Full-body scanners worry health experts

[Lionel Mandrake]

Source: Los Angeles Times

By the end of next year, the Transportation Security Administration hopes to have nearly 1,000 full-body scanners to screen passengers at airports across the country. Two are already operational at Los Angeles International Airport.

But a group of doctors and professors from UC San Francisco are raising new concerns about the safety of the technology in one type of full-body scanner built by Torrance-based Rapiscan Inc. To reveal weapons hidden under a traveler's clothes, the scanner relies on "backscatter technology," which uses the ricochets from low-level X-rays to create what looks like a nude image of the person.

Health concerns have been raised in the past by activists and bloggers. In contrast, the latest safety questions are being raised by professors of biochemistry and biophysics and experts in imaging, cancer and crystals. The experts, including John Sedat, David Agard, Dr. Marc Shuman and Robert Stroud, wrote to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. They said they fear that the scanners may expose the skin to high doses of X-rays that could increase the risk of cancer and other health problems, particularly among older travelers, pregnant women and people with weak immune systems.

They asked that the White House assemble an independent panel to look into the concerns.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-travel-briefcase-20100524,0,7213602.story

---

President Obama should ask the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to look into the possible adverse effects of these x-rays on passengers being screened and on others in the vicinity of the scanners at airports. We should not rely on advertisements from the companies making the equipment for an assessment of these effects.

Another type of scanner, which uses millimeter waves instead of x-rays, poses no risk of cancer.

[midnight]

1. I really think all decisions made first look at the profitability margin. Who

received the contract to give those traveling in America a full body scan?

[Raster]

2. It's all about profitability AND patronage.

[Heywood J]

8. Skeletor!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

17. A friend of mine...

Is an AC repair person. He worked on the AC in their home in the Poconos. Boy, he came away from that experience with a pretty negative view of Mr and Mrs Skeletor, especially the Mrs. Sounded like just a terrible person.

[Lionel Mandrake]

20. Ex-Homeland Security chief head said to abuse public trust by touting body scanners

By Kimberly Kindy
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 1, 2010
Since the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports.

What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. The relationship drew attention after Chertoff disclosed it on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.

An airport passengers' rights group on Thursday criticized Chertoff, who left office less than a year ago, for using his former government credentials to advocate for a product that benefits his clients.

Chertoff's advocacy for the technology dates back to his time in the Bush administration. In 2005, Homeland Security ordered the government's first batch of the scanners -- five from California-based Rapiscan Systems.

read more:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html

[charlesg]

3. "Department of Homeland Security says there is no need to worry"

Yeah, right.

(I'd be okay with millimeter-wave, but not with x-ray.)

[WinkyDink]

9. The DHS isn't worrying about causing cancers in YOU. That's what that means.

[tavalon]

4. I've been concerned about this for a while

[qanda]

5. Anyone who is asked to be subjected to this should decline

I wouldn't trust any of these money hungry parasites with my health.

[Delphinus]

16. Would you be able to fly, though,

if you didn't "submit"?

[Lionel Mandrake]

18. Yes, but ...

see post 14.

[pitohui]

22. you can request a patdown as an alternative

that's what i would prefer to do

in some airports you are given the choice

a patdown will not increase yr risk of cancer, or considering how many i've gotten (apparently solo travelers are a suspicious class) then i'd already be deader than the dodo

[indepat]

6. Jesus, if only we would have gone to such extremes to protect the Gulf and its bordering

states and the Gulf stream. Insanity rages unabated. :P

[FailureToCommunicate]

7. +1

[Gormy Cuss]

10. Four guys from UCSF -- what do they know?

John Sedat, professor of biochemistry and biophysics.
David Agard, professor of biochemistry and biophysics, Diller Cancer Center
Marc Shuman,professor of medicine and urology, prostate cancer researcher
Robert Stroud, professor of biochemistry and biophysics, Diller Cancer Center.

A PSA for the "you get more radiation exposure in flight, so why worry?" crowd.

[Blandocyte]

11. Besides the health risk

there's the idea that I'm not ready to be nekkid in front of strangers. All that anxiety might cause a heart attack.

It's a virtual strip search.

[Lionel Mandrake]

12. If they like what they see,

they'll probably zap you several times. You'll never know how big an x-ray dose you received.

But don't worry. You probably won't get cancer right away. ;-)

[happygoluckytoyou]

13. IF YOU STILL WANT TO FLY.... CAN YOU ASK FOR OTHER OPTIONS OR DO YOU SKIP FLYING?

[Gormy Cuss]

14. Yes, you can decline a full body scan but you'll need to submit to a full-body patdown

or you won't be allowed through the security area. Your choice.

[conspirator]

21. I would rather strip search than to be subject to experimental X-Rays n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

26. Then you're in luck, because the patdown is less intrusive than a strip search.

Security theater is now absurd.

[Lionel Mandrake]

15. You can submit to a real strip search instead of the scanner. nt

[gratuitous]

19. Maybe travelers SHOULD start carrying papers

For example, a contract based on the scanner that if the traveler develops cancer in the thyroid, prostate, pancreas or any other cancer-prone organs, Department of Homeland Security and the scanner manufacturer agree to pay for all treatment associated with the cancer, plus noneconomic damages for pain and suffering. And if the traveler dies from such a cancer, DHS and the manufacturer agree to pay the traveler's estate such sums as may be awarded by a court of competent jurisdiction, and, since they're on notice now, an award of the traveler's reasonable attorney fees.

Once the form has been signed by the traveler and the authorized representatives for DHS and the scanner manufacturer, scan away.

[pitohui]

24. really?

that makes no sense, if you believe it increases yr risk of cancer (and i do) then it doesn't help me if TSA agrees to pay for the treatment that just means months of vomiting before i finally die nor do i care after i'm dead if i leave a million dollar estate

i would rather just not be exposed to the increased cancer risk

a patdown is cheap, has been proven to be just as effective, and carries NO RISK of my naked image living forever on the internet while my actual body is infected with cancers that cause me to die

[gratuitous]

27. Of course not

The form would be meaningless, proving causation to a legal certainty would be next to impossible, and the government couldn't be bound by it. But it might raise public awareness just a smidgen, and this foolishness of risking travelers' health and invading their privacy for the dubious benefit of the illusion of safety from terrorism could at the very least be discussed.

[Bill McBlueState]

23. x-rays?

I thought they were terahertz waves.

on edit: ok, both types of technology are used. I didn't know about the x-ray machines.

[Yeahyeah]

25. If we make them stop using them they'll say OK,but now we're going to measure you by hand.