{"id":168691,"date":"2010-01-12T04:56:30","date_gmt":"2010-01-12T09:56:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nw0.eu\/2010\/01\/12\/full-body-scanners-used-on-air-passengers-may-damage-human-dna.html"},"modified":"2010-01-12T04:56:30","modified_gmt":"2010-01-12T09:56:30","slug":"full-body-scanners-used-on-air-passengers-may-damage-human-dna","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/168691","title":{"rendered":"Full-body scanners used on air passengers may damage human DNA"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n

Mike Adams
\nNatural News<\/a>
\nMonday , January 11th, 2010<\/p>\n

In researching the biological effects of the millimeter wave scanners<\/em> used for whole body imaging at airports, NaturalNews has learned that the energy emitted by the machines may damage human DNA.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Millimeter wave machines represent one of two primary technologies
\ncurrently being used for the \u201cdigital strip searches\u201d being
\nconducted at airports around the world. \u201cThe Transportation
\nSecurity Administration utilizes two technologies to capture naked
\nimages of air travelers \u2013 backscatter x-ray technology and
\nmillimeter wave technology,\u201d reports the Electronic Privacy Information Center<\/em>, a non-profit currently suing the U.S. government<\/a> to stop these electronic strip searches. (http:\/\/epic.org\/privacy\/airtravel\/b\u2026<\/a>)<\/p>\n

In order to generate the nude image of the human body, these machines emit terahertz photons<\/strong> \u2014 high-frequency energy \u201cparticles\u201d that can pass through clothing and body tissue.<\/p>\n

The manufacturers of such machines claim they are perfectly safe and present no health<\/a> risks, but a study conducted by Boian S. Alexandrov (and colleagues) at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico<\/em> showed that these terahertz waves could \u201c\u2026unzip double-stranded DNA<\/a>, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression<\/a> and DNA replication.\u201d<\/p>\n

In layman\u2019s terms, any time you\u2019re talking about
\ninterfering with \u201cgene expression\u201d and \u201cDNA
\nreplication,\u201d you\u2019re essentially talking about something
\nthat could be a risk<\/a> to human health.<\/p>\n

Never approved as safe for humans<\/h1>\n

\u201cAt first glance, it\u2019s easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging,\u201d reports TechnologyReview.com (http:\/\/www.technologyreview.com\/blo\u2026<\/a>).
\n\u201cBut a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only
\nrecord terahertz waves but also bombard us<\/a> with them. And if our
\nexposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering
\nis what level of terahertz exposure is safe.\u201d<\/p>\n

And yet no such long-term safety testing has ever been conducted by a third party. There have been no clinical trials<\/strong>
\nindicating that multiple exposures to such terahertz waves, accumulated
\nover a long period of time, are safe for humans. The FDA, in
\nparticular, has never granted its approval for any such devices even
\nthough these devices clearly qualify as \u201cmedical devices.\u201d<\/p>\n

(If you try to sell an X-ray imaging device yourself, without FDA approval, you\u2019ll be arrested. So why do these TSA<\/a> suppliers get away with selling human body imaging equipment that has never been adequately safety tested or approved by the FDA<\/a>?)<\/p>\n

The study cited in the TechnologyReview article mentioned above is visible at: http:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/0910.5294<\/a><\/p>\n

There, study authors conclude: \u201cBased on our results we argue
\nthat a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect
\nthe natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular
\nprocesses involved in gene expression and DNA replication.\u201d<\/p>\n

In other words, millimeter wave scanning devices may damage your DNA<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\"Full
\n(These images depict what the TSA<\/a> sees when air passengers are subjected to full-body scans using millimeter wave technology and \/ or backscatter X-rays<\/a>.)<\/em><\/p>\n

Could these scans cause cancer<\/a><\/a> and birth defects?<\/h1>\n

Could these scans cause infertility<\/a>? Cancer<\/a>? Shortened lifespan? We don\u2019t yet know the answers to these questions, but then again neither does the TSA<\/em>. This technology is being recklessly rolled out<\/strong> without adequate safety testing that would prove it safe for long-term use.<\/p>\n

How many times in the past have the \u201cexperts\u201d told us<\/a>
\ntechnologies were perfectly safe and then later we found out they were
\ndangerous? X-Rays were once used in shoe stores to see if new shoes
\nwould fit the bone structure of your feet. High-voltage power lines are
\nperfectly safe, we\u2019re told \u2014 but then why do children who
\nlive closer to those lines have higher rates of cancer<\/a>?<\/p>\n

Dentists still<\/em> claim that mercury fillings are perfectly safe for your health \u2014 a preposterous notion \u2014 and cell phone<\/a> companies continue to insist that cell phone radiation isn\u2019t hazardous to your health at all. Time and time again, the public has been lied to by the authorities<\/strong>
\nduring the roll-out of some new technology. Why should we believe that
\nfull-body scanners<\/a> are safe when they\u2019ve never been proven safe?
\nFurthermore, there is now reason to believe they may damage human DNA.<\/p>\n

What if the experts are wrong about their safety and ten years later we find out that there is cumulative DNA damage<\/strong> that causes infertility and cancer<\/a>? What if air travelers<\/a>
\nwho subject themselves to this radiation wind up suffering some
\ncurrently-unknown health condition as a result? At no time in the
\nhistory of human civilization have large numbers of humans ever been
\nsubjected to terahertz bombardment of this type and frequency.<\/p>\n

Sure, you can argue that you get more radiation sitting in an
\nairplane at high altitude than you get from a full-body scanner, or you
\ncan explain that cell phones emit far more radiation on the whole
\n(which they do, when you\u2019re talking on them anyway). But if
\nthere\u2019s one thing we all should have learned about radiation by
\nnow it\u2019s that frequencies matter<\/strong>. The terahertz frequencies have never been rolled out en masse<\/em> in a scanning technology. Who\u2019s to say they\u2019re going to be safe?<\/p>\n

What about pregnant women<\/a>?
\nCan the TSA absolutely guarantee that these full-body scanners<\/a>
\nwon\u2019t damage the DNA of the unborn babies? What if this
\ntechnology becomes the next Thalidomide<\/em> and ten months from now women start giving birth to mutant babies who were damaged by terahertz radiation?<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not saying this is going to happen, but wouldn\u2019t it be wise to determine the safety of this technology in advance of its global rollout?<\/em><\/p>\n

As the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements<\/em> admitted in a 2002 report that studied these security devices: (http:\/\/www.fda.gov\/ohrms\/dockets\/AC\u2026<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u201c[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer<\/a>
\nattributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed
\nto very low doses of radiation.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Barring solid evidence of the safety of this terahertz-emitting technology, the TSA would be wise to follow the Precautionary Principle<\/em>
\nwhich states that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to
\nthe roll out of new technologies. Unfortunately, the TSA appears to be
\nerring on the side of stupidity by subjecting the public to an
\nunproven, \u201cexperimental\u201d technology with unknown long-term
\neffects on human DNA.<\/p>\n

And here\u2019s the real kicker: These full-body scanners<\/a> do nothing to stop terrorists<\/a><\/strong>
\nbecause they can\u2019t detect powder explosives in the first place. A
\ndetermined terrorist can hide all sorts of powder in a shoe, or a
\nsleeping pillow, or a plastic bag sewn into the side of his carry-on
\nluggage. There are a thousand places for terrorists to hide explosives
\nthat won\u2019t be caught on full-body scanners<\/a>, no matter how
\ndetailed the images are.<\/p>\n

Besides, in order to avoid engaging in child pornography (because
\nthese machines offer very detailed depictions of body parts), the rules
\nwill allow people under 18 years of age to bypass them. So all you need
\nthen, if you\u2019re a terrorist, is a 17-year-old terrorist assistant<\/strong> who can pack explosives in his own underwear.<\/p>\n

Radiology experts claim full-body scanners<\/a> are safe<\/h1>\n

Radiology experts are claiming that the radiation emitted from these full-body scanners<\/a> is perfectly safe for you. Then again, they also claim mammograms<\/a> are safe<\/strong>, and recent science has now proven that mammograms cause cancer<\/a>.<\/p>\n

When it comes to radiation safety, you can\u2019t trust radiologists<\/em>.
\nThey say all that radiation is safe for YOU, but then they flee the
\nroom when the X-rays are turned on, ever notice that? They really have
\nzero credibility when talking about the long-term safety of medical
\nimaging devices. Most doctors, similarly, don\u2019t have any real
\nclue how much radiation is emitted by a CT scan!<\/p>\n

As BusinessWeek reports: (http:\/\/www.businessweek.com\/lifesty\u2026<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u201cThe health effects of the more common millimeter-wave
\nscanners are largely unknown, and at least one expert believes a safety
\nstudy is warranted.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2018I am very interested in performing a National Council on
\nRadiation Protection and Measurements study on the use of
\nmillimeter-wave security screening systems,\u2019 said Thomas S.
\nTenforde, council president.\u201d<\/p>\n

The New York<\/a> Times adds: (http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2010\/01\/09\/h\u2026<\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u201cCollectively, the radiation doses from the scanners
\nincrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or
\nmillions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts
\nbelieve.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

NYT goes on to state that the TSA has entered into a contract under which it could purchase 900 full-body scanners<\/a><\/strong> to be deployed in airport all across the country.<\/p>\n

Resources:<\/h1>\n

Physics Letters<\/em>, January 8, 2010
\nhttp:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/0910.5294<\/a><\/p>\n

Technology Review:
\nhttp:\/\/www.technologyreview.com\/blo\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n

Wikipedia:
\nhttp:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Millim\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n

New York Times:
\nhttp:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2010\/01\/09\/h\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Related Posts:<\/h3>\n