<html>
<body>
<h1><font size=4><b>Something to Consider on Opt-Out Day: Body-Scanners
May Not Work, But They Do Cause Cancer</b></font></h1><font size=3>Wed,
11/24/2010<br>
by: James Ridgeway <br>
<a href="http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/323" eudora="autourl">
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/323<br><br>
</a>Are you one of the millions of Americans flying this Thanksgiving
weekend? Are you thinking about joining the national protest to opt-out
of being run through an airport X-ray scanner?<br><br>
If you’re worried about the alternative--getting groped by TSA screeners
at the checkpoint--you might consider this: The government insists those
back-scatter X-ray machines are perfectly safe, but many scientists
disagree.<br><br>
It’s not just a matter of some puerile TSA screeners giggling at your
naked body. In a
<a href="http://holt.house.gov/images/stories/updated_TSA_letter_11.19.2010.pdf">
letter to John Pistole</a>, administrator of TSA, New Jersey Congressman
Rush Holt, a physicist and the Chairman of the House Select Intelligence
Oversight Panel, raises the possibility that the machines might be
carcinogenic. He writes:<br><br>
<i>In March, the Congressional Biomedical Caucus (of which I am a
co-chair) hosted a presentation on this technology by TSA, as well as a
briefing by Dr. David Brenner of Columbia University on the potential
health effects of “back scatter” x-ray devices. As Dr. Brenner noted in
his presentation and in subsequent media interviews, the devices
currently in use and proposed for wider deployment this year currently
deliver to the scalp “20 times the average dose that is typically quoted
by TSA and throughout the industry.”<br><br>
Dr. Brenner has pointed out that the majority of the radiation from X-ray
backscatter machines strikes the top of the head, which is where 85
percent of the 800,000 cases of basal cell carcinoma diagnosed in the
United States each year develop. According to Dr. Brenner, excessive
x-ray exposure can act as a cancer rate multiplier, which is why our
government should investigate thoroughly the potential health risks
associated with this technology.<br><br>
</i>Various experts have questioned whether older people and children
ought to be subjected to scanners, and whether people susceptible to or
having melanoma and cataracts should undergo the scan. <br><br>
Last April, four California scientists--biology and medical
researchers--in a
<a href="http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/TSA_Misleads_Public_On_Scanner_Safety_203670-1.html">
letter to the White House</a>, warned that there had been no independent
research done into the safety of backscatter X-rays, with the government
relying entirely on the industry’s own claims of safety. They also said
that the TSA’s claim that the X-rays were less dangerous than an ordinary
chest X-ray were misleading because the dose isbeing calculated for the
whole body, while in fact the entire X-ray is focussed on the skin of the
body, which receives a much higher dosage--one they warned could lead to
potentially serious cancer risk.<br><br>
Holt, meanwhile, also questioned the efficacy of the body scanners, which
would come as no surprise to critics who’ve been lambasting them for
years. Last January, when the government’s appetite for body scanners got
a big boost from the underwear bomber, there was skepticism about their
ability to detect the types of explosives favored by would-be airline
bombers. As I
<a href="http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/airport-scanner-scam">wrote
at the time</a>:<br><br>
<i>Known by their opponents as “digital strip search” machines, the
full-body scanners use one of two technologiesmillimeter wave sensors or
backscatter x-raysto see through clothing, producing ghostly images of
naked passengers. Yet critics say that these, too, are highly fallible,
and are incapable of revealing explosives hidden in body cavitiesan
age-old method for smuggling contraband. If that’s the case, a terrorist
could hide the entire bomb works within his or her body, and breeze
through the virtual strip search undetected. Yesterday, the London
Independent reported on “authoritative claims that officials at the [UK]
Department for Transport and the Home Office have already tested the
scanners and were not persuaded that they would work comprehensively
against terrorist threats to aviation.” A British defense-research firm
reportedly found the machines unreliable in detecting “low-density”
materials like plastics, chemicals, and liquidsprecisely what the
underwear bomber had stuffed in his briefs.<br><br>
</i>Nuclear physicist Prof. Peter Rez of the Arizona State University
says that the backscatter device is notoriously bad at spotting liquids
or semi-liquids, which is exactly what explosives like C-4 or plastique
are. Moulded to blend smoothly with the skin, he said, such explosives,
even on the outside of the body, would be virtually indistinguishable
from flesh, especially on a person with folds of skin on the
body.<br><br>
Just to be sure I am not going off the deep end on this subject, I
emailed Steve Elson, the intrepid former Navy Seal who worked on the
federal government’s Red Team, which was deployed in the years
before 9/11 to test airport security by infiltrating through check
points. This they did with ease; but no one ever paid any attention to
their reports. Since 9/11 Elson has worked on and off with television
crews, continuing to penetrate airport security carrying with him all
manner of guns and IEDs, and for the most part avoiding detection. In a
CBC program last year at this time, the Canadians reviewed the air
security situation and found it to be wanting. The reporters also got
hold of a
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/fasten_your_seatbelts/images/CATSA-Report-ProTech-Integrated-Checkpoint-Trial-Kelowna-Airport.pdf">
redacted report</a> from the Canadian transport people which raised
questions about the effectiveness of full body scanners, especially when
they are used in combination with metal detectors: A person passing
through one machine after another would have to place their arms in
different positions and the Canadians found the body scanners would fail
to detect objects like rings or bracelets on extended arms because the
mechanism could not reach high enough to take them in.<br><br>
The <i>Washington Post</i> recently carried a list of people exempt from
body scanning, including cops and military in uniform. (They might have
added members of Congress. Republican House Speaker-apparent John
Boehner, on a commercial flight recently, simply walked around the
device, and ducked both the zapping and the groping.) I asked Elson about
the exemptions, and he replied:<br><br>
<i>When I was traveling through Chicago last January on my way to Toronto
to do an interview, I had some time between planes. Got a sandwich. No
place to sit down so I literally walked into the back of a checkpoint
that was enclosed by glass so everyone could see what was going on, sat
down on a bench and ate my sandwich, and watched. No one touched
the pilots. Ergo, all I needed was a pilot’s uniform, bought or stolen,
and a photoshop badge. Put explosives on my body, no metal, walk through,
pick up my stuff and off to the plane. Likewise, I could do something
similar on the ramp. Best time is in cold weather and snow storms. Do it
as night approaches. People don’t care about security, just getting the
job done and getting out of the weather. Steal a bag tag, make an
unauthorized entry (no problem), walk up to a plane and throw it in with
50 lbs explosive.<br><br>
</i>Elson has always contended that the body scanner couldn’t detect
explosives in body cavities. In his email he added this: “The machine can
see through a thin layer of clothing and probably detect explosives
strapped to the body.” But he pointed out that Leslie Stahl on
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5205160n&tag=related;photovideo">
“60 Minutes”</a>worried about exposing private parts, but noted she
could see a woman’s bra. “If she could see the bra, that means she could
not see through the bra. A bra bomb or explosives molded to the breast
wouldn’t be seen,” he continues. “And a woman, because of her anatomical
construction, could easily… bring a several pound IED fully assembled
with timer, detonator, power sources right through the checkpoint. If
scanned or patted down it would make no difference. Once on the plane she
has the option to leave it in the plane…and get off.” Ellison warns
that a well planned Al Qaeda operation, “if they did it right, could
knock down 50 planes in 30 minutes. Think about what that would do to US
air operations.”<br><br>
In my opinion, the best answer to airport security is the mass deployment
of dogs. Give me a friendly German Shepherd, and I’ll gladly submit to
being sniffed, rather than patted, wanded, or scanned. But unlike the
scanner companies, dogs have no powerful lobbyists, like former Homeland
Security chief Michael Chertoff, to advocate on their behalf.<br><br>
<i>James Ridgeway, an occasional columnist for ThisCantBeHappening!, is
senior Washington correspondent for Mother Jones Magazine. For 30 years
he was Washington correspondent for the Village Voice. He has his own
blog called <a href="http://unsilentgeneration.com/">Unsilent
Generation</a><br><br>
<br><br>
</i></font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>