A reasonable concern. Far better than, "you can see my boobies or johnson"
Please. My daughter's "nekid" Barbie dolls in the bathroom were more revealing. On Nov 23, 12:14 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > Are Body Scanners Dangerous to Your > Health?http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6617.shtml > > By John W. Whitehead > Online Journal Guest Writer > > Nov 23, 2010, 00:23 > > As the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) pushes forward with > its plan to place full-body scanners in all American airports, experts > in the scientific community are raising serious concerns that the > full-body scanners are not medically safe for the millions of people > that will be exposed to them each year. Even the Allied Pilots > Association has urged its members to opt out of the body scanning > measures because of the "ionizing radiation, which could be harmful to > their health." > > In April 2010, four members of the University of California faculty > relayed to Dr. John P. Holdren, President Obama's Science and Technology > czar, their concerns about the serious health risks posed to travelers > by the whole body back scatter X-ray scanners. Dr. Sedat is a Professor > Emeritus in Biochemistry and Biophysics, with expertise in imaging; Dr. > Marc Sherman is an internationally well known and respected cancer > expert; and Drs. David Agard and Robert Stroud are X-ray > crystallographers and imaging experts. Suffice it to say, these men know > what they're talking about. So when they suggest that an immediate > moratorium is needed on the use of the scanners in order to carry out a > second independent evaluation to determine that the scanners really > /are/ safe, our government, which is supposed to protect us from these > kinds of dangers, should listen. > > Specifically, these scientists argue that the concentration of radiation > on the skin of individuals being scanned poses a serious cancer risk > that has been largely dismissed. The TSA has compared the radiation > received from the body scanner to the radiation that is absorbed in > regular airplane travel or the radiation from a chest X-ray. However, in > their memo to Dr. Holdren, Drs. Sedat, Agard, Stroud and Shuman note > that this comparison is "very misleading." The TSA estimates only > consider the radiation as it would be if absorbed by the whole body, as > opposed to how the scanner really operates, which is to concentrate the > radiation on the skin. The scientists claim that the body scanners have > not received a proper medical review using "key data" which would allow > for a proper understanding of the medical impact of the technology which > they believe could cause mutations and skin cancer. They suggest setting > up an independent panel to review the safety concerns posed by the > scanners, a highly reasonable suggestion for a piece of technology that > will be scanning millions of people a year. > > Other scientists have also voiced their concerns over the devices, such > as Dr. David Brenner who heads Columbia University's Center for > Radiological Research. He states that radiation produced by the scanners > is /twenty times/ higher than the official estimate. Physics professor > Peter Rez at Arizona State University echoes Dr. Brenner's claims. He > points out that there is a real possibility that a body scanner could > malfunction, concentrating unsafe amounts of radiation on one area of > the body. "The scary thing to me is not what happens in normal > operations, but what happens if the machine fails. Mechanical things > break down, frequently." > > On a side note, while it's bad enough that the scanners can see through > your clothing to an alarming degree, they can also reveal quite a bit > about your health history. As Dr. Kristin Byrne, a radiologist at Lenox > Hill Hospital in New York City, points out, "The airport scanners show > anything on the surface of the skin and very closely under the skin." > This includes foreign objects close to the skin, including piercings, > catheters and colostomy bags, as well as breast implants and prosthetic > testicles. These are items that most people want to keep private and > away from the prying eyes of the public and government officials. > > Despite all of this, Janet Napolitano, secretary of the Department of > Homeland Defense insists that the full-body scanners "are safe, > efficient, and protect passenger privacy. They have been independently > evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National > Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Johns Hopkins University > Applied Physics Laboratory, who have all affirmed their safety." > Parroting her, TSA Administrator John Pistole in testimony before a > Senate panel on November 16, 2010, claims that the body scanners struck > a proper balance between privacy and security and that the radiation > exposure was "well within safety standards." > > Of course, the FDA, which has been criticized heavily in recent years as > being fundamentally broken and even corrupt, has a very dubious track > record when it comes to ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs, > biologics and medical devices. Over the years, the FDA has been accused > of causing high drug prices, keeping life-saving drugs off the market, > allowing unsafe drugs on the market because of pressure from > pharmaceutical companies and censoring health information about > nutritional supplements and foods. For example, the FDA recently > admitted to making a mistake in approving a controversial knee implant > against the advice of its scientific reviewers. As the Associated Press > reports, "The announcement comes a year after the agency first > acknowledged that its decision to approve the device was influenced by > outside pressure, including lobbying by four lawmakers from the > company's home state of New Jersey." > > The question is: if the scanners are potentially dangerous, then why has > the government been in such an all-fire rush to implement them? > > First, we have to recognize that we are ruled by an elite class of > individuals who are completely out of touch with the travails of the > average American. The government officials who have foisted these > scanners on us -- President Obama, whose stimulus funds are paying for > the scanners; members of Congress, who have pushed for the technology to > be implemented in the airports; and Janet Napolitano and John Pistole, > who have been adamant about subjecting the American people to all manner > of indignities and rights violations for the sake of security -- don't > have to go through the scanners (they have the luxury of flying on > private or government planes and having security clearances that allow > them to breeze past such barriers), so there's no risk to them medically. > > Second, we are -- and have been for some time -- the unwitting victims > of a system so corrupt that those who stand up for the rule of law and > aspire to transparency in government are in the minority. This > corruption is so vast it spans all branches of government -- from the > power-hungry agencies under the executive branch and the corporate > puppets within the legislative branch to a judiciary that is, more often > that not, elitist and biased towards government entities and > corporations. The scanners are a perfect example of this collusion > between corporate lobbyists and government officials. > > Third, we are relatively expendable in the eyes of government -- > faceless numbers of individuals who serve one purpose, which is to keep > the government machine running through our labor and our tax dollars. > Those in power aren't losing any sleep over the indignities we are being > made to suffer or the possible risks to our health. All they care about > are power and control. > > "We the people" have not done the best job of holding our > representatives accountable or standing up for our rights. But there > must be a limit to our temerity. Clearly, there are enough concerns > about the health risks posed by these scanners to justify placing a > moratorium on their use in airports. Something as potentially dangerous > as these scanners certainly shouldn't be forced on the American public > without the absolute assurance that it will not harm our health or > undermine our liberties. At a minimum, Congress should establish an > independent commission -- one not comprised of individuals connected to > corporations that stand to profit from the scanners -- to fully examine > these concerns and report back to the American people. And DHS and TSA > need to go back to the drawing board and find a better way to protect > national security without sacrificing our health and our freedoms. > > /About John W. Whitehead: Constitutional attorney and author John W. > Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new > book The Freedom Wars (TRI Press) is available online atwww.amazon.com. > Whitehead can be contacted at //[email protected]/ > <mailto:[email protected]>/. Information about The Rutherford > Institute is available at //www.rutherford.org/ > <http://www.rutherford.org/>/. / > -- > *Our courts will never be fair and just again until we force the courts > to follow their own rules. Do not allow yourself to be ruled by tyrants. > Learn how to control corrupt judges and crooked lawyers > <http://www.jurisdictionary.com?refercode=CG0004> so you can get > Justice! Learn to litigate: Buy and Study JURISDICTIONARY > <http://www.jurisdictionary.com?refercode=CG0004>. The best course > available for Pro Se and Pro Per litigants.* > > *I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal > Government*http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html > > *"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they > are free." > - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe* > > *Government is only as strong as those who allow themselves to be > governed are weak.* > > *"We have plenty of rights in this country, provided you don't get > caught exercising them." > - Terry Mitchell > > "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects something that > cannot be." > - Thomas Jefferson*** -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
