New Luggage Scanners, Bomb Detectors Installed At Suvarnabhumi Airport

[americaninbangkok]

Question---from an obviously infrequent traveler---the swiss knife and the gels---I understand prohibited in the carry-on luggage, but OK in the checked-in baggage? Thanks

Generally speaking, yes. Many things you put in checked-baggage that are a "no go" in the cabin. Airline websites often listen what's ok/not ok. Many airport sites also have this info.

[americaninbangkok]

FRIENDS !

Don,t be afraid to much.

Still we need this dam,n things to be more safe from terrorists.

The questions are did AOT, have capacity to scan all at least they who " looks suspected ".

How they can se this it,s the problem.

I don,t like this at all, but what to do, in this terrible time, when you travel.

Still feel more safe, when scanned, with this" dam,n things".

Don,t care if they can se my "willie" or not.

They won't see your willie. It is a scanner, not a microscope.

[americaninbangkok]

Oh great, more security theater. Why exactly are they wasting money and people's time with this thing when it's already been proven worthless in america..

http://tsaoutofourpa...-body-scanners/

I hope they'll still allow body searches since I don't want to get cancer from these things which although might be a small chance isn't something I want thanks.

If you're worried about getting cancer from these things, you'd better stop flying.

HH! Avoid eating certain foods, bacon, sausages etc, avoid smoke, barbecues, pesticides,don't breath in diesel fumes, don't go into radon affected areas, and so on and so on. You'll probably die of anxiety/ stress before cancer ever gets you

Because those things are equal to getting blasted by an xray machine right? You both need to use your brains more. At least research a little into the topic before posting with your nonsense.

When you use the expression "right?", it really sounds like YOU have not used your brain or done your research. Please go ahead and cite sources for the basis of your conclusions (note: other TV posts do not count as scientific research).

By the way: your computer monitor, iPhone, and iPad are frying your brain cells right now.

WHY ARE YOU STILL READING THIS POST... RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MESmith]

When you're flying, you're getting blasted by that little x-ray machine called "The Sun", without all the protection you get from the atmosphere when you're on the ground.

Sent from my shoe phone

Take a night flight ;-)

[msg362]

Oh great, more security theater. Why exactly are they wasting money and people's time with this thing when it's already been proven worthless in america..

http://tsaoutofourpa...-body-scanners/

I hope they'll still allow body searches since I don't want to get cancer from these things which although might be a small chance isn't something I want thanks.

If you're worried about getting cancer from these things, you'd better stop flying.

HH! Avoid eating certain foods, bacon, sausages etc, avoid smoke, barbecues, pesticides,don't breath in diesel fumes, don't go into radon affected areas, and so on and so on. You'll probably die of anxiety/ stress before cancer ever gets you

Because those things are equal to getting blasted by an xray machine right? You both need to use your brains more. At least research a little into the topic before posting with your nonsense.

WHAT? I'm asking you to support your claim, No nonsense from me, just unverified assertions from you.Please give me some evidence, not just 'I think' stuff. BTW being 'blasted' by an Xray machine is a little over the top isn't it? Where is the evidence that ,for example, radiologists ( they work X Ray machines every day) have higher incidence of cancer than others? Where is the evidence that the general population actually get cancer from medical Xrays?

[Shurup]

To all those saying they are not harmful: Yes they are! They are nowhere near as powerful as the x-rays, they don't penetrate the body but just clothes, however it's still a radioactive exposure to the skin and it does not need to be added to all other exposures we are subject to in everyday life. If it can be avoided, it should be. At least everyone always have a choice of what to eat, drink or inhale. Everyone should have a choice to refuse it if they want. I was asked to take it in Canada a few times, I refused and got a manual body search. Only once in all my travel time I've see a guy stepping into it.

[msg362]

To all those saying they are not harmful: Yes they are! They are nowhere near as powerful as the x-rays, they don't penetrate the body but just clothes, however it's still a radioactive exposure to the skin and it does not need to be added to all other exposures we are subject to in everyday life. If it can be avoided, it should be. At least everyone always have a choice of what to eat, drink or inhale. Everyone should have a choice to refuse it if they want. I was asked to take it in Canada a few times, I refused and got a manual body search. Only once in all my travel time I've see a guy stepping into it.

I am not saying they are not harmful, I'm asking for evidence that they are '80 times more powerful than Xrays' I agree, don't step in if you don't want to. But Please will those who say they cause cancer amongst Logan employees, 'get blasted by X rays' etc have a sense of proportion. As was said earlier, the dose you receive from flying at 35,000 feet for many hours is probably greater than stepping though this machine. I wonder who the security people are and what looking at hundreds of naked bodies every day does to them? Are they specially screened to be turned off by looking? What about a pretty girl going through? what happens to them?

BTW here in Chiang Mai we don't have a choice of what we inhale during the smoky season! Cardiac arrests and other disease rise! I think I'll spend my energy trying to do something about that!

Edited June 15, 2012 by msg362

[msg362]

Maybe this report will help the discussion. The first investigation into the risks seems to say the risk is negligible

[peterdes]

Oh great, more security theater. Why exactly are they wasting money and people's time with this thing when it's already been proven worthless in america..

http://tsaoutofourpa...-body-scanners/

I hope they'll still allow body searches since I don't want to get cancer from these things which although might be a small chance isn't something I want thanks.

Well seriously, not everybody (probably nobody if you think of it) wants that dam_n X-ray! What is somebody already has cancer or any other condition that could be worsened? Or what if people simply don't want to go through the procedure?

Something has to be done about it. If a petition needs to be signed, I'll be the first one to put my name on it.

Put me also on the list, is it serious ? these things are bad for your health ?

I am a regular at the airport and do not want to get sick , just because of this.

If this is the case - try to prove it in Thailand it is from the scanners ............ bad luck

[msg362]

Oh great, more security theater. Why exactly are they wasting money and people's time with this thing when it's already been proven worthless in america..

http://tsaoutofourpa...-body-scanners/

I hope they'll still allow body searches since I don't want to get cancer from these things which although might be a small chance isn't something I want thanks.

Well seriously, not everybody (probably nobody if you think of it) wants that dam_n X-ray! What is somebody already has cancer or any other condition that could be worsened? Or what if people simply don't want to go through the procedure?

Something has to be done about it. If a petition needs to be signed, I'll be the first one to put my name on it.

Put me also on the list, is it serious ? these things are bad for your health ?

I am a regular at the airport and do not want to get sick , just because of this.

If this is the case - try to prove it in Thailand it is from the scanners ............ bad luck

Please just calm down and read the evidence I referred to first. The risk is said to be NEGLIGIBLE In other words you can IGNORE IT

Edited June 15, 2012 by msg362

[ginjag]

Whybother--MEsmith, daytime flights use Nivea, most Thais do. small tube 120 bht, they use sun screen/uv, for spots-white skin-lube-wrinkles-.

[msg362]

Whybother--MEsmith, daytime flights use Nivea, most Thais do. small tube 120 bht, they use sun screen/uv, for spots-white skin-lube-wrinkles-.

I could be wrong but I suspect Nivea won't protect you against cosmic rays!!!!

[Anon999]

"according to the AoT staff, is not mandatory to all passengers."

Then on what basis is the decision made as to which pax have to pass through the body scanner?

"The airport has also introduced a new body scanner, which, according to the AoT staff, is not mandatory to all passengers. It helps facilitate a thorough body inspection without any violation to the passenger."

I think perhaps the second sentence gives a pointer to the answer to your question - people who have, for one reason or another, given security cause to want to perform a more thorough check.

This could be something as simple as setting off the alarm when you pass through the regular metal detector. Possibly, if after they pass the wand over you, they still don't know what set the alarm off, they'll use the body scanner.

Just my guess on it, no doubt all will be revealed in the future (no pun intended).

If that was the case then they could have said so as the number of instances the alarm is set off is minimal.

[ginjag]

MSG, Your prob right, but my little funny dig about Nivea and the Thai people who purchace on a mega scale. On the topic of harm from ALL devices--mobiles-computors-scanners-ex-rays. TIME is our only guarantee, these things are invented for money first, health second, advanced tech third.

[msg362]

MSG, Your prob right, but my little funny dig about Nivea and the Thai people who purchace on a mega scale. On the topic of harm from ALL devices--mobiles-computors-scanners-ex-rays. TIME is our only guarantee, these things are invented for money first, health second, advanced tech third.

OK!! I agree, I suspect some big American Company making these things was very happy when TSA decided to adopt them. To my mind an instance of the US trying to depend on technology rather than intelligence. If the video referred to earlier is right, they can be fooled anyway, so a lot of money spent for less than 100% certainty.

[kimamey]

Oh great, more security theater. Why exactly are they wasting money and people's time with this thing when it's already been proven worthless in america..

http://tsaoutofourpa...-body-scanners/

I hope they'll still allow body searches since I don't want to get cancer from these things which although might be a small chance isn't something I want thanks.

Well seriously, not everybody (probably nobody if you think of it) wants that dam_n X-ray! What is somebody already has cancer or any other condition that could be worsened? Or what if people simply don't want to go through the procedure?

Something has to be done about it. If a petition needs to be signed, I'll be the first one to put my name on it.

How do you know it's X-ray. It doesn't say but then I don't supose it matters if you just want to have an uneducated rant. A lot are now either active or passive millimeter wave technology.

Most of the fears of these scanners appears to be about privacy rather than safety. The level of radiation is very low in the x-ray ones although there has been some concern as to wether the rays are focused on a particular level in the skin. The others might speed growth of tumours. But test have shown a low risk but obviously research is always being done. Bear in mind that we are exposed to low level radiation a lot of the time anyway

I've had one at Heathrow which was probably x-ray although I believe they are changing those. This was due to problems with me going through the metal scanner which may have been partly down to me. I don't know the what the procedure at Suvarnabhumi will be but at maost airports they aren't used on everyone just as an extra check. They can also avoid the need for a more intimate search and the new ones don't show an image just highlight anything unexpected.

Of course in talking about this airport in particular there's one other point to be made. Unless you are a transit passenger you will have had to get to the airport which will involve some road travel either in a private vehicle or public transport. Road travel carries it's own risk. In the UK which has a similar population to Thailand about 1,800 - 1,900 are killed every year. In Thailand figures are less clear but most estimates put it at at least 14,000. Quite frankly you could walk through 50 of these scanners waving your willy at them and still be safer than on Thai roads.

[theblether]

More lineups never accelerate anything.

Scare the hell out of me when anybody mentions lineups

You've never had a lineup with an Edinburgh lassie?? You've been going to the wrong parties sir......

[cottmann]

Given the disaster the BKK International Airport has turned into, why should anyone expect these new scanners to work more efficiently that the public restrooms did when the airport was first opened, or the immigration lineups work at peak periods, or the rail link into the city? I think this may just be the final straw as far as I am concerned with air travel into and out of LOS.

[thaibeachlovers]

just cleared through the immigration and now giving a dump at the gatehold toilet while posting this. oops

don't see any new full body scanner. but dam_n, they seized my swissknife!

Sorry for your loss- that's a bummer, but seriously, do you not travel much by air? I am totally NOT surprised they took that away. In the UK they took a stubby screwdriver off me, because I might use it to "unscrew the seats from the floor" arrrrrrgggggghhhhh!

Previously in Thailand, I had sewing needles, a pair of blunt 1 inch scissors and a 2ml tube of toothpaste confiscated.

Considering that a ball point pen could be a deadly weapon, it's pretty naff.

[msg362]

More lineups never accelerate anything.

Scare the hell out of me when anybody mentions lineups

You've never had a lineup with an Edinburgh lassie?? You've been going to the wrong parties sir......

I thought you were from Glasgow, what were you doing over there? Visiting Morningside?

[gand]

That is good to know.

[oops]

Oh crap!....Now I they will find my prosthetic dildo, I just had it

I just had it polished. idiots.

[thatguy]

Sorry it pasted so small, hope this is easier to read.

Chertoff, ex head of US Homeland security under Bush is a consultant for the company selling these machines to the government.

Once again, this letter was written by Drs John Sedat Ph.D., David Agard, Ph.D., Marc Shuman, M.D., Robert Stroud, Ph.D., all from the University of California.

Here is their background as described in the letter:

Dr. Sedat is a Professor Emeritus in Biochemistry and Biophysics at the University of California, San Francisco, with expertise in imaging. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences. The other cosigners include Dr Marc Shuman, and internationally well known and respected cancer expert and UCSF professor, as well as Drs David Agard and Robert Stroud, who are UCSF Professors, X-ray crystallographers, imaging experts and NAS members.

Here are the highlights of the letter along with my comments and explanations:

"We are writing to call your attention to serious concerns about the potential health risks of the recently adopted whole body backscatter X-ray airport security scanners. This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary

screening step for all air travel passengers."

Translation: The naked body scanners may be dangerous to your health.

"Our overriding concern is the extent to which the safety of this scanning device has

been adequately demonstrated. This can only be determined by a meeting of an impartial panel of experts that would include medical physicists and radiation biologists at which all of the available relevant data is reviewed."

Translation: The safety of these naked body scanners has never been demonstrated, and especially not by an independent panel of qualified scientists.

"The physics of these X-rays is very telling: the X-rays are Compton-Scattering off outer molecule bonding electrons and thus inelastic (likely breaking bonds)."

Translation: The ionizing radiation emitted by these devices can alter your DNA.

"Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies (28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high."

Translation: The danger of these devices is significantly higher than what might be assumed from the TOTAL radiation emissions. This is why those who claim "you get more radiation just from flying" are flat-out wrong in their conclusions.

"This comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X-rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent

tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight / volume, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high."

Translation: This is a further explanation of why the ionizing radiation from the naked body scanners may pose a much higher risk of cancer (two orders of magnitude higher!) than what might be assumed from the total radiation emissions.

"In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist. A search,

ultimately finding top FDA radiation physics staff, suggests that the relevant radiation

quantity, the Flux [photons per unit area and time (because this is a scanning device)]

has not been characterized. Instead an indirect test (Air Kerma) was made that

emphasized the whole body exposure value, and thus it appears that the danger is low

when compared to cosmic rays during airplane travel and a chest X-ray dose.

In summary, if the key data (flux-integrated photons per unit values) were available, it

would be straightforward to accurately model the dose being deposited in the skin and adjacent tissues using available computer codes, which would resolve the potential

concerns over radiation damage."

Translation: The FDA screwed up the safety testing (gee, really?) by assuming the emitted radiation was distributed across the entire body rather than focused on the skin.

It brings up the question: When and how were these devices ever approved by the FDA anyway? Naked body scanners are clearly "medical devices" as they emit X-rays that penetrate body tissue. Did the FDA ever conduct long-term clinical trials demonstrating the safety of these devices? (Of course not.)

Did they ever test the safety of naked body scanners on pregnant women? What about senior citizens? How about people who have already undergone radiation treatments for conditions like thyroid cancer?

Ten big concerns voiced by the scientists

Here are ten additional concerns raised by these scientists in their letter: (the bolded titles are my subheads, the subsequent explanation test is quoted straight out the scientists' letter)

#1) Cancer in senior citizens - The large population of older travelers, greater than 65 years of age, is particularly at risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of melanocyte aging.

#2) Breast cancer - A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesis-provoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because these women, who have defects in DNA repair mechanisms, are particularly prone to cancer, X-ray mammograms are not performed on them. The dose to breast tissue beneath the skin represents a similar risk.

#3) White blood cells being irradiated - Blood (white blood cells) perfusing the skin is also at risk.

#4) HIV and cancer patients - The population of immunocompromised individuals -- HIV and cancer patients (see above) is likely to be at risk for cancer induction by the high skin dose.

#5) Radiation risk to children - The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to have been fully evaluated.

#6) Pregnant women - The policy towards pregnant women needs to be defined once the theoretical risks to the fetus are determined.

#7 Sperm mutations - Because of the proximity of the testicles to skin, this tissue is at risk for sperm mutagenesis.

#8 Radiation effects on cornea and thymus - Have the effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus been determined?

#9 Problems with the machine - There are a number of 'red flags' related to the hardware itself. Because this device can scan a human in a few seconds, the X-ray beam is very intense. Any glitch in power at any point in the hardware (or more importantly in software) that stops the device could cause an intense radiation dose to a single spot on the skin.

Translation: This machine does not emit a "flood light" of radiation like you might get from a dental X-ray machine. Rather, this machine emits a thin, narrow beam of radiation that is quickly "scanned" across your body, back and forth, in much the same way that an inkjet printer prints a page (but a lot faster). Because the angle of the X-ray beam is controlled by the scanner software, a glitch in the software could turn the naked body scanner into a high-energy weapon if the beam gets "stuck" in one location for more than a fraction of a second.

#10 Higher radiation for the groin? - Given the recent incident (on December 25th, 2009), how do we know whether the manufacturer or TSA, seeking higher resolution, will scan the groin area more slowly leading to a much higher total dose?

None of these ten concerns are being answered by the TSA and its head John Pistole. The attitude from the TSA on these scanners, in fact, is downright belligerent, treating Americans as terrorists and threatening to arrest and detain individuals who refuse to be scanned and groped.

The TSA, it seems, believes it can do no wrong. Such is the inevitable outcome of granting too much power to any government department, as it will always seek to expand its power to the point of tyranny over the People.

Dangerous errors are possible

In this letter, these scientists go on to explain why they continue to hold such concerns: (my emphasis added)

We would like to put our current concerns into perspective. As longstanding UCSF

scientists and physicians, we have witnessed critical errors in decisions that have seriously affected the health of thousands of people in the United States. These unfortunate errors were made because of the failure to recognize potential adverse outcomes of decisions made at the federal level.

Crises create a sense of urgency that frequently leads to hasty decisions where unintended consequences are not recognized. Examples include the failure of the CDC to recognize the risk of blood transfusions in the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, approval of drugs and devices by the FDA without sufficient review, and improper standards set by the EPA, to name a few.

Similarly, there has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.

We are unanimous in believing that the potential health consequences need to be rigorously studied before these scanners are adopted. Modifications that reduce radiation exposure need to be explored as soon as possible.

In summary we urge you to empower an impartial panel of experts to reevaluate the potential health issues we have raised before there are irrevocable long-term consequences to the health of our country. These negative effects may on balance far outweigh the potential benefit of increased detection of terrorists.

Translation: These scientists believe that the TSA's naked body scanners pose a risk of promoting cancer across the population and that a real, scientific evaluation by trained, independent scientists must be conducted before these scanners are put to further use.

Again, you can read this letter for yourself here:

http://www.NaturalNews.com/files/TSA_Naked_Body_Scanners.pdf

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030607_naked_body_scanners_radiation.html#ixzz1xyw4Mpn2

[msg362]

Very interesting and well presented. Thanks for this. Much food for thought in this and I would support further testing.As I said earlier, the manufacturers will be laughing all the way to the bank. In the meantime, as long as the security person is under 30 , female, and pretty, I won't object to a full body search.

[thaibeachlovers]

Ah USA, the land of the "free"!

[JohnAllan]

". . . introduced a new body scanner, which, according to the AoT staff, is not mandatory to all passengers. It helps facilitate a thorough body inspection without any violation to the passenger."

A little difficult to imagine a thorough body inspection that most passengers will not view as an invasion of privacy, if not a violation. And if it isn't mandatory for all passengers, for which passengers, exactly, will it be mandatory?

[JohnAllan]

Very interesting and well presented. Thanks for this. Much food for thought in this and I would support further testing.As I said earlier, the manufacturers will be laughing all the way to the bank. In the meantime, as long as the security person is under 30 , female, and pretty, I won't object to a full body search.

I'm sure you won't. But it is she that is going to be searching you . . .

Edited June 17, 2012 by JohnAllan

[JohnAllan]

Sorry it pasted so small, hope this is easier to read.

Chertoff, ex head of US Homeland security under Bush is a consultant for the company selling these machines to the government.

Once again, this letter was written by Drs John Sedat Ph.D., David Agard, Ph.D., Marc Shuman, M.D., Robert Stroud, Ph.D., all from the University of California.

Here is their background as described in the letter:

Dr. Sedat is a Professor Emeritus in Biochemistry and Biophysics at the University of California, San Francisco, with expertise in imaging. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences. The other cosigners include Dr Marc Shuman, and internationally well known and respected cancer expert and UCSF professor, as well as Drs David Agard and Robert Stroud, who are UCSF Professors, X-ray crystallographers, imaging experts and NAS members.

Here are the highlights of the letter along with my comments and explanations:

"We are writing to call your attention to serious concerns about the potential health risks of the recently adopted whole body backscatter X-ray airport security scanners. This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary

screening step for all air travel passengers."

Translation: The naked body scanners may be dangerous to your health.

"Our overriding concern is the extent to which the safety of this scanning device has

been adequately demonstrated. This can only be determined by a meeting of an impartial panel of experts that would include medical physicists and radiation biologists at which all of the available relevant data is reviewed."

Translation: The safety of these naked body scanners has never been demonstrated, and especially not by an independent panel of qualified scientists.

"The physics of these X-rays is very telling: the X-rays are Compton-Scattering off outer molecule bonding electrons and thus inelastic (likely breaking bonds)."

Translation: The ionizing radiation emitted by these devices can alter your DNA.

"Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies (28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high."

Translation: The danger of these devices is significantly higher than what might be assumed from the TOTAL radiation emissions. This is why those who claim "you get more radiation just from flying" are flat-out wrong in their conclusions.

"This comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X-rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent

tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight / volume, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high."

Translation: This is a further explanation of why the ionizing radiation from the naked body scanners may pose a much higher risk of cancer (two orders of magnitude higher!) than what might be assumed from the total radiation emissions.

"In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist. A search,

ultimately finding top FDA radiation physics staff, suggests that the relevant radiation

quantity, the Flux [photons per unit area and time (because this is a scanning device)]

has not been characterized. Instead an indirect test (Air Kerma) was made that

emphasized the whole body exposure value, and thus it appears that the danger is low

when compared to cosmic rays during airplane travel and a chest X-ray dose.

In summary, if the key data (flux-integrated photons per unit values) were available, it

would be straightforward to accurately model the dose being deposited in the skin and adjacent tissues using available computer codes, which would resolve the potential

concerns over radiation damage."

Translation: The FDA screwed up the safety testing (gee, really?) by assuming the emitted radiation was distributed across the entire body rather than focused on the skin.

It brings up the question: When and how were these devices ever approved by the FDA anyway? Naked body scanners are clearly "medical devices" as they emit X-rays that penetrate body tissue. Did the FDA ever conduct long-term clinical trials demonstrating the safety of these devices? (Of course not.)

Did they ever test the safety of naked body scanners on pregnant women? What about senior citizens? How about people who have already undergone radiation treatments for conditions like thyroid cancer?

Ten big concerns voiced by the scientists

Here are ten additional concerns raised by these scientists in their letter: (the bolded titles are my subheads, the subsequent explanation test is quoted straight out the scientists' letter)

#1) Cancer in senior citizens - The large population of older travelers, greater than 65 years of age, is particularly at risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of melanocyte aging.

#2) Breast cancer - A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesis-provoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because these women, who have defects in DNA repair mechanisms, are particularly prone to cancer, X-ray mammograms are not performed on them. The dose to breast tissue beneath the skin represents a similar risk.

#3) White blood cells being irradiated - Blood (white blood cells) perfusing the skin is also at risk.

#4) HIV and cancer patients - The population of immunocompromised individuals -- HIV and cancer patients (see above) is likely to be at risk for cancer induction by the high skin dose.

#5) Radiation risk to children - The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to have been fully evaluated.

#6) Pregnant women - The policy towards pregnant women needs to be defined once the theoretical risks to the fetus are determined.

#7 Sperm mutations - Because of the proximity of the testicles to skin, this tissue is at risk for sperm mutagenesis.

#8 Radiation effects on cornea and thymus - Have the effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus been determined?

#9 Problems with the machine - There are a number of 'red flags' related to the hardware itself. Because this device can scan a human in a few seconds, the X-ray beam is very intense. Any glitch in power at any point in the hardware (or more importantly in software) that stops the device could cause an intense radiation dose to a single spot on the skin.

Translation: This machine does not emit a "flood light" of radiation like you might get from a dental X-ray machine. Rather, this machine emits a thin, narrow beam of radiation that is quickly "scanned" across your body, back and forth, in much the same way that an inkjet printer prints a page (but a lot faster). Because the angle of the X-ray beam is controlled by the scanner software, a glitch in the software could turn the naked body scanner into a high-energy weapon if the beam gets "stuck" in one location for more than a fraction of a second.

#10 Higher radiation for the groin? - Given the recent incident (on December 25th, 2009), how do we know whether the manufacturer or TSA, seeking higher resolution, will scan the groin area more slowly leading to a much higher total dose?

None of these ten concerns are being answered by the TSA and its head John Pistole. The attitude from the TSA on these scanners, in fact, is downright belligerent, treating Americans as terrorists and threatening to arrest and detain individuals who refuse to be scanned and groped.

The TSA, it seems, believes it can do no wrong. Such is the inevitable outcome of granting too much power to any government department, as it will always seek to expand its power to the point of tyranny over the People.

Dangerous errors are possible

In this letter, these scientists go on to explain why they continue to hold such concerns: (my emphasis added)

We would like to put our current concerns into perspective. As longstanding UCSF

scientists and physicians, we have witnessed critical errors in decisions that have seriously affected the health of thousands of people in the United States. These unfortunate errors were made because of the failure to recognize potential adverse outcomes of decisions made at the federal level.

Crises create a sense of urgency that frequently leads to hasty decisions where unintended consequences are not recognized. Examples include the failure of the CDC to recognize the risk of blood transfusions in the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, approval of drugs and devices by the FDA without sufficient review, and improper standards set by the EPA, to name a few.

Similarly, there has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.

We are unanimous in believing that the potential health consequences need to be rigorously studied before these scanners are adopted. Modifications that reduce radiation exposure need to be explored as soon as possible.

In summary we urge you to empower an impartial panel of experts to reevaluate the potential health issues we have raised before there are irrevocable long-term consequences to the health of our country. These negative effects may on balance far outweigh the potential benefit of increased detection of terrorists.

Translation: These scientists believe that the TSA's naked body scanners pose a risk of promoting cancer across the population and that a real, scientific evaluation by trained, independent scientists must be conducted before these scanners are put to further use.

Again, you can read this letter for yourself here:

http://www.NaturalNe...dy_Scanners.pdf

Learn more: http://www.naturalne...l#ixzz1xyw4Mpn2

"These unfortunate errors were made because of the failure to recognize potential adverse outcomes of decisions made at the federal level."

Nah! They were made because of a downright refusal to recognise deficient federal decisions. Of course, for many of us who are not American, we just take the decision not to visit the US. Until such time as the same machines hit other countries and they attempt to impose their use.

The irony in all of this, though, proved to be the inability of the US airport authorities to then identify a potential bomber who managed to board a domestic flight, body scan notwithstanding. Presumably, the body scanners were seen as such a wonderful deterrent that those responsible for US airport security assumed they could just sit back and twiddle their thumbs.

Edited June 17, 2012 by JohnAllan

[msg362]

Very interesting and well presented. Thanks for this. Much food for thought in this and I would support further testing.As I said earlier, the manufacturers will be laughing all the way to the bank. In the meantime, as long as the security person is under 30 , female, and pretty, I won't object to a full body search.

I'm sure you won't. But it is she that is going to be searching you . . .

I'll enjoy that too!

[balo]

They will measure all foreigners tools before entering the Kingdom.

It will be registered in the database together with your face.

.