Full body scans at airports likely NOT a good idea....

Today's Post: Monday, 3-14-2011

The need for this level of airport security given the continued existence of terrorist groups that initially caused it to be put in place is quite clear.

So, this change is likely to be with us for quite a bit.

But for those of us who fly often or who have had recent medical X-rays or radiation treatment or CAT scans, the extra radiation may be a bad idea.

There has been little or no disclosure of how much radiation these scanning devices deliver or how well calibrated or maintained they are.

The once a year survey promised recently for a future time is not much disclosure.

Also, the kind of radiation is important. It's terahertz wave radiation (THz).

A Los Alamos National Laboratory study found that THz waves "unzip" DNA, creating "bubbles" in DNA's double strand that may interfere with gene expression and DNA replication.

That can cause cancer or cause harm to any future children the people subjected to it might have.

A physics professor, Peter Rez, also stated that the THz radiation dose in full-body scanners is 10 times higher than Department of Homeland Security claims.

University of California at San Francisco scientists say radiation to the skin may be even more of a problem from these devices and may be dangerously high.

In fact, a doctor in the department of biophysical chemistry at Johns Hopkins Medical School said that, "statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays."

The UCSF scientists add that if the scanner software fails, passengers could receive "severe burns, if not worse."

Such events can also happen from human error and have already occurred in baggage x-ray scanning. Recently the Centers for Disease Control did an investigation which found that baggage x-ray machines sometimes emitted excessive radiation which went undetected by TSA employees. In some cases, scanners also had missing or disabled safety features.

Of course, they likely are more careful with the scans of people. But at this stage, there is no guarantee they are using the careful check list driven monitoring necessary to prevent this.

So it may be a good idea for most people to put up with the alternative method instead in most cases.