body

It's true: Airport body scanners could give you cancer

Monday, October 18, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
Tags: airport body scanners, cancer, health news

eTrust Pro Certified

Most Viewed Articles
Popular on Facebook
BACK INTO THE CLOSET: Why U.S. reporters are not allowed to write about rainbow events in nations where being gay is still condemned
Depopulation test run? 75% of children who received vaccines in Mexican town now dead or hospitalized
A family destroyed: Six-month-old dies after clinic injects baby with 13 vaccines at once without mother's informed consent
Biologist explains how marijuana causes tumor cells to commit suicide
U2's Bono partners with Monsanto to destroy African agriculture with GMOs
Companies begin planting microchips under employees' skin
BAM! Chipotle goes 100% non-GMO; flatly rejecting the biotech industry and its toxic food ingredients
ECONOMIC SLAVERY FOR ALL: While we were distracted with the Confederate flag flap, Congress quietly forfeited our entire economic future via fast-track trade authority
NJ cops bust teenagers shoveling snow without a permit
Russia throws down the gauntlet: energy supply to Europe cut off; petrodollar abandoned as currency war escalates
McDonald's in global profit free fall as people everywhere increasingly reject chemically-altered toxic fast food
Chemotherapy kills cancer patients faster than no treatment at all
March Against Monsanto explodes globally... World citizens stage massive protests across 38 countries, 428 cities... mainstream media pretends it never happened
600 strains of an aerosolized thought control vaccine already tested on humans; deployed via air, food and water
Italian court rules mercury and aluminum in vaccines cause autism: US media continues total blackout of medical truth
The 21 curious questions we're never allowed to ask about vaccines
Vicious attack on Dr. Oz actually waged by biotech mafia; plot to destroy Oz launched after episode on glyphosate toxicity went viral
Orthorexia Nervosa - New mental disorder aimed at people who insist on eating a clean diet

Delicious
(NaturalNews) The new, full-body security scanners being introduced at airports pose a greater skin cancer risk than governments have previously acknowledged and are especially dangerous to children and pregnant women, a new study has found.

The devices, known officially as backscatter X-ray machines, were introduced after the "Christmas Day Bomber" successfully got an explosive device through conventional airport screening. They use up to eight seconds of X-rays over the entire body to create a three-dimensional, full-body image of anything that passengers might be carrying beneath their clothing. More than a hundred of the scanners have already been rolled out at 32 U.S. airports, and they are being introduced in other countries, as well. The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) plans to have 450 of the scanners deployed by the end of 2010.

A new analysis of the radiation dose delivered by the machines, conducted by David Brenner and colleagues at Columbia University, found that because the beams concentrate X-rays on the body's skin, the effective dose may be 20 times higher than previously estimated.

Because the skin is one of the body's most radiation-sensitive organs, the scanners significantly increase the risk that passengers will develop basal cell carcinoma, a kind of skin cancer. Children and the 5 percent of adult passengers with certain relatively common gene mutations are at significantly higher risk due to their reduced ability to repair DNA damage.

"If there are increases in cancers as a result of irradiation of children, they would most likely appear some decades in the future," Brenner said.

Basal cell carcinoma normally occurs in the heads and necks of people between the ages of 50 and 70. For this reason, Brenner suggested that, at minimum, these areas of the body should not be scanned.

"The individual risks associated with X-ray backscatter scanners are probably extremely small," he said, "[but if] all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant."

Brenner was a member of the U.S. government committee that originally set the safety guidelines for the devices, and was one of the members who endorsed their use. Brenner now says he never would have endorsed the scanners if he knew there were plans to use them on all passengers.

"There really is no other technology around where we're planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals," he warned. "It's really unprecedented in the radiation world."

The British Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) responded to the study by reiterating its position that the scans are safe.

"The device has been approved for use within the United Kingdom by the Department for Transport and has been subjected to risk assessments from the Health Protection Agency," the CAA said. "To put the issue in perspective, the radiation received from the scanning process is the equivalent to two minutes radiation received on a Transatlantic flight. Under current regulations, up to 5,000 scans per person per year can be conducted safely."

The new study is not the first to raise concerns over the devices, however. In February, the Interagency Committee on Radiation Safety issued an internal report to groups including the European Commission, International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and the World Health Organization warning that pregnant women and children should never be exposed to the devices.

"The issue raised by the report is that even though doses from the systems are very low, they feel there is still a need for countries to justify exposures," said Michael Clark of the United Kingdom's Health Protection Agency.

The ability of the devices to produce naked images of passengers has also produced challenges on privacy grounds.

Sources for this story include: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsa... ; http://www.counterpunch.org/nader06252010.ht... ; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12....

Join over four million monthly readers. Your privacy is protected. Unsubscribe at any time.
comments powered by Disqus
Take Action: Support NaturalNews.com by linking back to this article from your website

Permalink to this article:

Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):

Reprinting this article:
Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link.

Follow Natural News on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and Pinterest

Advertise with NaturalNews...

Support NaturalNews Sponsors:

Advertise with NaturalNews...

GET SHOW DETAILS
+ a FREE GIFT

Sign up for the FREE Natural News Email Newsletter

Receive breaking news on GMOs, vaccines, fluoride, radiation protection, natural cures, food safety alerts and interviews with the world's top experts on natural health and more.

Join over 7 million monthly readers of NaturalNews.com, the internet's No. 1 natural health news site. (Source: Alexa.com)

Your email address *

Please enter the code you see above*

No Thanks

Already have it and love it!

Natural News supports and helps fund these organizations:

* Required. Once you click submit, we will send you an email asking you to confirm your free registration. Your privacy is assured and your information is kept confidential. You may unsubscribe at anytime.