Backscatter x-ray machines "tear apart DNA"

[JonnyRadar]

I have a feeling that if you refuse to be x-rayed you'll get more than just a pat-down - but I'd be curious to see if there are any ways to circumvent the x-ray machines without being branded a "terror suspect."

I have some traveling to do and wonder what response the TSA etc. might have if I request a patdown search to circumvent the "backscatter x-ray machine" and possible DNA damage. Does anyone have experience with asserting one's concerns and suggesting an alternate to the "borderguards"?

 

[anart]

I have some traveling to do and wonder what response the TSA etc. might have if I request a patdown search to circumvent the "backscatter x-ray machine" and possible DNA damage. Does anyone have experience with asserting one's concerns and suggesting an alternate to the "borderguards"?

The line they are pushing in the States is that 'it is a privilege to fly, not a right', so if you don't want to go through these things, then you don't fly. I don't know if they'd be receptive to a request for a pat down (it would be a rub down, at least, by the way, not a pat down) - but I suppose you could try. I wonder if stating a medical condition and concern over the rays would help? My experience is that the second you ask a question, you get stared down and become the recipient of intimidating behavior, or worse - but, I really don't know if there is room to maneuver on this one or not.

 

[Cyre2067]

You could try saying you have cancer in remission and you're doctor told you to avoid excess radiation exposure. Like, no X-Rays, Microwaves, Tanning, Excessive Sunlight and you're on a strict diet. If you had a cool doctor you could probably even get him/her to write you a note.

Another thought is the decency issue, say appearing naked in any form of photograph is against your religious beliefs.

As far as I can tell the machines themselves haven't gone mainstream yet and thus are not mandatory. I think the only airport that has them in operation is Phoenix Sky Harbor - though that could change very quickly.

 

[anart]

You could try saying you have cancer in remission and you're doctor told you to avoid excess radiation exposure. Like, no X-Rays, Microwaves, Tanning, Excessive Sunlight and you're on a strict diet. If you had a cool doctor you could probably even get him/her to write you a note.

Another thought is the decency issue, say appearing naked in any form of photograph is against your religious beliefs.

As far as I can tell the machines themselves haven't gone mainstream yet and thus are not mandatory. I think the only airport that has them in operation is Phoenix Sky Harbor - though that could change very quickly.

They're at Denver International Airport as well (I've seen them there) as a few others, to my knowledge.

 

[dant]

I wonder if a maneuver might be to show your FOTCM card,
thus conscientious objector exception?

As for medical, what about electronic implants (heart, cochlear, etc...)
and it might be a good enough reason to opt out?

 

[daveOS]

How about opting out on the basis of no FDA approval of the machines.

NaturalNews.com posts Full-body scanners used on air passengers may damage human DNA calling out...
[quote author=Mike Adams, NaturalNews.com]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."[/quote]

Additionally ...
[quote author=Mike Adams, NaturalNews.com]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 (which they do, 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?[/quote]

I think this above cited NaturalNews article does a good job highlighting the dubiousness of the endorsements from the Radiologists and TSA. But DailyTech.com takes on the absurd TSA assertion that the scanners "can't be networked" with TSA Called Out on Full-Body Scanner Storage Capabilities, Health Risks Revealed.
[quote author=Jason Mick, DailyTech]Well, at least the scanners can't send or store images, said advocates. However, that turns out to be a false claim as well. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has received 2008 documents from the TSA which not only clearly state that the scanners could have such abilities, but they say that the scanners must have them.

The TSA documents state that all scanners need to be capable of storing and sending user images when in "test mode". Those documents, obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request, catch the TSA in an apparent lie. It's website claims, "The machines have zero storage capability."[/quote]

The DailyTech also has this article Look Out X-rays, T-rays Will Change Domestic Security revealing how we're dealing with T-rays here, not X-rays explaining... [quote author=Wofgang Hansson, DailyTech]
T-rays, or terahertz rays, function similarly to x-rays or any other electromagnetic radiation. However, whereas x-rays radiate at frequencies above the visible light spectrum, t-rays operate just below it. High-frequency t-rays is actually low-frequency infra-red radiation.[/quote]

I'm glad to discover this issue getting wider coverage, but whenever prisonplanet.com latches onto an issue it makes me wonder what sort of cointel interests Israel has in the matter.

 

[Heaalih]

Another thought is the decency issue, say appearing naked in any form of photograph is against your religious beliefs.

It seems "naked" is the good word if we look at the image showed in the following article :
_http://www.prisonplanet.com/inverted-body-scanner-image-shows-naked-body-in-full-living-color.html
in which we can read an other possibility for contesting the device :

It is important to stress that this is a low resolution image. Airport screeners will have access to huge high definition images that, once inverted, will allow them to see every minute detail of your body.

The inversion trick doesn’t work for all the sample images produced by body scanners, but with or without its application, every image will still show details of your sexual organs. Even without being inverted, the images already break child porn laws in the UK.

The question becomes: if you need to travel, how do you do so without having to go through this nonsense?

I traveled once in Québec from France, and I did it in freighter cargo (there was two passengers cabins). It was a really good experience to be in the middle of the ocean. But it is much more expensive and longer than in plane.

 

[JEEP]

Body scanners coming to Port Columbus airport:

Body scanners expected soon at Port Columbus
Wednesday, January 13, 2010 3:15 AM
By Marla Matzer Rose
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

If you plan to fly from Port Columbus when the weather warms up, there's a good chance you'll have to step into a full-body scanner first.

The airport expects to receive at least two full-body scanners by late spring or early summer to enhance its security screenings.

Airport officials are awaiting final confirmation and further details from the Transportation Security Administration, which will pay for and operate the scanners. Columbus had been put on a list by the TSA last year to receive the full-body scanners, said Rod Borden, chief operating officer of the Columbus Regional Airport Authority.

TSA spokesman Jon Allen said the 150 body scanners the TSA has already secured are manufactured by Rapiscan and cost $160,000 apiece. They will be distributed across the country in coming months.

The devices use a very low level of X-rays to show items that might be under a person's clothing, but Allen emphasized that steps are planned to ensure greater privacy for travelers. For one thing, the person viewing the image will be at a remote location communicating with the TSA officer at the security point and will not be able to identify the person being scanned.

Travelers will be allowed the choice of a pat-down if they prefer that over the scan, Allen said.

Still, such scanners have created privacy concerns.

Their use has been of greater interest since the Christmas Day incident when a passenger on a flight to Detroit from Amsterdam attempted to detonate explosive material hidden in his underwear.

The TSA prioritizes which airports get the devices based on a number of factors. Currently, there are only 40 full-body scanners at 19 airports in the U.S., Allen said. These use a different technology than the Rapiscan units.

The original plan was for the devices to be used only as a secondary method for those selected for additional screening, Borden said. However, he said, given the heightened security concerns, the scan or a pat-down might be required for all passengers. He added that he would like to see Port Columbus receive three scanners, one for each concourse.

The scanners would be in addition to measures already in place at Port Columbus. All bags are screened, though a new, more sensitive baggage- screening system aided by $35.2 million in federal stimulus funds is planned for late next year.

The TSA continues to use a "multi-layered" approach to security at all airports, said Don Barker, federal security director for the TSA at Port Columbus. Those measures include explosive-sniffing dogs, pat-downs and "behavior-detection" methods. He said techniques are intentionally varied from airport to airport.

There have been objections to some of those techniques. The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations has released statements recently accusing security personnel at airports of profiling Muslim travelers, based on reports that they were asked to remove head coverings worn for religious reasons.

Barker said screening is "not based on race, gender or religion" but rather on whether a traveler is wearing something that prohibits getting a close look at the outlines of his or her body.

"If you've got a ten-gallon cowboy hat on your head, it's probably going to come off," Barker said.

Information about backscatter scanners to be installed at Port Columbus may be found at www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/imaging_technology.shtm.

The technology for the original scanners was produced by Battelle scientists more than twenty years ago:

Battelle produced full-body scanners
Machines later were marketed for fitting clothes
Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:08 AM
By Spencer Hunt
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

When airport security asks you to step into a full-body scanner, you can thank Battelle scientists for making the technology so, um, revealing.

Most of the work was developed more than 20 years ago by a team of researchers at the Battelle-managed Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash.

Their phone-booth-size devices use high-frequency radio waves that penetrate clothes but bounce off the water in our skin. Forty of the devices are in use in 19 airports across the country.

Port Columbus expects to receive at least two scanners that use low-frequency X-rays.

Radio waves that bounce off the skin appear white on viewing screens, while dense items in pockets and under clothes show up as dark objects.

"It originally was for concealed-weapons detection," said David Sheen, a staff scientist at the Richland lab who started working on the scanner in 1989.

The waves are reflected by all dense substances, including metal, plastic and even packets of powder. A wallet would show up as a darker square. If a coin was in that wallet, it would show up as a black circle within the square.

The research was funded by the Federal Aviation Administration, which became interested in full-body scans after the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.

While Battelle's scanner was a success, funding and interest eventually faded. That's when Battelle marketed the system to clothing stores as a way for customers to get a perfect fit.

They called it "Intellifit."

"It produces a readout on what size pants you should wear," said Dick Ridgway, a Battelle scientist.

Ridgway said future devices might not have to show full-body images. It's possible, he said, to develop a scanner that uses multiple wavelengths to help identify what concealed objects are made of.

For example, this scanner could identify whether an item is made of several ounces of plastic or a specific chemical compound and alert security agents.

Millimeter waves might also be useful to help quickly transmit large amounts of data. A millimeter-wave transmitter can move a DVD's worth of information in about four seconds, said T.R. Massey, a Battelle spokesman.

Funny how not a word is written concerning any possible health risks associated with being exposed to these 'wavelengths', especially considering how x-rays were once used to determine the 'correct fit' for children's shoes. Only after case reports involving skin burns and stunting of bone and cartilage emerged along with the harmful effects associated with radiation involving the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, did the use of these shoe-fitting fluoroscopes begin to wane. In fact, as recently as 1970, only 33 states had actually banned their use - a nation-wide ban on these machines never occurred. Well, after all, as long as something is good for business, who cares how much harm it inflicts on the unsuspecting consumer! Or currently, the unsuspecting air traveler! The first quoted article seems to indicate that the 40 scanners at the 19 airports use the millimeter-wave technology, whereas the 150 Rapiscan scanners will be using the terahertz or backscatter x-ray technology - the better to kill you with my dear! Funny how the second article failed to make that distinction!

Also, although reading the news on Sott.net is great, one can miss out on the comments at the original source especially in regards to the article concerning terahertz waves (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/):

Re: Test It! DNA damage has already been seen in tests using lower frequencies microwaves used by cell phones and Wi-Fi. Of course, industry funded scientists "tried" to reproduce it and failed. Yes terahertz should be tested too, but who are you going to believe? See the following, where they used the same power as a cell phone emits:

Lai H, Singh NP. "Single- and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation."
Int J Radiat Biol. 1996 Apr;69(4):513-21.

Too Much Knowledge Knowledge in the wrong hands can cause great destruction. I was once read the story of the "Tower of Babel" and it struck me oddly. In the story God and the sons of god look down upon the earth and they observe the construction of a tower that was to reach into the heavens.

Apparently god didn't appreciate man's endeavor, thus it is stated, "Let us divide and confuse them." And, so goes the origins of the many languages, but the next sentence is more fascinating and the implications are endless...."Unless nothing shall be impossible for them." Nothing! Is this a good thing? Me thinks not! But, who will stop it? Nobody!

What if mankind enjoyed one language for 6000 years? It is my guess that the laptop would have been present before Christ was born. Yes! There is power in one language and in this modern world mankind is overcoming the language barriers and knowledge is exploding since the age of computers and the internet.

Gentlemen this Terahertz thing is just another example of the dangers that can and will plague mankind. Not that it can't be used for good, but since when has mankind managed its knowledge for good only? Never.

Just look at the power of just one biochemist! He or she can create a plague that could wipe out the world's population. Hmmmmm....that may not so bad.... See who is to decide such a horrific idea as cutting down the world population by a weapon of the lab? You?! Me?! A government?! The Rockefellers?! The Rothchilds?! A loose Cannon?! You get my point, right?!

I'm afraid the genie is out of the bottle so go ahead and deceive yourselves into believing this latest technology will only benefit mankind. In the wrong hands this knowledge can devastate any and all DNA. God was right, nothing is impossible for man. Ugh! I'm not long for this earth and I thank god.....living a 1000 years would be insufferble.

Good day and good luck.

too much knowledge In deed !
every thing is tied up to the concept of this "society" based on the suply of money which belongs to a priviledged group of private oligarchs.
Technology is filtered through the allowance of "grants" or funds.
Only what is convenient to the agenda or vested interest of the oligarchs is funded.
This is why we still can not use free energies and are coersed to pay a tax on Co2 instead.
A disturbing number of microbiologists have died "prematuraly" in recents years and no enquiry on their work has been done.(or published )
How many people know about nanotechnology ? this is also a very dangerous field.

We can only make changes for the fast coming future by rejecting the statut quo of money creation being in the hands of a private group.

They are close to owning every thing .THEN WHAT ?

Re: too much knowledge I agree in part. Concerning the religious Tower of Babel discussion, I cannot agree with the doomsday tone. Nor do I believe a laptop would have been created if...what? If all human-beings spoke the same language. To me, the Bible provides a parable to explain the diversity that evolution created by circumstance of a multi-faceted nature. The laptop by Christ's time? Silly. But the following post resonated with me. There have been a lot of scientists killed by our government, I believe. The Carlyle group and the Bushes of this world are implementing a controlled implementation to the Singularity. That scares me. My faith is in the professors and the good grad kids who care about humanity. I believe they will create an AI that is not only more intelligent than all human-beings that comprise humanity combined, but one that cares deeply about human suffering. It will be a paragon of ethical behavior. And I don't think the evil doers extant in our government will be able to stop it. That is my hope.

Re: too much knowledge The laptop by Christ's time is not at all a silly concept.
Read this http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Revolution-Science-Born-Reborn/dp/3540203966

And you will see that around 300BC theoretical science and engineering were about at the level of XVIII century. That were Archimedes and Euclid time. Unfortunately, for various reasons, including lower demography, exhausting wars and the abundance of human slaves, the industrial revolution didn't occur. Then when the comparatively rude Romans took over, submitting the Hellenistic kingdoms, the rationalistic stance upon nature was lost, for almost 2000 years!

Re: too much knowledge
Please check into Roman technology; they keep finding more. The other day I read that the Pantheon has the largest unreinforced concrete dome in the world (still standing after 2000 years).
They were well on their way to modern technology when a little 1500 year setback occurred with the widespread adoption of a desert religion.

Re: too much knowledge
They had a great new technology called lead pipes for drinking water. They work great and are totally safe... for a while.

The comments really go off topic at this point although they are still intriguing! But, back to topic:

resonance in DNA
The article states that it is the resonance effects of the terahertz waves that are unzipping the DNA.
An implication of this is that other waves and forces may have resonance effects on DNA. A fringe scientist Dan Winter has suggested that the electrical activity of the heart interacts resonantly with DNA, communicating, perhaps programming it. Further he suggest that when we shorten DNA through cutting "junk" DNA out, we are changing the resonant properties of the DNA.
I think this discovering lends some support to Dan's theory.

Interesting
I'm not a graduate of MIT (my loss), but in reading this article, correct me if I'm wrong, but the notion of a wave that could potentially disrupt DNA coding in any way sounds like a prelude to crimes committed against individuals who are not even born.

Whoa! Is the above comment a possible weapon against these scanners?!!!

Oh! Had to include this one:

Terahertz penetration
Clothes, paper, wood and brick are all non-metallic, easily penetrated by terahertz radiation. I guess those who walk around with their "tin foil" hats are on the right track but should probably consider wearing cloths lined with aluminum foil. That will stop the "peepers" cold.

Included the above just as a funny, but just now, I had a revelation: What if you wore all silk - underwear and clothes? Would the waves still penetrate? Who wants to volunteer to try it? Would TSA insist that you really strip?!! Egads! The SILK terrorist!!!

Crowd Control
Police and military now have a weapon using waves which burn the skin. It looks like a shield but emits waves that affect the skin, cause great pain, and disperses crowds. As a nurse I am very concerned what kind of waves are involved and what permanent damage can be done. I hope someone will respond to this. It has been used but not publicized very much. Of course, tazers have been known about for some time. We are not far from a weapon, chemical or electronic to reduce the population which I heard is the goal. A scientist spoke in Texas a few years ago and suggested using a virus, like ebola, and got a profound positive reaction from the rest of the participants. We do need to discuss these things and make sure people are watching and putting light on any indicators this is happening.

Terahertz Waves DNA
Could be termed terahurts. Another good reason not to fly. My other reasons are political. I recall in the 50's a neat little gimmick that would x-ray kids feet for shoe size. Had a lot of feet rot off. I guess the federales would classify this as cost of "making America safe".

I skipped a few, but included the most relevant I think. Lots to ponder here. :/

 

[Joe]

The question becomes: if you need to travel, how do you do so without having to go through this nonsense?

You could plan a route that involved airports that don't have these devices, meaning that, for international travel, you book several separate flights yourself. A little research on which airports do and don't have them would have to be done. It might also be necessary to drive to a more distant airport than the one closest to you. For someone coming from the US to Europe for example, you could take a short haul flight to Canada first and then fly from there. Or (depending on where in the US) a flight to Mexico first and then on to Spain for example. Alternatively, if you can get a bunch of other people to go with you, you can charter a jet from a select airport.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Good news! I read in USA Today that in the U.S. anyway, the TSA will let you opt for a pat-down instead of going through the scanner. No DNA damage and a free massage to boot!

 

[Buddy]

Good news! I read in USA Today that in the U.S. anyway, the TSA will let you opt for a pat-down instead of going through the scanner. No DNA damage and a free massage to boot!

I think it would be nice if that would last.

Thomas Frank, writer for USA TODAY is calling it [opting for a pat-down] "a potential weakness" and reports that yesterday, Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., a senior member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee [and a key lawmaker(??)], wrote a letter to President Obama urging the Obama administration to buy more than the 300 scanners it plans to install this year.
Lowey states: "The American public appears ready and willing to undergo more intensive security screening,".


Sounds like something a 'bully' would say to himself just before resuming the "start and stop" technique Sam V. talked about in that Psychopath documentary. According to Sam: "the great secret of bullying: never overdo it...small doses...the victim will do the rest."


ref:
_http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-01-13-bodyscan_N.htm

 

[Beau]

The question becomes: if you need to travel, how do you do so without having to go through this nonsense?

You could plan a route that involved airports that don't have these devices, meaning that, for international travel, you book several separate flights yourself. A little research on which airports do and don't have them would have to be done. It might also be necessary to drive to a more distant airport than the one closest to you. For someone coming from the US to Europe for example, you could take a short haul flight to Canada first and then fly from there. Or (depending on where in the US) a flight to Mexico first and then on to Spain for example. Alternatively, if you can get a bunch of other people to go with you, you can charter a jet from a select airport.

I hate to say it but my feeling is that doing that would just get more attention from Customs officials looking at your itinerary wondering why you are jumping around so much. Unless one is planning a short stay in whatever different airport location they choose, you might find yourself in interrogation trying to explain why you haven't taken the cheaper, quicker route. I don't know if they'd appreciate the reply that you were trying to avoid body scanners. ;)

 

[Beau]

Bruce Schneier just posted a video on his blog of a German group showing how these new full body scanners were put through a test to see what they catch. Here's his post:

German TV on the Failure of Full-Body Scanners

The video is worth watching, even if you don't speak German. The scanner caught a subject's cell phone and Swiss Army knife -- and the microphone he was wearing -- but missed all the components to make a bomb that he hid on his body. Admittedly, he only faced the scanner from the front and not from the side. But he also didn't hide anything in a body cavity other than his mouth -- I didn't think about that one -- he didn't use low density or thinly sliced PETN, and he didn't hide anything in his carry-on luggage.

Full-body scanners: they're not just a dumb idea, they don't actually work.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrKvweNugnQ&feature=player_embedded

 

[The rabbit]

Im sitting up here in the wee hours of the morning actually feeling quite down about all of this. I dont mean depressed , i mean more like reflective , terror hurts indeed (terrahertz)

The speed at which this has come into operation is sickening ! Im thinking about what this stuff can do do to pregnant woman who dont know that they are pregnant, amongst many other things.

Its so quick in the eyes of the general public that you can see that its all pre planned. Ive been looking at connecting techology which is soon on its way such as F.A.S.T.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wqooBmYfQ4 units that can be stationary or mobile for reading peoples behaviour.

It is a near total planetary lockdown and for it not to reach completion grandads , grandmothers , daughters and sons are goig to have to kick up one gigantic fuss in a way that they/ we have never done before. Being the pessimist / realist ? that i am i would say its game over for all of us who only see the world and our existence on one level.

Linked in with these thoughts of course i watched some of the Lord Mockton (?) interviews with the eco facists that a board member here linked to yesterday. I saw one where he (Lord Mockton?) linked Greenpeace to a communist organization and how he referred to the eco facist youth as being like the hitler youth.

Then of course when you are on you tube watching something you get other correlation video choices in the right hand column and off i went yesterday into the world of these disgusting people who have no feelings , empathy for mankind in any way what so ever. many hours i have spent reminding myself where we are at .Its been a dark and muddy two days here.

Carbon credits , banking , Rothschilds , Rockerfellers , Maurice strong , Luciferic press , alice bailey , and on and on , some of these places i have journeyed down many years ago. Yes its been a chinese whispers of horrors on the internet these last two days.

This latest piece of nastiness with these scanners has reinforced within me that the lockdown is almost complete. I probably wont be flying again.

 

[celtic]

Here is the post on sott about x ray scanning machines.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/201566-Naked-scanners-naked-CCTV-and-barefaced-lies

What is more interesting to me about this article is the scanner
may not be able to detect exsplosive powder, but it most definitely
can detect metal.

Scanners can certainly pick up metal objects including knives, but whether they could have detected powder plastic explosive such as the 3oz of PETN is extremely doubtful. The kind of explosive Abdulmutallab used was low-density and so probably wouldn't have shown up on the scanner.

Johnson had responded after the question been ask how effective these machines
would be of detecting exsplosive his response.

the indications are that given where the PETN was placed, there would have been a 50 to 60 per cent. chance of its being detected.