Compulsory use of Full Body Scanners in SYD and MEL

[flyingfan]

I'm living in Chiang Mai at the moment and have been visiting the airport for various reasons about once a week.

You can't even enter the building without going through a metal detector. They have an X Ray machine for items of luggage but you're allowed to walk through the metal detector with all the paraphenalia that you usually put in a tray. This always results in me setting off the detector and getting a wanding and pat down by an attractive young woman in uniform. I love it

I had this at HKT as well as CNX - obviously there are no enforced rules about same-sex patdowns by security in Thailand. I think there was another country where I (male) was patted down by a female officer - might have been the Philippines.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Everyone I know that opts-out of scans in USA is intelligent. It's not like these are a bunch ignorant chemtrails conspiracy type people. Generally if smart people think something as a collective there is some truth to it....

Full-body scanners used on air passengers may damage human DNA

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Millimeter wave scanner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"While the majority of animal cancer studies show no response to chronic exposure of microwaveradiation, some show an increased rate of tumor growth."

And this is studies done now - imagine the effects in 20 years on the mass human population?
The tech is just far too new to go rolling out on a mass scale like this.

Also, if this were done 100% purely for the reason of security, it would be mandated in ALL airports worldwide immediately. It's total BS.

 

[mannej]

Millimeter wave scanner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"While the majority of animal cancer studies show no response to chronic exposure of microwaveradiation, some show an increased rate of tumor growth."

The problem with that quote is that there is no reference at all to the significance of the results, I.e if that minority of results are statistically significant.

As for those opting out, what relevance does their intelligence have to do with anything? There is still every chance the information they are forming their choices on isn't 100% accurate

 

[medhead]

Everyone I know that opts-out of scans in USA is intelligent. It's not like these are a bunch ignorant chemtrails conspiracy type people. Generally if smart people think something as a collective there is some truth to it....

Full-body scanners used on air passengers may damage human DNA

Sorry but that is pure ignorance of the science involved. Anyone who group thinks into believing that is ignorant.

Firstly, the author clearly doesn't know the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation. Millimeter wave scanners have nothing to do with CT scans and x-rays. The risks of those things has nothing to do with it. Then the author attacks medical diagnostic X-rays as dangerous. eg false claims about mammography. Sure X-ray exposure to the breast has some risk. However that risk is minuscule when compared to the risk of breast cancer. The fact is that vastly more people have been saved death from breast cancer that could have been affected by the X-rays from screening. To claim otherwise, or to obscure that fact is the height of ignorance. Radiology works in the regime of the benefits being greater than the risks.

But what are the risks involved. The risk of a fatal cancer from the radiation of a single mammogram is roughly 1 in 40000. That is a population wide risk not an individual risk as well. So 1 woman out of every 40000 women that have a mammogram theoretically is expected to die from cancer at some time in the 50 years following the mammogram. How many people get cancer in the population? Roughly 25% to 33%, so roughly 10000 of those 40000 people are expected to die from cancer. Which 1 was due to the mammogram? More important is the risk of cancer due to that mammogram even worth thinking about compared to the risks that cause the other 9999 fatal cancers?

It is also impossible to say which cancer was caused by the mammogram. Digging into my memory, in order to prove causation for the radiation dose of 2 mammograms a study would need a cohort of roughly 12000000 people that you follow over there entire lifetime. Half of the population of Australia with accurate records of everything that can effect their health. So that's just a small outline of the problems in that article about ionising radiation.

On the millimeter wave devices. The article incorrectly decides these are clinical devices. They aren't, it is ludicrous to suggest they are. It ignores cellular repair and cellular death mechanisms. DNA can be damaged by a multitude of things in the environment. The article is focusing of the risk from one grain of sand and ignoring the rest of the sand on the beach. The body is well adapted to dealing with that situation.

Then we have the absolute histeria about terahertz waves. These sit between IR and microwaves in the EM spectrum. They have a very short range and will only effect the skin, our bodies protective coating that is there to take damage and protect us.

The article quotes a single study that gives rise to the alarmist headline but it fails to mention that study is based on mathematical models and has not been experimental verified. They also fail to mention a recent analysis of the work that concludes that "DNA bubbles do not occur under reasonable physical assumptions or if the effects of temperature are taken into account.

Basically it is a lot of one-sided scare mongering about radiation. I guess that's why it is full of scarey questions, a heap of bias and no answers. It quites the NCRP out of context and comfuses radiation types. I'm surprised intelligent people can accept that rubbish. It certainly fits the chemtrail mould of fear mongering.

 

[opusman]

Medhead - I have had EIGHTEEN international departures from SYD just in this year to date. That would have been 18 Scans should the machines been in place since Jan 1. It's 18 exposures I don't want to have with unproven new tech

I thought the new scanners were used randomly? You'd be pretty unlucky get have a 100% strike rate.

 

[simongr]

I thought the new scanners were used randomly? You'd be pretty unlucky get have a 100% strike rate.

I think they are going to be compulsory for all pax.

So if we believe the resident expert on radiation who I do not believe has a vested interest in the scanners (I don't think he is employed by he manufacturers) and the risk is low - why do my taxes have to fund extra security staff to pander to people who accept their safety?

 

[medhead]

I think they are going to be compulsory for all pax.

So if we believe the resident expert on radiation who I do not believe has a vested interest in the scanners (I don't think he is employed by he manufacturers) and the risk is low - why do my taxes have to fund extra security staff to pander to people who accept their safety?

I think compulsory for randomly selected pax.

Certainly, I have no vetted interest in the devices. I'm not even sure who manufacturers them.

I will state that I'm not convinced that the scanners are more effective than current technology (and that is just my personal opinion) hence why I've raised that question. However, I am convinced about the safety, and as I understand Australia has lead the world in investigating and justifying the safety case.

 

[anat0l]

Millimeter wave scanner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"While the majority of animal cancer studies show no response to chronic exposure of microwaveradiation, some show an increased rate of tumor growth."

The quote you've selected doesn't adequately qualify whether that is a real risk or not.

Sure, risk is risk, and you can always avoid risk by eliminating the source of it. That said, I'm not convinced that it is overwhelmingly a serious risk that it must be avoided by elimination. And for any risk that is not avoided by elimination, you can never, ever have zero risk (it's either Murphy or the freak).

In fact, the clause right after the quote seems to somewhat nullify the alarmist tone. I can't access the article given as a citation so I can't verify what the statistical or experimental credentials are (if any); I'm relying on a couple of others here who appear to be able to get at it and make that judgement.

Also, if this were done 100% purely for the reason of security, it would be mandated in ALL airports worldwide immediately. It's total BS.

Heck no. Different airports mandate different things for "security reasons" which are not worldwide standards. Some notable things are - LAGs, for example - but others are not. For example:

• All flights to the USA are subject to additional security checks (including questioning or extra screening at gate, viz. SSSS). No other country has a similar strict regime.
• Depending on which country you are in depends on how strictly the 1 L limit on LAGs is enforced, and whether all of those LAGs must be in a plastic bag.
• Depending on which country you are in, if you walk through a metal detector and you beep, you could be either: (a) let through, (b) forced to go back and empty pockets before trying again, (c) examined with a wand, (d) frisked, or (e) lead to a separate area to be thoroughly searched.
• Other procedures such as frisking or extra checks (e.g. before entering the terminal at all, or whether screening is at the gate or before airside)
• If the worldwide standards of security procedures were truly "standard", why do we need to be rescreened when we transit or transfer?

There may not be rhyme or reason as to why governments decide on certain security measures or what not, but the argument you gave is hardly any sole reason.


I appreciate medhead's expert analysis on this, but one must concede that there are clearly two sides that are related to the science, which in both cases manifests from the principal argument that lack of evidence on one side of the debate should not be sufficient to deem that side as defeated. That is:

• Just because studies say that there is no significant risk as of yet does not mean that there is no significant risk and that screening should proceed unabated (in environmental science and sustainability, this is sometimes called the precautionary principle)
• Just because studies say that there is no significant risk as of yet does not mean that there will eventually be a significant risk (or rather, that significant risk has been comprehensively disproven) and that screening should never proceed until full disproof can be made

You can never satisfy both sides (unless one side is eventually proven completely wrong), but the arguments so far here seem to ignore the other.

A similar thing can be applied to the chemtrails movement; most of us deride those that believe in chemtrails, but suffice to say there isn't actually the experimental data (only calculations and theory) to back up the fact that there is no such activity taking place (no one has actually gone up to clouds or monitored deposition to show that the trails have harmful chemicals in them, or lack thereof).

 

[medhead]

I suggest that the precautionary principle has been applied to this case. As it generally is to all radiation exposure situations. These scans involve exposure that is infinitesimally small compared to the other exposures that exist. This is why comparisons such as to mobile phones are being made. That very low, small additional exposure is justified given the benefits that are gained.

The precautionary principle is applied to ionising radiation and that says even a single photon can be harmful. As a result we have a dose limit for the public at a level where they can never (in practical terms) show an effect. There is plenty of evidence to show that people can be exposed to 10 or 20 or 50 times that dose limit and are not be affected. Their cancer incidences are statistically the same as the rest of the world. Yet we still face certain groups that claim it is the most dangerous thing ever, despite the lack of bodies in the street. What I'm reading here about these scanners follows that model of spreading irrational fear.

 

[TheInsider]

You're very lucky that you wern't excluded from any airside activities for 24hrs, because that's what the ruling is if you refuse to go through the scanner. This applies to staff as it does to passengers.

 

[auskiwiflyer]

as I understand Australia has lead the world in investigating and justifying the safety case.

From what I could gather reading the govt docs, they HAVEN'T bothered to do their own research but are instead relying on the fact that USA, CANADA and the EU have!

 

[medhead]

From what I could gather reading the govt docs, they HAVEN'T bothered to do their own research but are instead relying on the fact that USA, CANADA and the EU have!

Justification means assessing the risks vs the benefits. It is a key principle of radiation protection. Australia has lead the way in developing a process.

 

[mannej]

From what I could gather reading the govt docs, they HAVEN'T bothered to do their own research but are instead relying on the fact that USA, CANADA and the EU have!

Can you provide a link to the docs?

I don't get why they would need to 'research' what already has been researched in this situation if the information is available.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

If they are so safe, why is the EU banning them?

From what Medhead has explained so far, they seem safe to me. I will see tomorrow if l have to go through one.......

 

[mannej]

If they are so safe, why is the EU banning them?

From what Medhead has explained so far, they seem safe to me. I will see tomorrow if l have to go through one.......

Potentially political reasons?

 

[opusman]

If they are so safe, why is the EU banning them?

The EU has banned scanners that use X-Rays, but these scanners do not use X-Rays, as has been said multiple times...

 

[anat0l]

From what Medhead has explained so far, they seem safe to me. I will see tomorrow if l have to go through one.......

I don't think you'll be able to judge whether they are safe or not from tomorrow, unless it results in your having to be hospitalised due to the screening.

You might be able to make a judgement (first pass) on the efficiency (or lack thereof) of the new process, however.

 

[factcheque]

Lets debunk this fluff.

> One! These DO NOT use the same type of radiation as you are exposed to when flying.

So if its not electromagnetism, what is it? Are you getting 'type' confused with 'frequency'? Or are you referring to ionising/non-ionising?

> These use millimeter wave radiation for which there is NO proven effect at the low exposes involved.

That's because there are so few studies. Lack of evidence of effect does not constitue evidence of lack of effect. Do you understand?

> This is te same type of radiation as for a mobile phone again no proven effects at low levels.

In so far as they are electromagnetism. But they are completely different parts of the spectrum. One is MICROwaves. The other is MILLIMETER waves.

> The comparison is relevant and there is NO health risk.

Please cite your source for such a claim. Where is the evidence there is no health risk?

> TWO! It is not te same type of radiation as you are exposed to when flying!!!

How is it a different 'type'?

> Three! These have been introduced on a no opt out policy! This has been well advertised!

It has been on the public record, but that is not 'well advertised' by any means.

> Four! Did you tell them of your medical condition?

Is telling them enough? What medical conditions constitute grounds for alternative screening?

> Five! I fail to see the relevance of your medical condition. Does mobile phone radiation affect it?

Are you a physician? Are you a radiologist? A physicist? How do you know his medical condition is of no relevance?

> BTW pamphlets get created because of absolute ignorance about radiation that exists in the community as evidenced by the OP. The suggestion that information about radiation safety is propaganda is offensive.

Can you show me ONE safety study of millimeter wave exposure? Cause I can show you studies that raise doubt as to its safety. In the light of the academic papers I've read on the subject, I would say the pamphlets are propaganda if they are claiming the machines are proven safe. Do you know where the Department of Health and Aging got their information from? The American Military Industrial Contractor who sold them the machines.

The Australian radiological standards were used in the judgement and because the AMOUNT of radiation was below the threshold, then they approved it. But this is basic scientific error because the guidelines were developed for radiation exposure averaged over the whole body. This is a new technology and has not had much safety testing. Let me explain further with an analogy.

Take light. The light reflecting off the pavement entering your eye is less than 1 watt. And it does not blind you. By the governments logic, therefore, looking into a 1 Watt laser is safe. They are both light. They are both the same energy. Therefore they are the same. But I tell you a 1 Watt laser will blind you quick smart. Why is this? Because the devil is in the details. Laser light is collimated and coherent. And that collimated coherent energy is focused at your retina.

Similarly, the millimeter wave technology is focused into the top few millimeters of skin. There is very few studies of this radiation being focused into the upper level of skin. There is one modelling study that suggests Terahertz radiation may unzip DNA strands and damage them. This would make such machines carcinogenic.

It's also important that even if millimeter waves were extensively studied and found to be safe, that STILL does not mean the machines are safe. What if they occasionally malfunctioned and gave a 1000x dose to every hundredth passenger? Testing a machine for safety is not a simple thing. And the machine itself must be tested. I'll tell you if these machines were being looked at for medical use, they would either not be approved, or would have far greater number of studies. But this is not medicine. This is about securocrats selling expensive kit to governments so they can be seen to 'keep the public safe'. Unfortunately, the machines themselves may be exposing them to a far greater risk than the threat of terror.

I'll conclude by saying I don't know if the machines are safe or not. But what I do know is that claims of their safety are without any scientific basis. At the moment, we just don't know. And this means the pamphlets are probably propaganda. I haven't actually seen the pamphlets. Does anyone want to scan one in so we can see what they are claiming?

 

[medhead]

Well I'm going to hide behind my title. Why? because you also seem to have trouble telling the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation. These are 2 different types of radiation with different wavelengths and energies.

Anyway, my job title includes the words Safety, LASER, and Radiation. Not in that order.

I will also say that you're analogy about Lasers is completely false. The government does, in fact, ban the importation of lasers and there are, in fact, regulations to do with their use.

Your analogy also fails because Miilimeter wave scanners have to illuminate the whole body surface and hence are extremely unlikely to be focused onto a spot. You have a source that is either smaller or roughly the same size as the object to be illuminated, certainly not bigger than the object to be illuminated. So physics suggests that the radiation is either diverging from the source or it is roughly the same size, certainly NOT focussed to a smaller size and concentrated.

Lets debunk this fluff.

Then there is this fluff

There is one modelling study that suggests Terahertz radiation may unzip DNA strands and damage them. This would make such machines carcinogenic.

A modelling study that has not be verified experimentally and that, as I posted, has been subject to an analysis

that concludes that "DNA bubbles do not occur under reasonable physical assumptions or if the effects of temperature are taken into account.

It's also important that even if millimeter waves were extensively studied and found to be safe, that STILL does not mean the machines are safe. What if they occasionally malfunctioned and gave a 1000x dose to every hundredth passenger? Testing a machine for safety is not a simple thing. And the machine itself must be tested.

What's your point? Testing a machine is not that hard. Setting up a QA/QC program is not that hard. There are thousands of x-ray machine in operation all around Australia everyday. Do you have the same concerns? They have to be tested. Do you say what if they occasionally malfunctioned? Do you say the same thing about baggage x-ray units? They're not medical, but they get tested.


Edit: BTW Google is your friend. http://travelsecure.infrastructure.gov.au/bodyscanners/index.aspx