Evidence Found: Full Body Airport Scanners Cause Cancer?
A public research group has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security calling for a suspension of full body x-ray machines at airports, saying there is evidence that they cause cancer.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) said it obtained documents following a Freedom of Information Act request that shows the machines could cause cancer, and that the government is not telling the public about it.
EPIC writes on its website:
The documents include agency emails, radiation studies, memoranda of agreement concerning radiation testing programs, and results of some radiation tests. One document set reveals that even after TSA employees identified cancer clusters possibly linked to radiation exposure, the agency failed to issue employees dosimeters - safety devices that could assess the level of radiation exposure.
According to a report in the Daily Mail, that cancer cluster is among TSA agents at Boston's Logan Airport. EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg said union representatives found the cluster, and that Homeland Security "dismissed" the claims.
He said the government "has not been forthcoming with the public about the true extent of radiation risk with the airport body scanners."
Homeland Security insists testing has proven that the machines are safe, saying, "In addition to regular maintenance, each individual machine that uses X-ray technology is regularly tested to ensure the radiation emitted falls within the national safety standards."
But EPIC writes:
Another document indicates that the DHS mischaracterized the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, stating that NIST "affirmed the safety" of full body scanners. The documents obtained by EPIC reveal that NIST disputed that characterization and stated that the Institute did not, in fact, test the devices. Also, a Johns Hopkins University study revealed that radiation zones around body scanners could exceed the "General Public Dose Limit."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
On a very personal level I find this disturbing as I passed through one of the "scanners" not but 10 minutes ago. But instead of getting into the morality of the scanners' existence (regardless of the health dangers), as long as there is a choice to "opt out" and it is legitimate (no incidental or purposeful punishments for those who opt out), then their existence is harmless. Those who don't wish to submit themselves to the scanners expedited line do not have to. However, and without compromise, the choice is the sole condition on the harmlessness of the scanners. As soon as they become mandatory, the issues of health impacts (as one doesn't have a choice to "protect" themselves), invasions of personal freedoms (imbalance of governmental interests of safety vs. rights of privacy of citizens), and the government's overbearing regulations become relevant and troublesome.
If the only two choices are to be scanned or to have a stranger probe your crotch, there is no valid choice. This has gone beyond anything reasonable. The current court cases, claiming that the current TSA procedures are an unreasonable search will help. I believe eventually these procedures will be tossed out as unconstitutional.
The public lacks the information necessary to make an informed choice regarding scanners. Most people are not scientists. They cannot accurately or reasonably assess the risk of going through the scanners.
I think the right answer is to rethink airport security. Our country has more airports (both international and domestic) per capita, so our security challenges are greater than countries like Israel, which has only one international airport. However, I know that I have flown less as security becomes more annoying and I am not alone. Right now, I typically only fly for business and only when drive is longer than five hours.
There are many other technologies such as chemical detectors and other forms of sniffers that would have a much better chance of identifying "underwear" bombers than scanners. The scanners won't detect a bomb that has been shoved up someone's rectum, while a chemical sniffer would detect the residue on that person.
Go to YouTube. There are dozens of videos and incidents of TSA searching children and old people. The most recent outrage was a wheelchair bound 90 year old woman who was asked to remove and adult diaper. Are we better off because this harmless woman had to take off her diaper?