AddThis Feed Button "Frequently Copied, Never Duplicated"

Monday, March 14, 2011

Airport X-Ray Machines: UPDATE

UPDATE: 18 January 2012 -

TSA workers to wear monitoring devices to test if scanners have dangerous levels of radiation

Read more:

17 May 2011 - 

Scientists Cast Doubt on TSA Tests of Full-Body Scanners

by Michael Grabell ProPublica, May 16, 2011, 2:11 p.m.
The Transportation Security Administration says its full-body X-ray scanners are safe and that radiation from a scan is equivalent to what's received in about two minutes of flying. The company that makes them says it's safer than eating a banana [1].
But some scientists with expertise in imaging and cancer say the evidence made public to support those claims is unreliable. And in a new letter [2] sent to White House science adviser John Holdren, they question why the TSA won't make the scanners available for independent testing by outside scientists.
The machines, which are designed to reveal objects hidden under clothing, have the potential to close a significant security gap for the TSA because metal detectors can't find explosives or ceramic knives, which can be just as sharp as the box cutters that hijackers used on 9/11.
They are also important for TSA's public relations battle over the alternative, the "enhanced pat-down," which has bred an epidemic of viral videos: A 6-year-old girl [3] is touched from head to toe. A former Miss USA [4] says she was violated. A software programmer warns a screener, "If you touch my junk [5], I'm going to have you arrested."
After the underwear bomber tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane on Christmas Day 2009, the TSA ramped up deployment of full-body scanners and plans to have them at nearly every security line by 2014.
There are two types of body scanners [6]. Millimeter wave machines emit a radio frequency similar to cellphones. Backscatters work like a fast-moving X-ray. In the latter, the rays bounce off the skin and create a fuzzy white image [7] of the passenger's body. Because the beam doesn't go through the body, most of its radiation is received by the skin.
The TSA says the backscatter technology has been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration [8], the National Institute for Standards and Technology [9] and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory [10]. Survey teams are using radiation-detecting dosimeters to check the machines at airports. The TSA says the results have all confirmed that the scanners don't pose a significant risk to public health.
According to the agency and many radiation experts, the dose is so low, even for children or cancer patients, that someone would have to pass through the machines more than a thousand times before approaching the annual limit set by radiation safety organizations.
But the letter to the White House science adviser, signed by five professors at University of California, San Francisco, and one at Arizona State University, points out several flaws in the tests. Studies published in scientific journals in the last few months have also cast doubt on the radiation dose and the machines' ability to find explosives.
A number of scientists, including some who believe the radiation is trivial, say more testing should be done given the government's plans to put millions of passengers through the machines. And they have been disturbed by the TSA's reluctance to do so.
"There's no real data on these machines, and in fact, the best guess of the dose is much, much higher than certainly what the public thinks," said John Sedat, a professor emeritus in biochemistry and biophysics at UCSF and the primary author of the letter.
The same group stirred controversy last year when it sent a letter to Holdren [11] arguing that while the overall dose to the body may be low, the TSA hadn't quantified the dose to the skin. Last fall, FDA and TSA officials released a study [12] that estimated the dose to the skin to be twice the dose to the body, though still extremely low.
In the most recent letter sent to Holdren on April 28, the professors note that the Johns Hopkins lab didn't test an actual airport machine. Instead, the tests were done on a model built by the manufacturer, Rapiscan [13], and configured to resemble a system previously tested by the TSA.
The researchers' names have been kept secret, and the report on the tests is so "heavily redacted" that "there is no way to repeat any of these measurements," they wrote.
The physics and medical professors also took issue with the device used to measure the radiation. Although the device, known as an ion chamber, is commonly used to test medical equipment, they argue that the detector gets overwhelmed by the amount of radiation the backscatter deposits in a short time and might not provide accurate readings.
Helen Worth, a spokeswoman for the Johns Hopkins lab, referred questions to the TSA.
Part of the trouble is that there is no ideal device for measuring the radiation dose given by backscatter X-rays, said David Brenner, director of the Columbia University Center for Radiological Research. The machines emit a pencil beam that rapidly moves across and up and down the body, he said.
"We are one of the oldest and biggest radiological research centers in the country, and we find this to be a very hard technical problem," said Brenner, who was not involved with the letter.
Another issue is that there is a lot of uncertainty with the model used to estimate cancer risk from radiation exposure to the skin, said Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a UCSF radiologist who also was not involved in the letter.
Smith-Bindman, who has testified before Congress about excessive radiation from medical scans, studied the TSA reports and said she wasn't concerned about the airport X-rays.
The risks are "truly trivial," she wrote in an article [14] for the Archives of Internal Medicine. A passenger would have to undergo 50 airport scans to reach the level of a dental X-ray, 1,000 for a chest X-ray, and 4,000 for a mammogram.
Though imperfect, the available models predict 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, Smith-Bindman concluded.
"There's really unnecessary fear related to these scans," she said. "What I'm not as comfortable with is that there has not been access to these machines. They are not being tested on the same regulatory basis that we see on medical equipment."
After her article was published, Smith-Bindman was contacted by a TSA public affairs officer. During the conversation, she suggested that she or other outside scientists be allowed to test the machine. The official was shocked by the suggestion and said such access could tip off people who want to avoid detection, Smith-Bindman said.
"It was not appreciating that there's legitimate scientific questions that have to be balanced against the security questions," she said.
The TSA did not respond to ProPublica's questions about why it wouldn't allow outside testing. But at a congressional hearing [15] in March, Robin Kane, assistant administrator for security technology, said doing so would expose a lot of sensitive information the agency wouldn't normally share publicly. The machines had already been tested several times, he said, and if set up securely, the agency would allow more testing.
The available information leaves scientists with little to work with. Peter Rez, the Arizona State physics professor who signed the letter to Holdren, has tried to calculate the radiation by examining the handful of backscatter images that have been released publicly.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center [16], a civil liberties group, sued the Department of Homeland Security, TSA's parent agency, in federal court seeking release of 2,000 backscatter images used in testing. But it has not been successful.
The few images that have been made public do not reveal faces or detailed private features. The TSA says the images Rez used are out of date, but Rez says the current image on TSA's website is unusable.
Using the earlier images, Rez concluded [17] in the Radiation Protection Dosimetry journal that it was highly unlikely the machines could have produced such high-quality images with doses of radiation as low as those described by TSA. He estimated the dose, while still very small, is 45 times higher than the results measured by Johns Hopkins.
Applying Rez's numbers, Brenner wrote a paper [18] for the journal Radiology, estimating that 100 additional cancers would develop for every 1 billion scans.
For Rez, the real danger occurs if the machine stops in the middle of a scan, allowing the beam to focus on a tiny area for several seconds. Given that the backscatter works with a wheel rotating at a high speed, and that the agency plans to use the scanners continuously 365 days a year, mechanical failures are likely, he said.
The TSA says that the scanners have safety systems, such as automatic shutoffs and emergency stop buttons, that will kill the beam in the event of any problem that could result in abnormal radiation. How those fail-safe systems work isn't entirely clear.
When Johns Hopkins researchers visited the Rapiscan facility, the automatic termination appeared to work. But the full results of the shutoff tests are redacted.
What's more, the test system didn't have an emergency stop button.

14 March 2011 -
The Transportation Security Administration announced Friday that it would retest every full-body X-ray scanner that emits ionizing radiation — 247 machines at 38 airports — after maintenance records on some of the devices showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected. Complete article
Is there something that tells you this may be too little, too late?  Typical government approach.

21 December 2010 -  NO Proof Scanner Are Safe
If you believe the government, you have little to worry about from the radiation beam flitting over the front and back of your body in airport watchdogs' search for explosives and other hidden implements of terror this holiday season.

The Transportation Security Administration says that when working properly, the backscatter Advance Imaging Technology X-ray scanners emit an infinitesimal, virtually harmless amount of radiation.

The problem is that the TSA offers no proof that anyone is checking to see if the machines are "working properly."  Complete article
17 December - Leading Scientists Say Airport Full Body Scanners Easily Duped
Two respected scientists say they have discovered a flaw in airport full body scanners that could potentially allow terrorists to outsmart the machines.

In research published in the Journal of Transportation Security, physicists Leon Kaufman and Joseph W. Carlson of the University of California San Francisco say body scanner machines can easily be duped.

While the purpose of the scanners is to find contraband hidden on the body, some weapons and explosives would not be visible to the devices say the researchers, who are known for their work in creating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines used in hospitals.

That's because the human body and benign objects add "structured noise that interferes with signal averaging," the scientists say.

A "pancake" of explosives with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, for instance, "would be invisible to this technology, ironically, because of its large volume, since it is easily confused with normal anatomy," the scientists report.

"It is also easy to see that an object such as a wire or a boxcutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible," Kaufman and Carlson write.

Increasing radiation exposure to get a better image from the body scanning technology won't help, the scientists say. "Even if exposure were to be increased significantly, normal anatomy would make a dangerous amount of plastic explosive with tapered edges difficult if not impossible to detect."

In reaching their conclusions, the scientists used simulations (computational algorithms). They refer in their research to some photos of full body scanners not deployed in the U.S., but used at airports elsewhere.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) responds to the latest report with the same pat response it has given to other criticism about full body scanners, a spokesman telling AOL Travel News, "While there is no silver bullet, advanced imaging technology is a proven, highly-effective tool that safely detects both metallic and non-metallic items concealed on the body that could be used to threaten the security of airplanes."

The TSA adds that full body scanners are just one of the airport security methods it has in place.

Critics of full body scanners have raised privacy concerns about "naked" images and questioned whether radiation from the machines could potentially pose a cancer risk, among other things.

This week the TSA also took steps to debunk a rumor that airport body scanner images of "Baywatch" star Donna D'Errico -- who has criticized the TSA for singling out attractive celebrities to go through body scans – are in circulation. The TSA says it's impossible for anyone to capture scanner images given safeguards it has in place.
Sing Along with the Scanner

13 December - Inside TSA scanners: How terahertz waves tear apart human DNA

When Natural Health News first looked at the issue of the airport x-ray scanners it was 2006.  Even then we reported that there was a health risk f40m x-ray exposure and T waves.  In light of US government talking heads we know that this has not been properly addressed.

Now Dr. Russell Blaylock gives us his helpful opinion and read more interesting material  here and here
Dr. Blaylock: Body Scanners More Dangerous Than Feds Admit
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:58 AM
By Dr. Russell Blaylock. a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon

The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administrations new policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and enhanced pat-downs brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: Im from the government and Im here to help you.
So, what is all the concern really about - will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama's science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April.
The group included experts in radiation biology, biophysics, and imaging, who expressed serious concerns about the dangerously high dose of radiation to the skin.
Radiation increases cancer risk by damaging the DNA and various components within the cells. Much of the damage is caused by high concentrations of free radicals generated by the radiation. Most scientists think that the most damaging radiation types are those that have high penetration, such as gamma-rays, but in fact, some of the most damaging radiation barely penetrates the skin.
One of the main concerns is that most of the energy from the airport scanners is concentrated on the surface of the skin and a few millimeters into the skin. Some very radiation-sensitive tissues are close to the skin - such as the testes, eyes, and circulating blood cells in the skin.
This is why defenders using such analogies as the dose being 1,000-times less than a chest X-ray and far less than what passengers are exposed to in-flight are deceptive. Radiation damage depends on the volume of tissue exposed. Chest X-rays and gamma-radiation from outer space is diffused over the entire body so that the dose to the skin is extremely small. Of note, outer space radiation does increase cancer rates in passengers, pilots, and flight attendants.
We also know that certain groups of people are at a much higher risk than others. These include babies, small children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with impaired immunity (those with HIV infection, cancer patients, people with immune deficiency diseases, and people with abnormal DNA repair mechanism, just to name a few).
As we grow older, our DNA accumulates a considerable amount of unrepaired damage, and under such circumstances even low doses of radiation can trigger the development of skin cancers, including the deadly melanoma. I would also be concerned about exposing the eyes, since this could increase ones risk of developing cataracts.
About 5 percent of the population have undiagnosed abnormal DNA repair mechanism. When exposed to radiation, this can put them at a cancer risk hundreds of times greater than normal people.
It also has been determined that when skin is next to certain metals, such as gold, the radiation dose is magnified 100-fold higher. What if you have a mole next to your gold jewelry? Will the radiation convert it to a melanoma? Deficiencies in certain vitamins can dramatically increase your sensitivity to radiation carcinogenesis, as can certain prescription medications.
As for the assurances we have been given by such organization as the American College of Radiology, we must keep in mind that they assured us that the CT scans were safe and that the radiation was equal to one chest X-ray. Forty years later we learn that the dose is extremely high, it is thought to have caused cancer in a significant number of people, and the dose is actually equal to 1,000 chest X-rays.
Based on these assurances, tens of thousands of children have been exposed to radiation doses from CT scanners, which will ruin the children's lives. I have two friends who were high-ranking Environmental Protection Agency scientists, and they assure me that in government safety agencies, politics most often override the scientists real concerns about such issues.
This government shares House Speaker Nancy Pelosis view when she urged passage of the Obamacare bill sight unseen - Lets just pass the bill, and we will find out what is in it later.
When the real effects of these scanners on health become known, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and the rest of the gang who insist the scanners are safe will be long gone.

(November 26) --  I started covering the issue of the airport x-ray scanner four years or so ago.  Since that time many have hopped on the band wagon to speak out against this intrusive, expensive, and health-risky device.  Most researchers now tell us that it isn't really as effective as Chertoff and his minions wish you to believe.

One of my health colleagues added more information today, and it might interest you
, November 23, 2010
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- It was no crime of fashion, but Wendy Gigliotti's bulky sweater and ankle-length skirt made her a target of airport screeners.
A female Transportation Security Administration officer at Sacramento International Airport told her, "We can't tell if there's something under your skirt." She was then frisked in a way she said felt more intrusive than a physical exam.
"I felt not only like a criminal, I felt absolutely violated," said Gigliotti.
Gigliotti is among the travelers feeling mortified or even outraged by the more thorough security pat-downs the TSA began using this month as the holiday travel season begins.
Travel experts say the new scrutiny underscores the need for better airport fashion choices that can help people breeze through screenings with their dignity intact.

(Nov. 24) -- Deborah Hastings

Man Sues TSA, Claims Pat-Down Violates His Rights

An Arkansas man is taking the Transportation Security Administration to court, claiming new screening searches violate the Constitution.

Robert Dean filed a federal lawsuit in Little Rock this week, even though the city's airport doesn't have the new scanners that have sparked outrage across the country. Dean's suit asks for a federal ban against the machines and full-body searches.

On a recent trip to Chicago, Dean claims that being subjected to a full-body scan and being patted down by TSA personnel harmed his "emotional, psychological and mental well-being," The Associated Press reported.
The security agency said it does not comment on pending litigation, according to the AP.

"Filing for an injunction will stop these types of invasive measures until we can get a ruling on the constitutionality of this," Dean said, according to FOX 16 TV in Arkansas.

The invasive procedures violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, Dean says.

"The physical aspects of it weren't that traumatic," he said of his experience in Chicago. "I think it's the thought of somebody sitting behind a screen looking at your naked body doing these examinations," he told KTHV TV in Little Rock.

Adam Kokesh
Adam KokeshNovember 17, 2010 at 10:39pm
Subject: Help Spread the Message - National Opt-Out Day!
National Opt-Out Day represents an exciting opportunity for all Americans. This very simple, straightforward act of civil disobedience is one that everyone can get behind. Help spread the message and make sure everyone knows this is something they can support and participate in! Share this video and do what you can to inform people about this issue.;

Love, faith, respect,
Adam Kokesh

TSA has met the enemy — and they are us 12 November -

More on Airport X-Ray Scanners, as the battle heats up more than your body -
I can't imagine people being so unaware of the risk of exposure to these x-ray scanners going in at just about every airport without the benefit of your health care provider discussing with you the risk/benefit analysis of this kind of exposure to your body.
Obviously some of the smarter bears around town look like the airline pilots association and Peter Rez, a physics professorat Arizona State University. Rez has independently calculated the radiation dose of backscatter scanners  was higher than TSA has said.
Leave it to DSA to spend millions on unproven technology like Chertoff's border detection system from Boeing.  Maybe Boeing and Chertoff need to make some payments to the treasury fro this big goof!  It might go a long way toward getting us out of the financial muck & mire we seem to be rolling  through.
Read Complete Article
At least someone is thinking outside the box, maybe you should too.

16 September - TSA Testing Privacy Upgrades for Full Body Scanners

4 August - Police agencies admit to saving body scan images 
Capabilities of the checkpoint security machines are still shrouded in mystery
Despite claims by the TSA that electronic body scan images "cannot be stored or recorded," some federal police agencies are in fact saving tens of thousands of images, according to a report by CNET News.
The body scanners, increasingly found in airports, courthouses and other places where security is high, use an assortment of technologies. These include millimeter wave scanners (shown below) — in which the subject is harmlessly pelted with extremely high frequency radio waves which reflect a picture back to the device — and backscatter X-ray (shown above) — which measures low-powered reflective X-rays to produce clearer body shots, shots that can reveal alarmingly precise anatomical detail.
According to CNET, the U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had saved thousands of images that had been recorded from a security checkpoint in a Florida courthouse.
The revelation comes at a tense time. Two weeks ago, when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said such scanners would appear in every major airport, privacy advocates such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit to stop the device rollout.
The reason? Because the devices were "designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded," EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET, adding that this "is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing."
As CNET's Declan McCullagh explains, it's the mystery of the devices' potential that is most unnerving: "This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners — and how they're being used in practice — is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else," he wrote.
The TSA maintains that body scanning is "constitutional" and the CNET

7/17/10 New body-scanner software to show only stick figures
Boston's Logan International Airport hopes to be the first airport in the country to get new software that should eliminate privacy concerns over full-body scanners at security checkpoints.

The software would produce stick-figure images of passengers instead of the more revealing images currently viewed by operators at remote stations.

The software would detect suspicious objects on passengers that require further attention - such as possible weapons or explosives - allowing Transportation Security Administration screeners and explosive weapons specialists to hone in on them and determine whether they pose a danger.
6/29/10  Airport body scanners deliver radiation dose 20 times higher than first thought, warns expert:

June 29, 2010 Airport body scanners deliver radiation dose 20 times higher than first thought, warns expert 30 Jun 2010 Full body scanners at airports could increase your risk of skin cancer, experts warn. The X-ray machines have been brought in at Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow. Scientists say that the low level beam does deliver a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin - one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body - that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated.

1/11/10 Airport Scanners Save and Transmit Scanners, ordered by TSA

Better airport security in Israel

1/5/10 Updates re: Scanner Scam

1/3/10 - "Body scanner wouldn't have foiled syringe bomber, says MP who worked on new machines" Read complete article

T-Waves: A new model of the way the THz waves interact with DNA explains how the damage is done...
" Drawing on sources like The Mayo Clinic and The Radiological Society of North America as well as interviews with prominent radiologists, molecular biologists, and medical doctors, ionizing (penetrating) radiation in any dose, no matter how tiny, causes genetic mutations, which set all living cells exposed on the path to cancer. X-rays are considered ionizing radiation."  Read complete article 

12/29/09 - While India rejected airport sreening in the past, the Netherlands has adopted the process for flights to the US.  As this happens people wonder if there is anyone in charge at TSA and/or DHS ( a department we could rightfully have done without and one that now should be abandoned - think of all the trillions we'd save ) and Obama says no one at DHS is doing thier job.
This was originally Posted in 2006, based on 2005 reports, but seems to be current discussions, and needs to be considered by those who have concerns about their health.

10 second exposure with backscatter=2 minutes in cabin radiation exposure.
FMI: Whole Body Imaging Technology, see what the x-ray machine sees.
from repost in 10/2008:

At the same time as the US Homeland Security Department is pushing for airport x-ray machines that expose your privacy, Germany is calling a halt to this non-sense.

Probably it is worth your consideration to consider using some protective measures and to help clear the radiation exposure effects (iodine, kelp baths, our bath salt blend for chemo/radiation patients) if you're planning to travel by air.
Germany says full-body airport scanner "nonsense"
BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany will not participate in EU proposals for airports to use full-body scanner security checks, which have raised privacy issues, its interior ministry said on Friday.

"I can tell you in all clarity that we will not take part in this nonsense," a spokeswoman for the interior ministry told a regular news conference.

The executive European Commission proposed last month to add body scanners to a list of security measures that can be used at airports in the 27-country bloc.

EU lawmakers criticized the scanners in a resolution on Thursday, saying they were equivalent to "a virtual strip search" and raised serious human rights concerns. The lawmakers called for a detailed study of the technology before it is used.

The Commission says a number of EU states including the Netherlands already use body scanners and the EU executive wanted to harmonize conditions in which they can be operated.

The scanners do not exist at German airports and have sparked vivid criticism by politicians across the political spectrum.

(Reporting by Kerstin Gehmlich; Editing by Matthew Jones)
This was posted in 2006. I've noticed a number of inquiries on the topic of airport x-rays, so I am posting it again.

So you plan to take an airplane trip in the future you say. Well now that the illustrious Department of Homeland Security is going to force you to be X-rayed, what is it that they have told you about the cumulative effects of exposure to gamma radiation in their so-called 'security" screener?

How much more cancer risk do you need? And just what long term studies have been done, especially when considering frequent flyer risk.

I guess I would want more data.

LOS ANGELES (Dec. 20) - A woman mistakenly put her 1-month-old grandson through an X-ray machine at Los Angeles International Airport, authorities said.

Security stations at Los Angeles International Airport Damian Dovarganes, AP

A woman mistakenly put her infant grandson through a security X-ray at Los Angeles International Airport Saturday. Doctors said the 1-month-old did not receive a dangerous dose of radiation.

A startled security worker noticed the shape of a child on the carry-on baggage screening monitor and immediately pulled him out, the Los Angeles Times reported for a story in Wednesday's editions.

The infant was taken to a local hospital, where doctors determined he did not receive a dangerous dose of radiation.

"This was an innocent mistake by an obviously inexperienced traveler," said Paul Haney, deputy executive director of airports and security for the city's airport agency.

The incident happened early Saturday, airport officials said.

Haney said in 1988, an infant in a car seat went through an X-ray machine at the Los Angeles airport.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.


Anonymous said...

Really??? If they do this study, I want to know how radiation you get when you fly? Do the Germans prefer the risk of a incident on the plane to someone seeing the outline of their body?

Unknown said...

The airport x-ray machines show much more than an " outline " of your body and that is one reason why the US backed off on implementation.
If you want to trade for cancer, the risk is cumulative with ALL other x-ray exposure, including that inside an airplane at 35,000 ft.
Obviously in this case the TSA truly failed to meet its mandate.
Anyone ever think to take them to task and make TSA do a real job at screening?

Johnny is a fraddy cat, said...

Do you really believe that you need a full body scan to stop these people. He should not have even made it on the plane. He didnt even have a passport. I will pass on the full body scan and the first poster can havea full body cavity search and my scan to go with it. grow up America and realize you dont need to strip search granny and everyone else to be safe. I submit and I bow to my almighty government, because they will save me from myself.

Anonymous said...

You guys are retards. The scanners use T-rays not X-rays.

Anonymous said...

If they are using T-rays we are really in trouble:

n October 2009, Technology Review reported a new mechanism of DNA damage from terahertz radiation:[8]
The evidence that terahertz radiation damages biological systems is mixed. "Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none," say Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a few buddies. Now these guys think they know why.
Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they've found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication.

Anonymous said...

I have long said all airplane passengers and crew should be completely nude. I guess we still need x-rays in loo of body cavity probing.

Anonymous said...

You crybabies who want mommy government to search you naked disgust me. What happened to he men of the US?

Anonymous said...

There is more radiation per flight, anyways like the other posted said this is T-rays not X-rays.

At 35,000 feet, the dose rate is 4.1 microsieverts per hour over Oklahoma City and 5.1 microsieverts over Anchorage. The amount of time spent at altitude will therefore affect the total radiation exposure.

Anonymous said...

from your wiki page about T-rays
In October 2009, Technology Review reported a new mechanism of DNA damage from terahertz radiation:[8]

The evidence that terahertz radiation damages biological systems is mixed. "Some studies reported significant genetic damage while others, although similar, showed none," say Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and a few buddies. Now these guys think they know why.

Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they've found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication.

Anonymous said...

Aren´t you, the American people, the ones that cry the loudest when their rights get castrated and their privacy get´s violated ?
Imo, walking through these machines is a privacy breach and pretty much equals a strip-search.
Now how many of you would get butt naked infront of some security officers just to hitch a flight ?
Why aren´t you guys crying about this ?

Anonymous said...

I don't understand usamericans. They make a huge issue about a nipple from an artist during a performance in the Super Bowl, yet they find perfectly alright to go through an X-Ray machine that is violating their privacy altogether, not to mention the possible risks that it may carry do to constant exposure. I find it totally unacceptable to impose these measures to civilians because of the governments failure in security and the international policies that provokes those incidents.

Anonymous said...

Sorry I do not trust Wikipedia after their biased, fraudulent reports on so called human created global warming. As for T rays, no thanks.
Besides there is no need to waste money on expensive machines. A good pat-down would accomplish the stated objectives of a scanning machine.

Anonymous said...

Here is the Agenda
Remove ALL personal freedoms or even the Thought, of personal freedom
Next, steal, rape, pillage as you like.
If there seems to be a re-growing idea that personal freedoms should return, inject a false flag 'terror' incident to quickly squash the growth.
Rinse and repeat.
And YOU who cant see this, do NOT deserve to take my Freedoms away.

john the dopamine king said...

in the words of a fellow patriot taken from the infowars website regarding the underwear bomber

"next time any of us takes a plane flight we should show up bollucks naked with our dicks and balls in a plastic bag, and our passport clenched between the cheeks of our ass."

Anonymous said...

how about just screening for people named " abdul" and " mohammed", etc........nahhh!! that would make to much sense. only the chinese use common sense like that anymore. what a shame. political correctness sucks.

Anonymous said...

They should just anesthetize everyone on the plane. Just put everyone under and wake em up when the plane lands. Then no one can do anything other than become transported ectoplasm. No chance of setting off bombs when you're unconcious.

Anonymous said...

Noooooooooooo, I'm a tranny and fear that the coops discover my precious dick cheney under my paints, Oh God, I hate x and t rays. Why they are not just palping the passangers?

Ty Bollinger said...

At best, this is intrusive and unethical, and at worst, illegal. Isn’t it illegal to expose people to radiation without medical justification?

How is the government allowed to irradiate us “willy-nilly” at airports? What about the harmful effects on women in their first trimester of pregnancy, when DNA damage (caused by radiation) poses the highest risk of genetic abnormalities?

Anonymous said...

None of the comments mention dangers to the machine operators.
What do the unions say?

Unknown said...

Excellent comment. Generally most have no concern for workers, not sure what union or what the union position is. Just goverment edict.

Anonymous said...

I like exploring the experience and knowledge of your exact contemporary. Thanks for sharing information.

Unknown said...

How is the government allowed to irradiate us “willy-nilly” at airports? What about the harmful effects on women in their first trimester of pregnancy, when DNA damage (caused by radiation) poses the highest risk of genetic abnormalities.Gatwick Parking