TSA employees diagnosed with cancer, naked body scanners to blame.

I won't mention any names, but it sure seems there are some regulars here that defend the establishment without fail. In fact, every time.
As far as getting cancer within a year, how about one of us volunteer to be scanned nonstop for a typical work day at the good old TSA, for a solid year.
I volunteer Phage.

reply to post by SirClem

I'm not the topic of the thread.

I received more than 4,000 rads of x-rays 29 years ago. No cancer since. Chew on that for a while.

reply to post by Jezus

Not all sources of ionizing radiation are the same.

Then can you explain the difference between x-rays, and ....x-rays?

reply to post by Phage


You know what I meant, so I'm not sure why your playing dumb.

reply to post by Backslider


BOO go be sympathetic elsewhere. TSA servants deserve a bullet in the brain for betraying their countrymen.

reply to post by Jezus

I don't know what you meant. The body scanners use x-rays. Your dentist uses x-rays. I had radiation therapy using x-rays. What sort of different ionizing radiation are you talking about. What sort of different effects?

The point is made.
Radiation does not cause cancer, it cures cancer.
Are we clear?

reply to post by SirClem

It can do both.
It cures cancer quickly. It causes cancer, when it does, slowly. My cancer was cured, I still may develop cancer because of the treatment. I'll take the years I've had gladly.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Jezus

 

I don't know what you meant. The body scanners use x-rays. Your dentist uses x-rays. I had radiation therapy using x-rays. What sort of different ionizing radiation are you talking about. What sort of different effects?

I said something very simple.

Not all sources of ionizing radiation are the same.

You claim this is not true?

All sources of ionizing radiation are completely identical?

reply to post by Jezus

To refresh your memory.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Phage
As far as cancer goes, ionizing radiation is ionizing radiation.

This doesn't change the fact that not all sources of ionizing radiation are the same; one example intensity.

reply to post by Phage

Slowly huh? Like, years...decades? Can you be more specific?
I am also curious how you can be so sure?
Personally, I am concerned that these machines have not been properly assessed as to their safety. Nor am I convinced that you cannot quickly get cancer from radiation.

reply to post by Jezus

Yes. Intensity is an important factor in whether and where cancer develops. But not so much in the latency period, which is what we are talking about.

reply to post by SirClem

The machines have been assessed.

To refresh your memory.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yea....lets get rid of the TSA!......lets wish them all a slow cancerous death!

Riddle me this........who the hell are you going to blame when a plane gets blown out of the sky because a TSA pat down or body scan wasn't done?


some of the comments on this thread disgust me.

reply to post by Phage

From your source.

The exact mechanism of cancer induction is not known; however, most theories center around somatic mutation.

Also this.

Radiation (and other agent) induced cancer always are associated with a latent period (2 --> 40 years or more)

Two things, two seconds, or so...

First, to paraphrase..."we don't know, we have "most" theories, and we have at least one test subject that acquired cancer in as little as two years".

And, secondly, we have this dubious source that, it appears, has closed the subject for you to further scrutiny.

Phage, you should balance your source material, at least occasionally, with credible people that question the conventional wisdom put forth by a corporate run establishment. You seem intelligent enough to be balanced.

reply to post by Argyll

Hey Argyll,
How many terrorists have the TSA caught?
And, how many have they let through?

reply to post by relocator


Flawed Logic Alert! It might seem as if in general non-smokers develop cancer at nearly the same rate as smokers. But even that I would ask, is based on what observations? If you look it up you will see that smokers develop LUNG cancer at much higher rates than non-smokers. Oral cancers, throat cancers...smokers have more.

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by Argyll

 

Hey Argyll,
How many terrorists have the TSA caught?
And, how many have they let through?

You miss the point
What's your alternative?

"I had a brain cancer specialist sit in my living room and tell me that he would never take radiation if he had a brain tumor. And I asked him, 'but, do you send people for radiation?' and he said, of course. 'I'd be drummed out of the hospital if I didn't."---Ralph Moss

www.whale.to...