Solution to the TSA problem?

[faeriegodess612]

So, as I was lying in bed trying to fall asleep, I started thinking. Wasnt really tired, and I have trouble falling asleep if I'm not dead tired. Anyways,..got to thinking about this whole thing with TSA and how its become such a topic for debate here. I mightve come up with a plausible solution but I'm not sure. Currently, the x-ray scanners only go as far as your clothes, correct? Well, if these terrorists are so hell bent on doing us harm, how long will it be before they sacrifice themselves by putting explosives up their bums? Or finding a way to make a bomb that they can swallow before they get on a plane? I mean, they thought of using ink cartridges, why not something like that? So then whats TSA going to do? Do a body cavity search on everyone? Sorry,..not gonna happen with me. So, my solution to all of this?

X-rays for medical reasons do little harm to anyone, right? Thats also one of the arguing points for the x-ray's at airports now. Medical x-rays go all the way thru, while the airport x-rays just to your skin, right? BUT, what if they simply modified the x-rays in airports to work just like a medical x-ray? Just instead of the image coming out on a sheet of transparency type film, it would transmit to a computer screen. Any foreign objects, whether it be internal or external would show up. Even plastic. So, how do you get around people who have had surgeries for various reasons and now have artificial body parts? Train TSA employees to be able to identify these things in a scan. OK, but what about when the terrorists get smart enough to make something look like a knee replacement or an implant of any sort? What about people who have prosthetic limbs? Isnt there already something in place for these instances? Have a form that people can fill out, and file with TSA that when this person flies, it'll pop up on the screen with the scan of that person, alerting TSA that this person is registered to have an artificial body part. But, then the terrorists will just forge documents like that. Make it so that it has to be signed by a doctor, and notarized. Play off of whatever measures they currently have in place for things like this.

Nothing is perfect, and they'll eventually find a way to get around the current measures, as well as any other we can come up with.
So, tell me what you think,.....

[wulf]

Wrong, I'm afraid. Medical X-rays do give a cumulative radiation dose. The risk is relatively low and so the benefit is perceived to outweigh the risks. However, radiographers don't like giving multiple doses, especially to areas like the abdomen where soft tissue is very exposed. Even when I went to the dentists earlier this month (signing up with a new one) they checked that I hadn't had a recent X-ray before doing a scan of my teeth.

I would hazard a guess that the extreme measures currently in place to protect us from terrorists could be shown to, on balance, do far more to terrorise us than they do to improve our safety.

Wulf

[kirbinster]

Maybe those safe scanners are not so safe:

Dr. Blaylock: Body Scanners More Dangerous Than Feds Admit

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:58 AM

By Dr. Russell Blaylock

Print this Page
Forward Page
Email Us



Dr. Russell Blaylock is a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, lecturer, and editor of The Blaylock Wellness Report.


The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administration’s new policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and “enhanced pat-downs” brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.’”

So, what is all the concern really about — will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama’s science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April.

The group included experts in radiation biology, biophysics, and imaging, who expressed “serious concerns” about the “dangerously high” dose of radiation to the skin.

Radiation increases cancer risk by damaging the DNA and various components within the cells. Much of the damage is caused by high concentrations of free radicals generated by the radiation. Most scientists think that the most damaging radiation types are those that have high penetration, such as gamma-rays, but in fact, some of the most damaging radiation barely penetrates the skin.

One of the main concerns is that most of the energy from the airport scanners is concentrated on the surface of the skin and a few millimeters into the skin. Some very radiation-sensitive tissues are close to the skin — such as the testes, eyes, and circulating blood cells in the skin.

This is why defenders using such analogies as the dose being “1,000-times less than a chest X-ray” and “far less than what passengers are exposed to in-flight” are deceptive. Radiation damage depends on the volume of tissue exposed. Chest X-rays and gamma-radiation from outer space is diffused over the entire body so that the dose to the skin is extremely small. Of note, outer space radiation does increase cancer rates in passengers, pilots, and flight attendants.

We also know that certain groups of people are at a much higher risk than others. These include babies, small children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with impaired immunity (those with HIV infection, cancer patients, people with immune deficiency diseases, and people with abnormal DNA repair mechanism, just to name a few).

As we grow older, our DNA accumulates a considerable amount of unrepaired damage, and under such circumstances even low doses of radiation can trigger the development of skin cancers, including the deadly melanoma. I would also be concerned about exposing the eyes, since this could increase one’s risk of developing cataracts.

About 5 percent of the population have undiagnosed abnormal DNA repair mechanism. When exposed to radiation, this can put them at a cancer risk hundreds of times greater than normal people.

It also has been determined that when skin is next to certain metals, such as gold, the radiation dose is magnified 100-fold higher. What if you have a mole next to your gold jewelry? Will the radiation convert it to a melanoma? Deficiencies in certain vitamins can dramatically increase your sensitivity to radiation carcinogenesis, as can certain prescription medications.

As for the assurances we have been given by such organization as the American College of Radiology, we must keep in mind that they assured us that the CT scans were safe and that the radiation was equal to one chest X-ray. Forty years later we learn that the dose is extremely high, it is thought to have caused cancer in a significant number of people, and the dose is actually equal to 1,000 chest X-rays.

Based on these assurances, tens of thousands of children have been exposed to radiation doses from CT scanners, which will ruin the children's lives. I have two friends who were high-ranking Environmental Protection Agency scientists, and they assure me that in government safety agencies, politics most often override the scientists’ real concerns about such issues.

This government shares House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s view when she urged passage of the Obamacare bill sight unseen — “Let’s just pass the bill, and we will find out what is in it later.”

When the real effects of these scanners on health become known, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and the rest of the gang who insist the scanners are safe will be long gone.

[TheDarkReaver]

Originally Posted by wulf

Wrong, I'm afraid. Medical X-rays do give a cumulative radiation dose. The risk is relatively low and so the benefit is perceived to outweigh the risks. However, radiographers don't like giving multiple doses, especially to areas like the abdomen where soft tissue is very exposed.
Wulf

Indeed, which is why the radiographers will operate the x-ray from a shielded location.

[douglas]

I am not happy with scanning that depends on X-rays
I believe that the scanners used in Canadian airports are"wave imaging scanners", which if I understand correctly depend upon radio waves. Whether this is safer or not I do not know.

[faeriegodess612]

Originally Posted by wulf

Wrong, I'm afraid. Medical X-rays do give a cumulative radiation dose. The risk is relatively low and so the benefit is perceived to outweigh the risks. However, radiographers don't like giving multiple doses, especially to areas like the abdomen where soft tissue is very exposed. Even when I went to the dentists earlier this month (signing up with a new one) they checked that I hadn't had a recent X-ray before doing a scan of my teeth.

I would hazard a guess that the extreme measures currently in place to protect us from terrorists could be shown to, on balance, do far more to terrorise us than they do to improve our safety.

Wulf

I did not know that! I think the last time I had an x-ray was when I was 11 and fractured my wrist.

[dlwjiang]

There is no such thing as "perfect" system, human are constantly innovative, even terrorists. All these extra checks only add "noise" to the system and actually makes it harder to find terrorists. In reality, they probably don't even feel like attacking anymore: "If terrorists hate us for our freedom, does that mean they're starting to like us now?"

A better solution would be to mimic the safety systems of Israel. Known as "Israelification" lately I believe. Of course, that's a much smaller country so I don't know about the feasibility. But if you're going to consult someone on national safety, might as well try the first world country located smack dab in the Middle East surrounded by enemies and thriving.

The TSA is a solution akin to throwing trillions of dollars at wall street. A panicked attempt at solving a problem through brute force, that's more for show than anything else.

[curelightwounds]

Originally Posted by douglas

I am not happy with scanning that depends on X-rays
I believe that the scanners used in Canadian airports are"wave imaging scanners", which if I understand correctly depend upon radio waves. Whether this is safer or not I do not know.

Not really, it's about the same in all honesty.

The principle is the same, a low power light beam that can get through clothes but bounce of skin.

They're just using different ends of the light spectrum.

It's still pretty stupid, in my opinion. Say someone actually wants to smuggle something onto a plane. Shove it up their back side. The scanner won't see it. Then when they find someone trying to do it we'll have the TSA getting a little more intimate with us.

This obviously isn't going to work forever and I doubt that it's having much of an effect now. For every billion dollar machine we make to find things, there's a free solution. There are far less invasive security measures in place at much higher risk air ports.

C'mon guys, hey, c'mon...

[Murtasma]

Just give everyone guns when they get on board. Problem solved.

[kirbinster]

My wife just sent me the attached picture which seems to be the perfect solution between the need for security without making people concerned about privacy.