“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within...”
Romans 12:2

No one logged in. Log in

Hilary's Desk

Are the new airport scanners safe?

Hilary Butler - Monday, November 08, 2010

On April 6, 2010, Dr Marc Shuman, M.D., and Drs John Sedat, David Agard, and Robert Stroud PhD, posted an online open letter onto internet in which they raise concerns about the safety of the new airport scanners.  FDA and all the medical bods who "matter" to the USA administration have of course declared these scanners to have no health effects.  Well, fat chance do I believe these scanners to be safe.  Why?  For the same reasons that these four doctors don't believe them to be safe, either.  As they say in their letter:

"As longstanding UCSF scientists and physicians, we have witnessed critical errors in decisions that have seriously affected the health of thousands of people in the United States.  These unfortunate errors were made because of the failure to recognise potential adverse outcomes of decisions made at the federal leval.  Crises create a sense of urgency that frequently leads to hasty decisions where unintended consequences are not recognized.  Examples include the failure of the CDC to recognize the risk of blood transfusions in the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, approval of drugs and devices by the FDA without sufficient review, and improper standard set by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), to name a few.  Similarly, there has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects or fadiation exposure associated with airport scanners.  There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.  We are unanimous in believing that the potential health consequences need to be rigorously studied before these scanners are adopted.  Modifications that reduce radiation exposure need to be explored as soon as possible." 

These four doctors are at least generous, and consider the errors "unfortunate", due to human failure to recognise potential adverse outcomes....".  That's like saying a system with the record of a serial murderer is let off the hook, because no-one is ascribing deliberate intent.   The phrase, "To name a few" is sickeningly correct, but few people recognise the serial harm down through the ages, wreaked by the blindness of the medical system, and those supposedly in charge of it's regulation and safety.

Usually, when these drugs or devices hastily approved, are decades later found wanting, the response of the medical system is either nothing, denial, or a pathetic "oops....".

Yet if you ask the question as to what ELSE could have profound health issues, which the FDA and CDC might ALSO have "failed" (cough) to consider - like the effects of amalgam in teeth; chlorine and flouride in water, or vaccines in babies - the response of the system is that. "Those things can't possibly have any problems can they?"

 

 

 

Bookmark and Share