Dr. Blaylock: Body Scanners More Dangerous Than Feds Admit
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:58 AM
By Dr. Russell Blaylock
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 backscatterscanning of airline passengers and “enhanced pat-downs” brings to mindthese wise words from President Ronald Reagan: “The nine most terrifyingwords in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’mhere to help you.’”
So, what is all the concern really about — will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or otherdiseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University ofCalifornia at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama’s science andtechnology 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” aboutthe “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 iscaused by high concentrations of free radicals generated by theradiation. Most scientists think that the most damaging radiation typesare 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 theskin and a few millimeters into the skin. Some very radiation-sensitivetissues are close to the skin — such as the testes, eyes, andcirculating 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 lessthan what passengers are exposed to in-flight” are deceptive. Radiationdamage depends on the volume of tissue exposed. Chest X-rays andgamma-radiation from outer space is diffused over the entire body sothat the dose to the skin is extremely small. Of note, outer spaceradiation does increase cancer rates in passengers, pilots, and flightattendants.
We also know that certain groups of people are at a much higher risk than others. These include babies, smallchildren, pregnant women, the elderly, people with impaired immunity(those with HIV infection, cancer patients, people with immunedeficiency diseases, and people with abnormal DNA repair mechanism, justto name a few).
As we grow older, our DNA accumulates a considerable amount of unrepaired damage, and under such circumstanceseven low doses of radiation can trigger the development of skin cancers,including the deadly melanoma. I would also be concerned about exposingthe 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 normalpeople.
It also has been determined that when skin is next to certain metals, such as gold, the radiation dose is magnified100-fold higher. What if you have a mole next to your gold jewelry?Will the radiation convert it to a melanoma? Deficiencies in certainvitamins can dramatically increase your sensitivity to radiationcarcinogenesis, 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 inmind that they assured us that the CT scans were safe and that theradiation was equal to one chest X-ray. Forty years later we learn thatthe dose is extremely high, it is thought to have caused cancer in asignificant number of people, and the dose is actually equal to 1,000chest 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 werehigh-ranking Environmental Protection Agency scientists, and they assureme that in government safety agencies, politics most often override thescientists’ 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 andthe rest of the gang who insist the scanners are safe will be longgone.
© 2010 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Replies