The issue of the safety of the scanners is entering cult territory; a Google search of one article that has appeared over and over across the web reveals that many blogs have picked up the phrase "How TSA scanners tear apart DNA."
Because blogs can be unreliable and exciteable, I have tried to track down the most reliable, reasonable and scientific sources of the information about the safety of the scanners, avoiding the "Infowars" articles to which Drudge has been linking which have a tendency to be paranoid and incendiary.
On a scientific level, however, It seems there are significant questions about the impact of terahertz radiation; the scientists who have studied it have called the damage "probabilistic" rather than "deterministic."
Written in October of 2009, Technology Review carefully examines the effect of terahertz radiation without referring to the backscatter scanners:
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. That's a jaw dropping conclusion.A writer at Veterans Today discusses the work of Alexandrov at Los Alamos, who has detailed research on THz:
Boian Alexandrov at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico recently published an abstract with colleagues, “DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field ” that reveals very disturbing—even shocking—evidence that the THz waves generated by TSA scanners is significantly damaging the DNA of the people being directed through the machines, and the TSA workers that are in close proximity to the scanners throughout their workday.New Scientist, which seems to be a bit fussy about copying their text, goes into detail about the effect of the scanners on the human body, the research that's been done by a group of scientists at the University of California, San Francisco, and the letter that was written to the FDA to request that more outside review be done of the scanners before implementing them into public use.
Just how effective are the scanners anyway, CBS news asked.
Senator Grassley requested a review of the effectiveness of the scanners by the government; unfortunately, we will never see it because the results of the investigation are, you know, untransparently classified:
Another report on the scanners was done by the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security . Investigators tested the devices in eight airports using federal agents disguised as passengers to see if the items they had on their person were detected by the controversial whole body scanners.
A summary of the report was published in March 2010.
But good luck getting your hands on what they found.
The report notes: "The number of tests conducted, the names of the airports tested, and the quantitative and qualitative results of our testing are classified."Probably the most partisan, if clear, reading about the effectiveness of the scanners is over at Natural News, which picks apart and explains, according to writer and editor Mike Adams's viewpoint, the research about the scanners and poses ten questions that arise from their use, who the most vulnerable citizens are (children, pregnant women, senior citizens, cancer patients) and the consequences of doing nothing.
One of the most disturbing points Adams makes is problem #9: concern over a malfunctioning machine. Who would know? Who would be there to fix it?
#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 inpowerat 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 scannerinto a high-energy weapon if the beam gets "stuck" in one location for more than a fraction of a second.Even taxpayer funded politically correct NPR gets in on the criticism, although safely maintaining no resistance to the current administration's conclusions that the scanners are completely safe.
Dr. David Brenner of Columbia has changed his mind about the scanners, as quoted in the Digital Journal. It is being suggested by scientists that the amount of radiation an individual receives going through the scanners is 20 times higher than the government claims:
Dr. Brenner, who was consulted to write guidelines for the security scanners in 2002, claims he would not have signed the report had he known the devices would be so widely used. He said a type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma, which occurs mainly on the head and neck and is usually curable, is the most likely risk from the airport scanners.Dr. Brenner was interviewed recently by NPR; his concern is significant for the number of people being scanned, the baggage handlers and TSA agents standing next to the machines:
Dr. BRENNER: I certainly would. It's hard to know what the logic is. I mean, I think the logic must be that the TSA believes both of them are safe and so they're using both of these devices. But there is certainly not conclusive evidence but convincing evidence that there will be some cancers induced some time in the future by these X-ray devices.John Whitehead of Rutherford examines the situation and why we are being subjected to having to make the decision whether to get into the scanner or not:
Of course, the FDA, which has been criticized heavily in recent years as being fundamentally broken and even corrupt, has a very dubious track record when it comes to ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs, biologics and medical devices. Over the years, the FDA has been accused of causing high drug prices, keeping life-saving drugs off the market, allowing unsafe drugs on the market because of pressure from pharmaceutical companies and censoring health information about nutritional supplements and foods. For example, the FDA recently admitted to making a mistake in approving a controversial knee implant against the advice of its scientific reviewers. As the Associated Press reports, “The announcement comes a year after the agency first acknowledged that its decision to approve the device was influenced by outside pressure, including lobbying by four lawmakers from the company’s home state of New Jersey.”In response to citizen concern over the TSA's new policies, government officials have responded by saying, "Don't fly" then.
Let's get real here.
A good number of people don't fly for pleasure.
A good number of people fly to see family members, to do business and to fulfill obligations that cannot be fulfilled by driving.
So that puts fliers in a bind. Do we opt for the patdown? Some of those experiences have been quite unpleasant.
In fact, it appears that the TSA is intentionally making the patdowns as embarrassing as possible to
In other words, people, when faced with a choice, will inevitably choose the Dick-Measuring Device over molestation? "That's what we're hoping for. We're trying to get everyone into the machine." He called over a colleague. "Tell him what you call the back-scatter," he said. "The Dick-Measuring Device," I said. "That's the truth," the other officer responded. [SNIP]
The second lesson is that the effectiveness of pat-downs does not matter very much, because the obvious goal of the TSA is to make the pat-down embarrassing enough for the average passenger that the vast majority of people will choose high-tech humiliation over the low-tech ball check.TSA technique includes not only humiliation, but time wasting, apparently, which most people can ill afford when flying. Again, Goldberg in another article and another experience at The Atlantic:
Reagan National, 6:40 a.m. today. I opt-out of the humiliating back-scatter machine and ask for a pat-down. Once again, the TSA officers eye me suspiciously. "Wait here," one says. I wait, and wait some more. One obvious technique the TSA is using to funnel passengers through the back-scatter imager is to waste their time -- many people can't afford to wait five minutes for a pat-down, and will exchange the humiliation of the Federal Dick-Measurer for a speedier trip through security.
Eventually, I'm called over for my pat-down. "Do you want to do this privately?" he asks. "No, right here in the middle of the airport is fine," I say.On several occasions over traveling the last few days, I casually asked people if they minded some of the "whacky"( is the word I think I used), new measures the TSA is employing for security. The answer was invariably no, as long as I get to my destination without being blown up.
The reason people are not disturbed by the new measures is that they have not suffered the ill effects, or yet seen the ill effects, of these machines' impact on the human body, or the psychological effect of the intrusive body patdowns, or the impact on the progression of government intrusion into our daily lives.
When 9/11 happened, the first responders rushed in heroically, many without breathing apparatus or protection against the lethal air. Interviews showed them brushing off the use of such devices because of their grief and earnestness to help. Even Christie Todd Whitman, EPA director, absolved the air quality of its filth. Now, years later, we see the result of such impulsivity.
Will it take years and ill effects for the resolution of this question of the safety of the back scatter scanners?
It is probably not definitive yet that the scanners are damaging to human DNA; however, there is enough question about their safety that one has to wonder why the TSA has rushed them into use.
Unfortunately there's money involved from people who have invested in the machines: the money of a former DHS official, the omnipresent George Soros, Deepak Chopra, lobbyists and politicians (3 democrats and 5 republicans).
This is all reminiscent of an old Twilight Zone episode called "To Serve Man," in which earthlings are enticed by all an alien race has to offer. The aliens are so accommodating that they have even written a book on integrating with the human race. The book is called, of course, "To Serve Man."
The conclusion is, shall we say, not what the earthlings expect.
One has to be sympathetic to the quandary of the TSA agents forced to participate in these shenanigans. It's not all their fault, and they will probably be forced to suffer the most significant health consequences of the effect of any radiation seeping from these machines.
One would also hope the agents will begin a protest of their own, just as the pilots have.
One solution for the flier might be to leave for the airport in plenty of time.
And eat lots of beans before you go, just in case you have to undergo a patdown to resist the scanner examination.
That might encourage TSA agents on the ground to hurry up their protest.
No comments:
Post a Comment