It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by gladtobehere
So the naked body scanners are not safe... Our government lied to us??? I’m in shock.edit on 28-6-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by muzzleflash
There is even quite a debate about Ultrasound being dangerous going on.
Originally posted by Phage
Radiation induced cancer does not appear until years after exposure.
Radiation (and other agent) induced cancer always are associated with a latent period (2 --> 40 years or more)
www.uic.edu...
The body scanners have been in use for how long? Less than a year? If TSA workers are getting occupational cancer it's not from the body scanners.
The NIST did not say it did no testing. It said it did not test for "product safety". Product safety testing would involve testing for things like this: ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com...
The NIST did test the radiation dose of the machine and found it within standards.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Jezus
As far as cancer goes, ionizing radiation is ionizing radiation.
Can you show me a study or two which shows radiation induced cancer appearing in less than a year?
Originally posted by boondock-saint
i think some may be missing the point here
while patronizing their emotions.
Demonizing the scanners to create a health
hazard just means they will do more pat downs.
This info will not stop the Gestapo.
Originally posted by 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.
Originally posted by Danbones
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Danbones
Childhood occurs quite a while after pregnancy but that's one reason why prenatal radiological examinations are very rarely done.
sure if the TSA machines are doing the unzipping type damage
10 percent of the people involved
is a lot of people
www.nist.gov...
All results confirm that the radiation dose from the scanner studied was below that set by the American National Standards Institute standard for safety. The effective dose to a subject being screened varies depending on the age and size of the person. For the AS&E SmartCheck scanner, an adult would receive an effective dose of about 6.2 μrem per frontal scan. A small child would receive an effective dose of about 7.4 μrem per frontal scan. An infant would receive a dose of about 7.2 μrem per frontal scan. In order to be compliant with the ANSI/HPS N43.17-2009 standard, the effective dose should not exceed 25 μrem per screening (which may involve more than one scan) at the point of maximum exposure but no closer than 30 cm from the “beam exit surface.” All exposure measurements outside of the primary beam, due to scatter from the screened individual or leakage from the cabinet, were below the ANSI/HPS N43.17-2009 limits for dose to bystanders and operators.
NO safe minimum dose of radiation....
A Panel of the US national acadamey of sciences charged to investigate the dangers of low dose ionizing radiation has concluded "that it is unlikely thata threshold exists for the induction of cancers...further, there are exztensive data on radiation-induced transmissible mutations in mice and other organisms. the reis no reason to believe that humans believe that humans would be immune to this sort of harm"
The TSA funded NIST to
TSA did not alter or edit the reports. Names were redacted to protect privacy and several pages were incorrectly marked as SSI, but other than that, the reports are there, warts and all.
TSA Releases Radiation Testing Reports
Well, while looking over these reports, we found some inaccuracies in contractor reporting that affected the documentation of some of the test results.
•Lack of notation for the latest calibration date for the machine being tested or the most recent calibration date noted had expired on survey meters
•Information missing regarding warning labels and other required labels on machines
•Calculation errors not impacting safety
•Missing survey point readings (e.g., If the test procedure required 13 points around the machine to be tested, in some cases, readings for only 11 points were reported)
•Inconsistent responses to survey questions
•No reading of background radiation noted
•Missing other non-measurement related information
While these inaccuracies didn’t impact the overall assessment that the technology is safe, they are still unacceptable.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Danbones
Here are the reports on every machine. I can't find any leakage, maybe you can.
www.tsa.gov...
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Thunder heart woman
Like what? My medical chart?
I don't think so.