Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: Cancer surges among TSA workers

  1. #1
    The Evil Banker Acid Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Liquid Microdot > You
    Posts
    6,648
    vCash
    2100
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Thanks
    461
    Thanked 1,164 Times in 800 Posts

    News Cancer surges among TSA workers

    Interesting. I've always asked why TSA workers didn't wear dosimeter badges.

    http://www.infowars.com/cancer-surge...ches-cover-up/

    Fearful of provoking further public resistance to naked airport body scanners, the TSA has been caught covering up a surge in cases of TSA workers developing cancer as a result of their close proximity to radiation-firing devices, perhaps the most shocking revelation to emerge from the latest FOIA documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

    After Union representatives in Boston discovered a “cancer cluster” amongst TSA workers linked with radiation from the body scanners, the TSA sought to downplay the matter and refused to issue employees with dosimeters to measure levels of exposure.

    The documents indicate how, “A large number of workers have been falling victim to cancer, strokes and heart disease.”

    “The Department, rather than acting on it, or explaining its position seems to have just dismissed. I don’t think that’s the way most other agencies would have acted in a similar situation if they were confronted with that question,” EPIC’s Marc Rotenberg said.

    In an email sent to Heather Callahan (PDF), deputy federal security director at Boston Logan International Airport, union representatives express their concern about “TSA Boston’s growing number of TSOs working here that have thus far been diagnosed with cancer.”

    Of course, if TSA workers who are merely standing near the scanners are already developing cancer, frequent flyers are also putting themselves in harm’s way by standing directly inside the radiation-firing machines.

    As we reported yesterday, newly released internal government documents, obtained via the Freedom Of Information Act by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, reveal that the TSA, and specifically the head of the Department of Homeland Security, “publicly mischaracterized” the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in stating that NIST had positively confirmed the safety of full body scanners in tests.

    In erroneously citing both NIST and the Johns Hopkins school of medicine to claim that the body scanners are safe, the TSA has also deliberately misled the public on the dangers posed by the devices.

    Documents obtained by EPIC show that, far from affirming their safety, NIST warned that airport screeners should avoid standing next to full body scanners in order to keep exposure to harmful radiation “as low as reasonably achievable.”

    Further documents illustrate how a Johns Hopkins study actually revealed that radiation zones around body scanners could exceed the “General Public Dose Limit,” contradicting repeated claims by the TSA that Johns Hopkins had validated the safety of the devices.

    At the time we pointed out that Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at the Johns Hopkins school of medicine had publicly stated two days previously that “statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays”.

    TSA workers complained about the radiation dangers of the scanners back in December, saying they were being kept in the dark by their employers, despite repeated requests for information.

    “We don’t think the agency is sharing enough information,” said Milly Rodriguez, occupational health and safety specialist at the American Federation of Government Employees, the union that represents TSA workers.

    A study conducted last year by Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University’s center for radiological research, found that the body scanners are likely to lead to an increase in a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma, which affects the head and neck.

    Following the study, Brenner urged medical authorities to look at his work, pointing to the dangerous notion of mass scanning millions of people without proper oversight.

    “There really is no other technology around where we’re planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals. It’s really unprecedented in the radiation world,” said Brenner.

    Similar concerns to those explored in the Columbia University study were voiced in February 2010 by the influential Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety, who warned in a report that the scanners increase the risk of cancer and birth defects and should not be used on pregnant women or children.

    Despite governments claiming that backscatter x-ray systems produce radiation too low to pose a threat, the organization concluded in their report that governments must justify the use of the scanners and that a more accurate assessment of the health risks is needed.

    Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, according to the report, adding that governments should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”

    “The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” reported Bloomberg.

    In a recent letter to President Obama’s Science Advisor, several University of California professors also complained of how, “There is still no rigorous, hard, data for the safety of x-ray airport passenger scanners.” The scientists noted how the safety tests for the scanners were carried out exclusively by manufacturers, and recommended an immediate moratorium on use of the devices until the health risks can be independently studied.

  2. #2
    Shelter Dweller PorkChopSandwiches's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    77,135
    vCash
    5000
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Thanks
    47,197
    Thanked 29,255 Times in 16,489 Posts
    Seems like it would be fast acting since they havent been around that long






  3. #3
    Now extra seepy . . . Deepsepia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sasquatch country
    Posts
    926
    vCash
    3000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by PorkChopSandwiches View Post
    Seems like it would be fast acting since they havent been around that long
    Yes. Most cancers that are caused by radiation exposure take many, many years to develop. If people are dying now, its not from backscatter x-ray exposure.

    This story is BS. Infowars is not a reliable source, except for Charlie Sheen.

    Note the line:

    "“A large number of workers have been falling victim to cancer, strokes and heart disease.”

    Radiation doesn't cause strokes. It doesn't cause heart disease either. T
    Or how about this one:

    "the body scanners are likely to lead to an increase in a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma, which affects the head and neck."

    The reason basal cell carcinoma affects head and neck is because you get it from sun exposure. You wouldn't expect anything like that from something that penetrates clothing.

  4. #4
    The Evil Banker Acid Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Liquid Microdot > You
    Posts
    6,648
    vCash
    2100
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Thanks
    461
    Thanked 1,164 Times in 800 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Deepsepia View Post
    Yes. Most cancers that are caused by radiation exposure take many, many years to develop. If people are dying now, its not from backscatter x-ray exposure.

    This story is BS. Infowars is not a reliable source, except for Charlie Sheen.

    Note the line:

    "“A large number of workers have been falling victim to cancer, strokes and heart disease.”

    Radiation doesn't cause strokes. It doesn't cause heart disease either. T
    Or how about this one:

    "the body scanners are likely to lead to an increase in a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma, which affects the head and neck."

    The reason basal cell carcinoma affects head and neck is because you get it from sun exposure. You wouldn't expect anything like that from something that penetrates clothing.
    All X-Ray techs wear dosimeter badges so why shouldn't the TSA? Answer that one.

  5. #5
    21-Jazz hands salute Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    On the Waters of Life
    Posts
    47,246
    vCash
    9653
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Thanks
    25,971
    Thanked 12,316 Times in 8,172 Posts
    Wow, that sucks...

  6. #6
    Now extra seepy . . . Deepsepia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sasquatch country
    Posts
    926
    vCash
    3000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Acid Trip View Post
    All X-Ray techs wear dosimeter badges so why shouldn't the TSA? Answer that one.
    Because they're not being exposed to any radiation above background levels.

  7. #7
    The Evil Banker Acid Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Liquid Microdot > You
    Posts
    6,648
    vCash
    2100
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Thanks
    461
    Thanked 1,164 Times in 800 Posts
    Riiiiiight. Then why deny the employees who have asked for them (some even offered to buy it themselves)? If they are that safe then let any TSA agent who wants to wear one, wear one.

    Edit: They also don't let pregnant women to through the scanners. Must be cause they are too fat eh?

  8. #8
    Now extra seepy . . . Deepsepia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sasquatch country
    Posts
    926
    vCash
    3000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Acid Trip View Post
    Riiiiiight. Then why deny the employees who have asked for them (some even offered to buy it themselves)? If they are that safe then let any TSA agent who wants to wear one, wear one.
    Again, the story is bullshit. You want to buy a dosimeter-- no one's stopping you.

    Just scanning it in the most cursory fashion, I found half a dozen blatant medical/scientific errors.

    Infowars is crap. Its Charlie Sheen and tinfoil hats.

    Infowars wants to believe that somehow radiation causes strokes. OK, good for them. You won't find anyone else who says so.

    Didja notice: Not one single number in the entire article?

    Not a one.

    There's a claim of people getting cancer . . . how many? Or getting strokes How many? Or of getting basal cell carcinoma . . . how many?

    Not one piece of data.

    Its garbage, you can safely move on.

  9. #9
    The Evil Banker Acid Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Liquid Microdot > You
    Posts
    6,648
    vCash
    2100
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Thanks
    461
    Thanked 1,164 Times in 800 Posts
    And the pregnant women? I was flying all last week and ALL pregnant women were hand searched. None of them were allowed through the scanners. Before you ask, I fly several times a month.

  10. #10
    Shelter Dweller PorkChopSandwiches's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    77,135
    vCash
    5000
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Thanks
    47,197
    Thanked 29,255 Times in 16,489 Posts
    Nothing to see here people







  11. #11
    The Evil Banker Acid Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Liquid Microdot > You
    Posts
    6,648
    vCash
    2100
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Thanks
    461
    Thanked 1,164 Times in 800 Posts
    Testimony before the House which again asks why TSA agents are not allowed to wear dosimeter badges. Testimony provided by:

    STATEMENT OF
    MILAGRO RODRÍGUEZ
    OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY SPECIALIST
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

    http://www.afge.org/Index.cfm/Micros...85&FileID=2612

    I suggest reading the whole thing. Basically they made a bunch of suggestions regarding radiation to the TSA and none have been implemented.

  12. #12
    Now extra seepy . . . Deepsepia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sasquatch country
    Posts
    926
    vCash
    3000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Acid Trip View Post
    I suggest reading the whole thing. Basically they made a bunch of suggestions regarding radiation to the TSA and none have been implemented.
    Again, the allegations are bullshit. Anyone who's taken a very basic nuclear medicine safety course -- I have -- would recognize the allegations in the Infowars piece as crap.

    Now we have a Union flack, who has no nuclear medicine training either, making noise at a hearing.

    Again: Not one single number. Not one in the Infowars piece, not one single number relating to radiation caused cancers in the union piece you reference.

    There is, of course, the requisite error that would be obvious to anyone with the most basic training in nuclear medicine.

    Your "Milagro Rodriguez" -- who has, of course, not one shred of a credential in this field, states

    At the San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport, AFGE members are concerned about what they believe to be a large number of employees who have been diagnosed with thyroid conditions
    What our moron doesn't know is that while we do see thyroid cancer after nuclear accidents, that's because there are fission products present.

    Specifically, the thyroid preferentially takes up iodine and iodine 131 is a (short lived, half life of 8 days) radioactive fission product.

    So our moron, Mr Rodriguez, is implying that the backscatter x-ray machines have gone critical . . .

    The allegation -- of course, without any numbers, or any specifics beyond "diagnosed with thyroid conditions" -- is simply stupid, and a person who's too ill informed to know that has no business testifying about bubble gum, let alone radiation.

    I would not let a person as ill informed as "Milagro Rodriguez" near a dosimeter either . . . the most likely outcome for someone of this diminished capacity would be that he'd strangle himself on the lanyard.
    Last edited by Deepsepia; 06-28-2011 at 09:21 PM.

  13. #13
    mr. michelle jenneke deebakes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    55,327
    vCash
    12000
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 19,022 Times in 11,474 Posts
    body scanners don't cause cancer...

















    i cause cancer

  14. #14
    Shelter Dweller PorkChopSandwiches's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    77,135
    vCash
    5000
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Thanks
    47,197
    Thanked 29,255 Times in 16,489 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by deebakes View Post
    body scanners don't cause cancer...

    i cause cancer






  15. #15
    21-Jazz hands salute Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    On the Waters of Life
    Posts
    47,246
    vCash
    9653
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Thanks
    25,971
    Thanked 12,316 Times in 8,172 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by deebakes View Post
    body scanners don't cause cancer...

    i cause cancer
    Now that is scary...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •