by Mark Sircus
22 November 2010
Craig F. Walker/The Denver Post, via Associated Press
This is what happens if you refuse to walk
through a radiation-emitting scanning machine at your local airport.
The United States government is obsessed with
people having hidden bombs on their bodies going so far as to even screen
little children. Only under considerable pressure the Federal
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
announced this past week that it will no longer screen children under 12.
They are still worried though that our teenagers
could be terrorists in disguise.
“In episode after episode the TSA has
demonstrated a knack for ignoring the basics of customer relations,”
writes the Associated Press.
It should be no surprise, considering their
mission, that they cannot do their work,
“without treating everyone from frequent
business travelers to the family heading home to visit Grandma as a
Rep. Ron Paul has introduced the
American Traveler Dignity Act, which
would strip away some of the TSA’s power over travelers by denying them
immunity for any crimes committed in airport security stemming from their
new invasive search procedures.
The New York Times
“There is no excuse for the bumbling,
arrogant way the Transportation Security Administration has handled
questions and complaints about its new body-scanning machines and more
The Times reported on Friday that civil
liberties groups have collected more than 400 complaints since the new
pat-downs began three weeks ago.”
Some airports are considering another way to
show dissatisfaction with
what the government is doing and that is to
ditch TSA agents altogether.
Federal law allows airports to opt for screeners from the private sector
Not sure exactly why they are afraid for public
safety when they themselves are the greatest threat to Americans and what
used to be the cherished American way of life.
Certainly Americans are not enjoying what their
government is doing to them.
“Some offer graphic accounts of genital
contact, others tell of agents gawking or making inappropriate comments,
and many express a general sense of powerlessness and humiliation.
In general, passengers are saying they are
surprised by the intimacy of a physical search usually reserved for
‘I didn’t really expect her to touch my
vagina through my pants,’ said Kaya McLaren, an elementary
schoolteacher from Cle Elum, Wash., who was patted down at
Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport last Saturday because the
body scanner detected a tissue and a hair band in her pocket”
writes the New York Times.
“This technology can go right up a woman’s
skirt,” says Susan Herman, President of the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) and law professor at Brooklyn Law School.
The Christian Science Monitor
“As the debate about the Transportation
Security Administration’s screening procedures pings across the
Internet, a growing chorus of critics is asserting that electronic
imaging scans and ‘enhanced pat-downs’ both represent an
unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects
against unreasonable searches.”
As the high-travel Thanksgiving holiday
approaches, travelers and lawmakers are up in arms over airport security
measures. On special web sites, the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) and the U.S. Travel Association have been getting thousands of
Facebook and Twitter are smoking with posted outrage.”
“The new ‘strip search’ scanning machines at
airport security checkpoints are increasingly causing furor over issues
of privacy, decency, and health.
Whether or not you feel the new
backscatter body scans (let alone the security gropes) are an overly
humiliating invasion of privacy, there’s no arguing that the scans
expose you to extra radiation.
Many passengers and some scientists say the
excess radiation exposure could pose a health hazard to frequent fliers
and to young children. The scans may be exposing passengers to more
radiation than Napolitano is letting on.”
The Associated Press
“As the government rolls out hundreds more
full-body scanners at airports just in time for crowds of holiday
travelers, scientists worry that machines might malfunction, raising the
risk of cancer.
‘The thing that worries me the most is
what happens if the thing fails in some way and emits too much
radiation,’ said Arizona State University physics professor Peter
‘The risk for failure is higher than in
a medical setting because the machines are operated much more often,
and by TSA workers without medical training,’ Rez said.
‘Though the scanner images do not reveal
what’s beneath the skin’s surface, the radiation they emit could
potentially affect breast tissue, sex organs and eyes,’ said David
Agard, an imaging expert at the University of California at San
The Science of
The government insists that full-body scanners at airports are safe.
The federal government insists many things are
safe when we damn well know they are not. In July of 2005 the National
Academy of Sciences came to the conclusion that the preponderance of
scientific evidence shows that even very low doses of radiation pose a risk
of cancer or other health problems and there is no threshold below which
exposure can be viewed as harmless. 
Many scientists generally assumed that low levels of radiation are harmless
since they produced no immediately observable effects. However during the
past few decades tremendously improved radiation measurement techniques
coupled with detailed laboratory studies revealed many previously
unsuspected hazards from low levels of ionized radiation.
Some researchers have even added the view that
chronic low-level exposure to radiation poses a greater risk than
short-term, high-level exposure.
Just being alive today is to walk through the valley and shadow of death in
terms of radiation exposure. Background radiation on earth has increased in
the nuclear age, coming from all the above-ground testing of the last
century, nuclear plants, nuclear waste, uranium mining, and from
uranium weapons that are used in the American, British and Israeli armies,
navies, and air forces.
In addition there is constant and increasing
exposure to other forms of radiation from
microwave towers, cell phones,
wireless phones, and computer Wi-Fi systems.
The medical establishment throws caution to the wind and subjects people to
ever-higher levels of radiation with the addition of massive use of these
new body scanners at airports.
According to the Times,
“Americans today receive far more medical
radiation than ever before. The average lifetime dose of diagnostic
radiation has increased sevenfold since 1980, and more than half of all
cancer patients receive radiation therapy.”
CT scans can deliver the radiation equivalent of
400 chest X-rays.
An estimated 70 million CT (for
computed tomography) scans
are performed in the United States every year, up from three million in the
early 1980s according to a study published in the Archives of Internal
Radiation exposure became a major concern in October 2009 after
the FDA said it was
'investigating' 206 cases of patients being exposed to toxic doses of
radiation during CT scans of the brain at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los
High doses of radiation can cause skin burns,
cataracts, and other injuries - and, in extreme cases, cancer and death. The
FDA said it received 1,182 medical device reports about problems between
December 31, 1999 and February 18, 2010.
But don’t worry, if the government says it’s safe then it must be.
officials are insisting that the measures now in place are justified by the
We have lost the war on
terrorism for the terrorists have
increasingly been able to scare the West into becoming increasingly
controlling of their own populations. Now when
Brother says jump, we just say: How high?
The destruction of
human freedom and dignity is worth it right?
I wonder what’s next...
Special Note: I suggest
everyone in the States read Dr. Rabbi Gabriel Cousens letter 'Defend Your
Dinner - Fight Bill 510 in the Senate.'
I am writing to tell you about an opportunity to turn the tide in the battle
to secure authentic freedom for organic farming and non-GMO foods. For some
time now, we have been aware of an impending threat to the foundations of
Having stopped a mandated swine flu
vaccine, and having addressed, to the best of our ability, the
Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010, it
is time for us to nip
Bill S 510, or the FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act, in the proverbial bud. Bill S 510 is currently
stalled in Congress.
If we act now, we can ameliorate its potentially
deadly implications, or even end it altogether.
Bill S 510 amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
and expands the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
regulate food. It also authorizes the Secretary to suspend the registration
of a food facility.
Given the fact that Bill S 510 “considers”
Codex Alimentarius, this appears to be a
strategic maneuver, in a long line of attacks, on our health and rights.
 The linear no threshold modelor
LNT is a model of damage done by
radiation. This model assumes that the response to radiation exposure is
linear and that this linear relationship continues to very small doses,
that is to say that there is no threshold of exposure below which the
response ceases to be linear. When it comes to radiation if a particular
dose of radiation is found to produce one extra case of a type of cancer
in every thousand people exposed, the LNTM predicts that one thousandth
of this dose will produce one extra case in every million people so
exposed, and that one millionth of this dose will produce one extra case
in every billion people.
Petkau effect: discovered by Abram
Petkau at the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Whiteshell Nuclear Research
Establishment, Manitoba, Canada in 1972 Dr. Petkau discovered that at 26
rads per minute (fast-dose rate) it required a total dose of 3,500 rads
to destroy a cell membrane. However, at 0.001 rad per minute (slow dose
rate), it required only 0.7 rad to destroy the cell membrane. The
mechanism at the slow-dose rate is the production of free radicals of
oxygen (O2 with a negative electrical charge) by the ionizing
effect of the radiation. The sparsely distributed free radicals
generated at the slow-dose rate have a better probability of reaching
and reacting with the cell wall than do the densely crowded free
radicals produced by fast-dose rates.