few inches thick. None of the main studies cited by the TSA has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the gold standard for scientific research.
Those tests show that the Secure 1000 delivers an extremely low dose of radiation, less than 10 microrems. The dose is roughly one-thousandth of a chest X-ray and equivalent to the cosmic radiation received in a few minutes of flying at typical cruising altitude. The TSA has used those measurements to say the machines are "safe."
Most of what researchers know about the long-term health effects of low levels of radiation comes from studies of atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By charting exposure levels and cancer cases, researchers established a linear link that shows the higher the exposure, the greater risk of cancer.
Some scientists argue the danger is exaggerated. They claim low levels stimulate the repair mechanism in cells, meaning that a little radiation might actually be good for the body.
But in the authoritative report on low doses of ionizing radiation, published in 2006, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the research and concluded that the preponderance of research supported the linear link. It found "no compelling evidence" that there is any level of radiation at which the risk of cancer is zero.
Radiation experts say the dose from the backscatter is negligible when compared to naturally occurring background radiation. Speaking to the 1998 FDA panel, Smith, the inventor, compared the increased risk to choosing to visit Denver instead of San Diego or the decision to wear a sweater versus a sport coat.
Using the linear model, even such trivial amounts increase the number of cancer cases. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a radiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, estimated that the backscatters would lead to only six cancers over the course of a lifetime among the approximately 100 million people who fly every year. David Brenner, director of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research, reached a higher number — potentially 100 additional cancers every year.
"Why would we want to put ourselves in this uncertain situation where potentially we're going to have some cancer cases?" Brenner asked. "It makes me think, really, why don't we use millimeter waves when we don't have so much uncertainty?"
But even without the machines, Smith-Bindman said, the same 100 million people would develop 40 million cancers over the course of their lifetimes. In this sea of cancer cases, it would be impossible to identify the patients whose cancer is linked to the backscatter machines.
How the scanners avoided strict oversight
Although they deliberately expose humans to radiation, the airport X-ray scanners are not medical devices, so they are not subject to the stringent regulations required for diagnostic X-ray machines.
If they were, the manufacturer would have to submit clinical data showing safety and effectiveness and be approved through a rigorous process by the FDA. If the machines contained radioactive material, they would have to report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
But because it didn't fit into either category, the Secure 1000 was classified as an electronic product. The FDA does not review or approve the safety of such products. However, manufacturers must provide a brief radiation safety report explaining the dose and notify the agency if any overexposure is discovered. According to the FDA, no such incidents have been reported.
Under its limited oversight of electronic products, the FDA could issue mandatory safety regulations. But it didn't do so, a decision that flows from its history of supervising electronics.
Regulation of electronic products in the United States began after a series of scandals. From the 1930s to the 1950s, it was common for a child to go to a shoe store and stand underneath an X-ray machine known as a fluoroscope to check whether a shoe was the right fit. But after cases arose of a shoe model's leg being amputated and store clerks developing dermatitis from putting their hands in the beam to adjust the shoe, the practice ended.
In 1967, General Electric recalled 90,000 color televisions that had been sold without the proper shielding, potentially exposing viewers to dangerous levels of radiation. The scandal prompted the creation of the federal Bureau of Radiological Health.
"That ultimately led to a lot more aggressive program," said John Villforth, who was the director of the bureau. Over the next decade, the bureau created federal safety standards for televisions, medical X-rays, microwaves, tanning beds, even laser light shows.
But in 1982, the FDA merged the radiological health bureau into its medical-device unit.
"I was concerned that if they were to combine the two centers into one, it would probably mean the ending of the radiation program because the demands for medical-device regulation were becoming increasingly great," said Villforth, who was put in charge of the new Center for Devices and Radiological Health. "As I sort of guessed, the radiation program took a big hit."
The new unit became stretched for scarce resources as it tried to deal with everything from tongue depressors to industrial lasers. The government used to have 500 people examining the safety of electronic products emitting radiation. It now has about 20 people. In fact, the FDA has not set a mandatory safety standard for an electronic product since 1985.
As a result, there is an FDA safety regulation for X-rays scanning baggage — but none for X-rays scanning people at airports.
Meanwhile, scientists began developing backscatter X-rays, in which the waves are reflected off an object to a detector, for the security industry.
The Secure 1000 people scanner was invented by Smith in 1991 and later sold to Rapiscan, then a small security firm based in southern California. The first major customer was the California prison system, which began scanning visitors to prevent drugs and weapons from getting in. But the state pulled the devices in 2001 after a group of inmates' wives filed a class-action lawsuit accusing the prisons of violating their civil liberties.
The U.S. Customs Service deployed backscatter machines for several years but in limited fashion and with strict supervision. Travelers suspected of carrying contraband had to sign a consent form, and Customs policy prohibited the scanning of pregnant women. The agency abandoned them in 2006, not for safety reasons but because smugglers had learned where the machines were installed and adapted their methods to avoid them, said Rick Whitman, the radiation safety officer for Customs until 2008.
Yet, even this limited application of X-ray scanning for security dismayed radiation safety experts. In 1999, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, a nongovernmental organization, passed a resolution recommending that such screening be stopped immediately.
The backscatter machines had also caught the attention of the 1998 FDA advisory panel, which recommended that the FDA establish government safety regulations for people scanners. Instead, the FDA decided to go with a voluntary standard set by a trade group largely comprising manufacturers and government agencies that wanted to use the machines.
"Establishing a mandatory standard takes an enormous amount of resources and could take a decade to publish," said Dan Kassiday, a longtime radiation safety engineer at the FDA.
In addition, since the mid-1990s, Congress has directed federal safety agencies to use industry standards wherever possible instead of creating their own.
The FDA delegated the task of establishing the voluntary standards to the American National Standards Institute. A private nonprofit that sets standards for many industries, ANSI convened a committee of the Health Physics Society, a trade group of radiation safety specialists. It was made up of 15 people, including six representatives of manufacturers of X-ray body scanners and five from U.S. Customs and the California prison system. There were few government regulators and no independent scientists.
In contrast, the FDA advisory panel was also made up of 15 people — five representatives from government regulatory agencies, four outside medical experts, one labor representative and five experts from the electronic products industry, but none from the scanner manufacturers themselves.
"I am more comfortable with having a regulatory agency — either federal or the states — develop the standards and enforce them," Kaufman said. Such regulators, she added, "have only one priority, and that's public health."
A representative of the Health Physics Society committee said that was its main priority as well. Most of the committee's evaluation was completed before 9/11. The standard was published in 2002 and updated with minor changes in 2009.
Ed Bailey, chief of California's radiological health branch at the time, said he was the lone voice opposing the use of the machines. But after 9/11, his views changed about what was acceptable in pursuit of security.
"The whole climate of their use has changed," Bailey said. "The consequence of something being smuggled on an airplane is far more serious than somebody getting drugs into a prison."
Are Inspections Independent?
While the TSA doesn't regulate the machines, it must seek public input before making major changes to security procedures. In July, a federal appeals court ruled that the agency failed to follow rule-making procedures and solicit public comment before installing body scanners at airports across the country. TSA spokesman Michael McCarthy said the agency couldn't comment on ongoing litigation.
The TSA asserts there is no need to take additional precautions for sensitive populations, even pregnant women, following the guidance of the congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements.
But other authorities have come to the opposite conclusion. A report by France's radiation safety agency specifically warned against screening pregnant women with the X-ray devices. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration's medical institute has advised pregnant pilots and flight attendants that the machine, coupled with their time in the air, could put them over their occupational limit for radiation exposure and that they might want to adjust their work schedules accordingly.
No similar warning has been issued for pregnant frequent fliers.
Even as people scanners became more widespread, government oversight actually weakened in some cases.
Inspections of X-ray equipment in hospitals and industry are the responsibility of state regulators — and before 9/11, many states also had the authority to randomly inspect machines in airports. But that ended when the TSA took over security checkpoints from the airlines.
Instead, annual inspections are done by Rapiscan, the scanners' manufacturer.
"As a regulator, I think there's a conflict of interest in having the manufacturer and the facility inspect themselves," Kaufman said.
Last year, in reaction to public anger from members of Congress, passengers and advocates, the TSA contracted with the Army Public Health Command to do independent radiation surveys. But email messages obtained in a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group, raise questions about the independence of the Army surveys.
One email sent by TSA health and safety director Jill Segraves shows that local TSA officials were given advance notice and allowed to "pick and choose" which systems the Army could check.
That email also suggests that Segraves considered the Army inspectors a valuable public-relations asset: "They are our radiation myth busters," she wrote to a local security director.
Some TSA screeners are concerned about their own radiation exposure from the backscatters, but the TSA has not allowed them to wear badges that could measure it, said Milly Rodriguez, health and safety specialist for the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents TSA officers.
"We have heard from members that sometimes the technicians tell them that the machines are emitting more radiation than is allowed," she said.
McCarthy, the TSA spokesman, said the machines are physically incapable of producing radiation above the industry standard. On the email, he said, the inspections allow screeners to ask questions about radiation and address concerns about specific machines.
The company's lobbying campaign
While the TSA maintains that the body scanners are essential to preventing attacks on airplanes, it only began rolling them out nine years after 9/11.
After the attempted shoe-bombing in December 2001, the federal government conducted a trial of a Rapiscan backscatter at the Orlando International Airport. But the revealing images drew protests that the machines amounted to a virtual strip search.
The TSA considered the scanners again after two Chechen women blew up Russian airliners in 2004. Facing a continued outcry over privacy, the TSA instead moved forward with a machine known as a "puffer" because it released several bursts of air on the passengers' clothes and analyzed the dislodged particles for explosives. But after discovering the machines were ineffective in the field and difficult to maintain, the TSA canceled the program in 2006.
Around that time, Rapiscan began to beef up its lobbying on Capitol Hill. It opened a Washington, D.C., office and, according to required disclosures, more than tripled its lobbying expenditures in two years, from less than $130,000 in 2006 to nearly $420,000 in 2008. It hired former legislative aides to Rep. David Price, D-N.C., then chairman of the homeland security appropriations subcommittee, and to Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.
It started a political action committee and began contributing heavily to Price; Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., then head of the homeland security committee; Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., also on that committee; and Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., the top Republican on the Senate appropriations committee.
In addition, it opened a new North Carolina plant in Price's district and expanded its operations in Ocean Springs, Miss., and at its headquarters in Torrance, Calif., in Harman's district.
"Less than a month after U.S. Senator Trent Lott and other local leaders helped officially open Rapiscan Systems' new Ocean Springs factory," Lott's office announced in a news release in late 2006, "the company has won a $9.1 million Department of Defense contract."
But Rapiscan still hadn't landed a major contract to roll out its X-ray body scanners in commercial airports. Indeed, in 2007, with new privacy filters in place, the TSA began a trial of millimeter-wave and backscatter machines at several major airports, after which the agency opted to go with the millimeter-wave machines. The agency said health concerns weren't a factor.
But with the 2009 federal stimulus package, which provided $300 million for checkpoint security machines, the TSA began deploying backscatters as well. Rapiscan won a $173 million, multiyear contract for the backscatters, with an initial $25 million order for 150 systems to be made in Mississippi.
Three other companies — American Science & Engineering, Tek84 Engineering Group and Valley Forge Composite Technologies — make X-ray scanners, but none are used by the TSA.Peter Kant, executive vice president for Rapiscan, said the company expanded its lobbying because its business was increasingly affected by the government.
"There's a lot of misinformation about the technology; there's a lot of questions about how various inspection technologies work," he said. "And we needed a way to be able to provide that information and explain the technology and how it works, and that's what lobbying is."
The lawmakers either declined to comment or said the lobbying, campaign contributions and local connections had nothing to do with the TSA's decision to purchase Rapiscan machines. The TSA said the contract was bid competitively and that the winning machines had to undergo comprehensive research and testing phases before being deployed.
While the scanners were appearing in more and more airports, few passengers went through them, because they were used mostly for random screening or to resolve alarms from the metal detector.
That changed on Christmas Day 2009, when a Nigerian man flying to Detroit tried to ignite a pouch of explosives hidden in his underwear.
Following the foiled "Great Balls of Fire" suicide bombing, as the New York Postdubbed it, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano ramped up plans to roll out body scanners nationwide. Members of Congress and aviation security experts also pushed heavily for the TSA to install more machines that could detect explosives on passengers.
Harman sent a letter to Napolitano, noting that Rapiscan was in her district.
"I urge you to expedite installation of scanning machines in key airports," Harman wrote in the letter, which was first reported by the website CounterPunch. "If you need additional funds, I am ready to help."
Michael Chertoff, who had supported body scanners while secretary of Homeland Security, appeared frequently on TV advocating their use. In one interview, he disclosed that his consulting firm, Chertoff Group, had done work for Rapiscan, sparking accusations that he was trying to profit from his time as a government servant.
Despite the criticism, little has been revealed about the relationship. Rapiscan dismissed it, asserting that the consulting work had to do with international cargo and port security issues — not aviation.
"There was nothing that was not above board," Kant said. "His comments about passenger screening and these machines were simply his own and was nothing that we had engaged the Chertoff Group for."
In a statement, the Chertoff Group said it "played no role in the sale of whole body imaging technology to TSA" and that Chertoff "was in no way compensated for his public statements."
A public records request by ProPublica turned up empty: The Department of Homeland Security said it could not find any correspondence to or from Chertoff related to body scanners. DHS also said Chertoff did not use email.
The TSA plans to deploy 1,275 backscatter and millimeter-wave scanners covering more than half its security lanes by the end of 2012 and 1,800 covering nearly all the lanes by 2014.
According to annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, OSI Systems, the parent company of Rapiscan, has seen revenue from its security division more than double since 2006 to nearly $300 million in fiscal year 2011.
Miles O'Brien and Kate Tobin of PBS NewsHour contributed to this report.
No comments:
Post a Comment