Dr. Blaylock: Body Scanners More Dangerous Than Feds Admit
Sarahli
Posts: 4,265
Dr. Blaylock: Body Scanners More Dangerous Than Feds Admit
Dr Russell Blaylock – NewsMax November 24, 2010
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.
<!-- m -->http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/health_sto ... ode=B2F7-1<!-- m -->
Dr Russell Blaylock – NewsMax November 24, 2010
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.
<!-- m -->http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/health_sto ... ode=B2F7-1<!-- m -->
Comments
just scary
Yes. And these scanners they want them in all airports... so basically they violate our privacy for fake security reasons and they want to kill us by insidious means.
Fake security is correct! They don't even subject your fellow passengers' luggage or the on board animal passengers to this kind of invasive scrutiny, and many times these "items" fly (completely unsuspiciously!!!) unescorted <!-- s:!: -->:!:<!-- s:!: --> <!-- s:!: -->:!:<!-- s:!: --> This alone, tells me "Security" <!-- s:P -->:P<!-- s:P --> is a SMOKESCREEN, for their REAL Hitleresque agenda....
Sickeningly, person after person, on the news, who had the sense to object to the scanners this last week, willingly opted to be
<!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: --> GROPED <!-- s:o -->:o<!-- s:o -->
in the BOGUS <!-- s:x -->:x<!-- s:x --> interest of security! (I am hoping this news was propaganda.)
These two were not the only choices <!-- s:!: -->:!:<!-- s:!: --> If everyone refused to fly, just this holiday season, OR, just a few months, I think it would break the bank and cause the airlines to rethink this crap, because "We, The People" are not taking it.
Trains take longer, but, can be so much fun. We would only ALL have to do this through the Holidays, when the airlines do high volume business. Think of it as going old fashioned, as somewhere in the past, where causing harm (DNA damage), invasion of privacy (PEEPING), and MAN-HANDLING <!-- s:x -->:x<!-- s:x --> a stranger's genitalia were all crimes. <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->
Then we cause the smallest concern and keep our perspective simple and small. <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
Not only the chipped mobile was invented, the chipped pet and the chipped car (GPS), now the chipped ID card is being introduced (of course only for the benefit of easy shopping in the web ...), the permanent storage of internet and phone connection data is being put on the agenda again (mainly unnoticed) and some non-U.S. folks are named for the presidential medal of freedom for their "outstanding contribution to national interests of the U.S. (or world peace)". How many countries are an exclave of the U.S. already?
I just wonder where this super self-image of the U.S. officials is deriving from.
The U.S. are the most endebted nation on the globe. Financial experts abroad are waiting for the big showdown already since months. The largest creditor is China, holding US treasuries of more than 865 billions US$ (in Sept 2010) which is almost double of what is in possession of the UK. Total public loans are adding up to 4.2 trillion US$, of which 2.8 trillion US$ are held by banks and countries abroad. Overall debts of the U.S. are up to over 13 trillions US$.
Bankruptcy vultures are continuously circling. (Yep, one possible solution needs only an elimination of the actual currency, invention of a new one and all worries are gone in a second.) This is how fast the debt clock is ticking: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Maybe sales of body scanners are meant to help decrease foreign commerce deficit?
This is one of the controversially discussed suppliers of body scanners:
http://www.sds.l-3com.com/products/mmwave.htm
What is "millimeter wave"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency
How is it being used?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner
Seems "civil use" is again a spin-off product of military interests.
http://www.l-3com.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-3_Communications
Some controversial discussion has evolved around this company that is a military supplier.
Will not be much different from other suppliers I guess.
I agree with both of you. I think many diseases have been created, or amplified, by humans and the technology they introduce into society. (I used to have respect for "scientists"... no more!) I don't recall cancer being so rampant in the 19th century, or among people living a clean life in the countryside. Something to think about. Chemicals, drugs, GMOs, tainted water, artificial lighting, radiation in many forms... are all responsible.
I agree and with the food the target is wider. I always ask God to purify my food before I eat it... because I really don't know what we can do. Even if you want to grow your own vegetables and fruits I think that they spread something in the air called "chemtrails"... chemicals certainly.