TSA pat downs

[Everskyward]

RADAR guns actually did lead to much higher incidents of cancer...

Testicular cancer of the officers who stuck then between their legs between shots. Seriously.

The level of exposure for someone who is using a radar gun would obviously be higher than for someone who is driving down the road. Still I don't see where that has kept many officers from using these guns.

There's documented higher rates of testicular cancer in male pilots who spend considerable amounts of time directly behind poorly-shielded weather RADAR transmitters as well.

Flying at high altitude also increases radiation exposure, but I don't see where this has kept people from being pilots either.

When the option is to fly directly into a supercell or cook the giblets,

Large exaggeration. Flying directly into a supercell is perhaps equivalent what the people at the Fukushima power plant are doing to clean it up but not even close to going through the scanners.

Like I said people can make their own choices.

 

[Ghery]

The level of exposure for someone who is using a radar gun would obviously be higher than for someone who is driving down the road. Still I don't see where that has kept many officers from using these guns.

One additional detail about the officers getting cancer from their radar guns -

The ones who did kept the radar gun active while it was between their legs. That way they could flip it up and nail a speeder (alledged speeder) before his detector had a chance to warn him. If they waited to activate the gun until it was up there was a lag before they got a reading. Or so it was related to me years ago. If they had not had the gun active while it was down there wouldn't have been the exposure to the family jewels.

 

[RobertSubnet]

It was because the TSA turned off most of the strip-search machines that day. Hard to "opt out" if they're not using the device. There was a later admission that it's exactly why they turned 'em off.

This would suggest a simple way of putting a stop to the Nude-O-Scopes, everyone opt out. Of course this would further inconvenience already frazzled travelers. But in theory it could work.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Flying at high altitude also increases radiation exposure, but I don't see where this has kept people from being pilots either.

The problem is that radiation damage is cumulative. The damage from either exposure doesn't go away.

Like I said people can make their own choices.

True. It helps if they understand the consequences of their choices. Radiation isn't really my field of study but I've been taught enough by those that do know that the risk isn't quite neglible. I'm not trying to bash the government, just their choice of machines. Like I said earlier, I'd prefer the millimeter imaging system.

 

[Everskyward]

Radiation isn't really my field of study but I've been taught enough by those that do know that the risk isn't quite neglible.

How about this, then, which I just read.

In the U.S., about 10,000 to 12,000 people develop a glioma each year and about 3,000 develop acoustic neuroma tumors. The risk roughly doubles after a decade of cellphone use, according to some studies. But the number of cellphone users worldwide — there are an estimated 5 billion cellphones — means a potential cancer link should be taken very seriously, said Dr. Jonathan Samet, chairman of the department of preventive medicine at USC's Keck School of Medicine and the chairman of the panel that issued the report.

Are people going to put down their cellphones?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...l-phones-20110601-1,0,3849386.story?track=rss

 

[tdager]

How about this, then, which I just read.



Are people going to put down their cellphones?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...l-phones-20110601-1,0,3849386.story?track=rss

Actually, if the information is correct and backed by fact (I am not saying it is just making a point), and published to "inform" people, there may be many that would put way the handset and go to Bluetooth or corded ear pieces.

I know I am going to do so now.

 

[ScottM]

RADAR guns actually did lead to much higher incidents of cancer...

Testicular cancer of the officers who stuck then between their legs between shots. Seriously.

Seriously there has only been accusations that this is the case and attempts to get real data that supports the hypothesis have not yielded any conclusions that support such a conclusion. The incidence of testicular cancer is so low to begin with, coupled with the way that medical data is not collected on tumors, police, etc. means that there is no statistical smoking gun at all. Some studies have been attempted but even those have had a lot of difficulty getting enough study subjects to get the data out of the noise of the statistics. When one considers that non-ionizing radiation comes from many sources and police are exposed to lots of it e.g. radios, radar, etc, and they are not covered with tumors one has to question if the hypothesis is even correct to begin with. I am also not aware of any court case where an officer sued for the cause of his cancer to have been awarded based on the cause being the radar gun.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

How about this, then, which I just read.



Are people going to put down their cellphones?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-he-who-cell-phones-20110601-1,0,3849386.story?track=rss

The scientific literature is a bit less exciting

The group classified cellphones in category 2B, meaning they are possibly carcinogenic to humans. Other substances in that category include the pesticide DDT and gasoline engine exhaust.

According to Cancer Research U.K., the only health danger firmly connected to cellphones is a higher risk of car accidents.

This is why the TSA use of X-rays concerns me:

Cellphones send signals to nearby towers via radio frequency waves, a form of energy similar to FM radio waves and microwaves. But the radiation produced by cellphones cannot directly damage DNA and is different from stronger types of radiation like X-rays or ultraviolet light. At very high levels, radio frequency waves from cellphones can heat up body tissue, but that is not believed to damage human cells

A lot of the same information is in your citation too.

Ref: http://www.biosciencetechnology.com...rts-say-cellphones-are-possibly-carcinogenic/

X-rays are known to cause damage to DNA and thus lead to cancer. The article you cited purports that cell phones might, maybe, cause a rare cancer. You are comparing two very different things.