Scan Medical Insurance

Is the radiation from a TSA Body Scan equivalent to the radiation you normally get during a flight anyhow?

If not, how many hours would you have to ride on a plane get the same amount of radiation that you receive during the TSA Body Scan? My guess is that you may actually receive more radiation during the flight than what you receive during the TSA Body Scan.

Public Comments

1. Remember: National Opt-Out Day! Wednesday, November 24th. If you are flying (I will be) out of an airport that utilizes these scanners just opt-out of the x-ray backscatter scan. Hopefully enough people will participate to clog the lines and stall the "system". Enhanced pat downs are definately invasive but the long term effects of these scanners will not be known for years. It's a case of the lesser of two evils (kind of like voting) but the only other option is not to fly and some do not have that choice. TSA needs to be reigned in! American Citizens are NOT test subjects!! The government says they are "safe" and you are free to believe them if you like. However a quick internet search will show many credible contradicting theories. Simple answer: no one really knows. Are you willing to risk your long-term health and then rely on Obamacare?
2. the amount of radiation by the scanner is less than the radiation you'd receive on the plane ride. but NO RADIATION IS NEGLIGIBLE. even a small amount, when it builds up (especially for those people like me who are on 5 or 6 flights every week), it gets to be dangerous and could cause cancers, unknown risks to fetuses or future fetuses. all radiation is not the same. these scanners use a different type of radiation than the radiation in the plane and a different type of radiation from an MRI machine. usually, devices that produce and image of the human body require medical testing. these machines have NOT been tested by objective clinical trials or any long-term testing. these have also NOT been approved by the FDA. the testing done saying these machines are 'safe' has been done by the people that stand to make a profit off of them. do you trust this testing or do you think it could be slightly biased? the scanners are also debated because of the issues of privacy, effectiveness (these machines can't catch a number of explosives, which both us and the terrorists know about, so we are always a step behind), rights for the disabled, people with medical conditions like ostomy bags, transexuals and of course, the health risks that are currently unknown.
3. In researching the biological effects of the millimeter wave scanners used for whole body imaging at airports, NaturalNews has learned that the energy emitted by the machines may damage human DNA. Millimeter wave machines represent one of two primary technologies currently being used for the "digital strip searches" being conducted at airports around the world. "The TSA utilizes two technologies to capture naked images of air travelers - backscatter x-ray technology and millimeter wave technology." To generate the nude image of the human body, these machines emit terahertz photons --high-frequency energy "particles" that can pass through clothing and body tissue. The manufacturers of such machines claim they are perfectly safe and present no health risks, but a study conducted at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at the National Laboratory in New Mexico showed that these terahertz waves could "...unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication." In layman's terms, any time you're talking about interfering with "gene expression" and "DNA replication," you're essentially talking about something that could be a risk to human health. "At first glance, it's easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging," reports TechnologyReview.com. "But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe." And yet no such long-term safety testing has ever been conducted by a third party. There have been no clinical trials indicating that multiple exposures to such terahertz waves, accumulated over a long period of time, are safe for humans. The FDA, in particular, has never granted its approval for any such devices even though these devices clearly qualify as "medical devices." (If you try to sell an X-ray imaging device yourself, without FDA approval, you'll be arrested. So why do these TSA suppliers get away with selling human body imaging equipment that has never been adequately safety tested or approved by the FDA?) Could these scans cause infertility? Cancer? Shortened lifespan? We don't yet know the answers to these questions, but then again neither does the TSA. This technology is being recklessly rolled out without adequate safety testing that would prove it safe for long-term use. How many times in the past have the "experts" told us technologies were perfectly safe and then later we found out they were dangerous? Time and again, the public has been lied to by the authorities during the roll-out of some new technology. Why should we believe that full-body scanners are safe when they've never been proven safe? Furthermore, there is now reason to believe they may damage human DNA.....At no time in the history of human civilization have large numbers of humans ever been subjected to terahertz bombardment of this type and frequency. Sure, you can argue that you get more radiation sitting in an airplane at high altitude than you get from a full-body scanner, or you can explain that cell phones emit far more radiation on the whole (when you're talking on them anyway). But if there's one thing we all should have learned about radiation by now it's that frequencies matter. The terahertz frequencies have never been rolled out en masse in a scanning technology. Who's to say they're going to be safe? What about pregnant women? Can the TSA absolutely guarantee that these full-body scanners won't damage the DNA of the unborn babies? Wouldn't it be wise to determine the safety of this technology in advance of its global rollout? As the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements admitted in a 2002 report that studied these security devices: "[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation." Barring solid evidence of the safety of this terahertz-emitting technology, the TSA would be wise to follow the Precautionary Principle which states that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to the roll out of new technologies. Unfortunately, the TSA appears to be erring on the side of stupidity by subjecting the public to an unproven, "experimental" technology with unknown long-term effects on human DNA.
4. The total radiation dose from an x-ray backscatter body scanner is considerably less than what you receive during typical airline flights. However, the radiation from the scanner is different because almost all of it is absorbed in the skin, instead of being spread throughout the body as it would be when received during an airline flight. This means that your skin (and eyes) get an especially high dose of x rays from the scanner. The long-term effects of these concentrated doses are unknown, but they may include skin cancer and damage to the eyes (cataracts, damage to the cornea, or other conditions that may cause visual impairment or blindness). Millimeter-wave body scanners, which don't use ionizing radiation like x rays, don't present any threat to the skin but may still be a hazard to the eyes. If you go through one of these scanners, make sure you keep your eyes closed during the scan to reduce the dose to the eyes (not a bad idea for any type of x-ray exam, in fact).