scientists warns: dangerous airport body scanners

.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290527/Airport-body-scanners-deliver-radiation-dose-20-times-higher-thought.html

Airport body scanners 'could give you cancer', warns expert

Daily Mail Reporter
30th June 2010

Full body scanners at airports could increase your risk of skin cancer, experts warn.

The X-ray machines have been brought in at Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow.

But scientists say radiation from the scanners has been underestimated and could be particularly risky for children.

They say that the low level beam does deliver a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin - one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body - that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated.

An airport staff member demonstrates a full body scan at Manchester Airport. Now a U.S expert has said the X-Ray may deliver a higher radiation dose to the skin than first thought

Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University's centre for radiological research, said although the danger posed to the individual passenger is 'very low', he is urging researchers to carry out more tests on the device to look at the way it affects specific groups who could be more sensitive to radiation.

He says children and passengers with gene mutations - around one in 20 of the population - are more at risk as they are less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA.

Dr Brenner, who is originally from Liverpool but now works at the New York university, said: 'The individual risks associated with X-ray backscatter scanners are probably extremely small.

'If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant.'

Following trials, the airport scanners were officially introduced at Manchester Airport in January, at Heathrow Terminal 4 in February and at Gatwick in May this year.

The most likely risk from the airport scanners is a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma, according to the academic.

The cancer is usually curable and often occurs in the head and neck of people aged between 50 and 70. He points out it would be difficult to hide a weapon on the head or neck so proposes missing out that part of the body from the scanning process.

'If there are increases in cancers as a result of irradiation of children, they would most likely appear some decades in the future. It would be prudent not to scan the head and neck,' he added.

He recently aired his concerns to the Congressional Biomedical Caucus in the US - members of Congress who meet to exchange ideas on medical research.

Dr Brenner urged them to look at his concerns but said it was important to balance any health issues against passengers' safety when flying.

He said: 'There really is no other technology around where we're planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals. It's really unprecedented in the radiation world.'

The Civil Aviation Authority said the radiation received from the scanning process is the equivalent to two minutes radiation received on a Transatlantic flight

The Civil Aviation Authority, Department for Transport and Health Protection Agency insist that the technology is safe and say their tests show it would take 5,000 trips through the scanner to equal the dose of a single chest X-ray.

They said in the climate of high security, it is essential that security staff use 'all means possible' to minimise risks to airline security.

The CAA said: 'The device has been approved for use within the UK by the Department for Transport and has been subjected to risk assessments from the Health Protection Agency.

'To put the issue in perspective, the radiation received from the scanning process is the equivalent to two minutes radiation received on a Transatlantic flight.

'Recent press publications have been a little alarmist and may have heightened concern in frequent travellers who may worry about their repeated exposure.

'Under current regulations, up to 5,000 scans per person per year can be conducted safely.'

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/naked-scanners-may-increase-cancer-risk/story-e6frfq80-1225868706270

'Naked' scanners may increase cancer risk

Kate Schneider
news.com.au
May 19, 2010

• Airport scanners may increase risk of cancer
• Radiation "dangerously underestimated"
• Skin around face, neck most at risk

US scientists are warning that radiation from controversial full-body airport scanners has been dangerously underestimated and could lead to an increased risk of skin cancer - particularly in children.

University of California biochemist David Agard said that unlike other scanners, the radiation from these devices is delivered at low energy beam levels, with most of the dose concentrated in the skin and underlying tissue.

“While the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high,” Dr Agard said.

"Ionizing radiation such as the X-rays used in these scanners have the potential to induce chromosome damage, and that can lead to cancer."

Of further concern is that a failure in the device – like a power or software glitch - could cause an intense radiation dose to a single spot on the skin.

The warnings come ahead of the planned rollout of the scanners in Australia next year as part of the Federal Government’s crackdown on airport security.

David Brenner, the head of Columbia University’s Centre for Radiological Research, says the concentration on the skin – one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the body – means the radiation dose is actually 20 times higher than the official estimate.

Dr Brenner says the most likely risk from the airport scanners is a type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma, which mainly occurs on the head and neck and is usually curable.

The researcher was consulted to write guidelines for the security scanners in 2002 but said he would not have signed the report had he known the devices were going to be used so widely.

"There really is no other technology around where we're planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals," he said. “While individual risks will be extremely small, the population risk has the potential to be significant.”

The research also shows children are more vulnerable to radiation damage, because they have more cells dividing at any one time than when fully grown and a radiation-induced mutation can lead to cancer in adulthood.

Officials from the US Transportation Security Administration and the Food and Drug Administration have tried to allay concerns by saying that it would take thousands of trips through the scanners to equal the dose from one X-ray scan in a hospital.

The recent concerns raised by Dr Brenner at the US Congressional Biomedical Caucus have not been officially addressed.

Dr Agard and fellow doctors John Sedat, a molecular biologist and the group's leader; Marc Shuman, a cancer specialist; and Robert Stroud, a biochemist and biophysicist, addressed their concerns to Dr John Holdren, science adviser to US President Barack Obama.

The scientists are calling for more research to be undertaken before the use of the scanners becomes commonplace.

Dr Brenner believes millimetre-wave scanners that use radio waves instead of X-rays would be better to use because they have no known radiation risks.

Full-body scanners no stranger to controversy

The full-body scanners have already caused controversy, with privacy concerns including whether scanned images may breach child pornography laws in various countries.

They have also been criticised as ineffective, with warnings they would be unlikely to detect many of the explosive devices used by terrorism groups.

In other trouble earlier this month, a US airport security screener was suspended for assaulting a colleague who joked about him having small genitalia after he walked through a scanner.

And in March a UK airport security worker said she would sue her bosses after a colleague leered at her “naked” image in a scanner.

related post:

radiations: int'l committee against body scanners

uk: traffic air pollution kills 24,000 every year

.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7245385/Pollution-the-biggest-killer-on-Britains-roads.html

Pollution: the biggest killer on Britain's roads

Air pollution from traffic is killing vast numbers every year - and the problem is getting worse.

Andrew Marszal

16 Feb 2010

What is the biggest killer on our roads? It's not black ice, or drunk driving, or even badly installed accelerator pedals. In fact, it's air pollution – and it's getting worse. According to the most recent official figures – published back in 1998 – up to 24,000 people in Britain die before their time every year as a result of air pollution caused by vehicles, compared with 2,600 killed in road accidents. Yet EU researchers say that this figure could represent less than half of the true toll, given that new studies are increasingly linking long-term exposure to traffic pollution to a range of chronic diseases.

Last week, the House of Commons's Environmental Audit Committee heard evidence that about 35,000 people – or 51,500, if you use the methodology devised by the European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change – died prematurely in 2005 as a result of exposure to tiny airborne particles generated by traffic. Professor Frank Kelly, an environmental health expert at King's College London, claimed that about 3,500 and possibly up to 8,000 deaths in London alone could be attributed to this kind of pollution.

Tim Yeo, the head of the committee and a former shadow environment secretary, said that he was "startled" by the new statistics. Yet even they do not measure the full cost of air pollution, which is estimated to cost Britain up to £20 billion a year in terms of ill health and time off work. The problem is so severe that Britain is already subject to legal action in the European Court, which could cost us hundreds of millions of pounds in fines.

At first sight, this idea seems strange. The pea-souper fogs that once defined our capital city have long vanished, the last straw being the so-called Great Smog of 1952, when a thick cloud of pollution settled over London and penetrated deep into its inhabitants' lungs for five days. The resultant 12,000 deaths led to new policies that aimed to cut industrial emissions – the main source of air pollution at the time. A couple of decades later, the fumes caused by traffic congestion (most notoriously in southern California) seemed to have been similarly defeated by the catalytic converter.

Although modern pollution is less visible, it is no less prevalent. Road transport is now responsible for up to 70 per cent of air pollution in urban areas, the two main culprits being nitrogen dioxide – increasingly believed to be a major cause of asthma in children and present at higher levels in London than any other capital in Europe – and tiny airborne particulates. Both are emitted by the combustion of fuel, although other particulates – sometimes as much as half of the total – can come from road dust and brake and tyre wear, which are harder to measure – or regulate.

Despite tighter emissions standards, both nitrogen dioxide and the particulates have remained in the atmosphere thanks to the rise of diesel engines, which emit less carbon dioxide but produce smaller and more chemically complex particulate matter damaging to human lungs. Indeed, diesels have risen from powering eight per cent of new car registrations in the early 1990s to more than 40 per cent today, while traffic volumes have risen by a quarter.

So what are the dangers? A report by the US-based Health Effects Institute, which draws on more than 700 recent studies, shows "strong evidence" that cardiovascular and lung disease can be the result of long-term exposure to high levels of air pollution. Particularly dangerous manifestations can include atherosclerosis – a hardening of the arteries which can lead to heart attack or stroke – and a narrowing of the airways known as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These findings were not factored into the 12-year-old Defra figures for early deaths, which are yet to be updated to include the long-term effects of exposure. Nor did they include the fact that the HEI report points to stunted lung development in children and possibly complications during pregnancy as further likely hazards for those in highly exposed areas, such as homes sited within 500 metres of a major road (a category that includes nearly 12 million people in England alone, including a disproportionate number of poorer families and ethnic minorities). According to one study, children growing up with high exposure are unlikely ever to attain full lung function.

In its submissions to the Environmental Audit Committee, the Department for Transport insisted that adequate efforts were being made to reduce the impact of harmful traffic emissions. However, Graham Pendlebury, the department's environment and international director, has had to concede that a relatively small proportion of our resources is committed to air quality. Germany, for example, has roughly 40 "low emission zones" in city centres, designed to reduce pollution in the worst-hit areas; here, we only have one, which operates across London.

No wonder, then, that Britain has breached EU limits on airborne particulates (which are based on World Health Organisation recommendations) every year since the rules came into force in 2005, and is equally woeful in terms of nitrogen dioxide, for which new rules came in this year. EU limits for nitrogen dioxide for the whole of 2010 were breached in less than a month in London, and scores of town and cities are set to exceed the levels now in force.

The European Commission has launched legal action to force Britain to comply (the Government has until June to apply for an extension, although its last appeal for such was rejected back in December). If we are punished, the cost is expected to be about £300 million. Embarrassingly, the process will come to a head around the time of the 2012 Olympics, which London has promised will be the greenest ever.

As if this wasn't bad enough, the National Audit Office revealed last month that Britain is not on target to meet even its own objectives on five different air pollutant types. Progress in improving air quality has, it said, largely stalled over the past decade. Particulate matter is still most heavily concentrated in London, though several other cities, including Glasgow and Birmingham, avoided EU fines only after last-minute appeals for extensions.

What can be done? Giving evidence to the Commons committee, Prof Kelly said that the Government, the Mayor of London and local councils had to act decisively, as in the same way they had over obesity or smoking, adding that we need to reduce the number of vehicles on the roads "by at least 20 to 30 per cent". Some experts say that emissions from power stations and domestic gas boilers must also be addressed, with greater use made, for example, of clean renewable energy, and the promotion of the boiler scrappage scheme, which subsidises cleaner, modern gas boilers.

Others point out that air pollution and its devastating impact on public health have long been kept in the shadows by the more headline-grabbing concerns of the green movement: the decision to promote diesel engines, on the basis of their relatively lower carbon footprint, is a classic example. It would be ironic if we succeeded in saving the planet, only to choke to death in the process.

radiations: int'l committee against body scanners

.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aoG.YbbvnkzU&pos=11

Airport Body Scanning Raises Radiation Exposure, Committee Says

By Jonathan Tirone

Feb. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Air passengers should be made aware of the health risks of airport body screenings and governments must explain any decision to expose the public to higher levels of cancer-causing radiation, an inter-agency report said.

Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, even though the radiation dose from body scanners is “extremely small,” said the Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety report, which is restricted to the agencies concerned and not meant for public circulation. The group includes the European Commission, International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and the World Health Organization.

A more accurate assessment about the health risks of the screening won’t be possible until governments decide whether all passengers will be systematically scanned or randomly selected, the report said. Governments must justify the additional risk posed to passengers, and should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”

President Barack Obama has pledged $734 million to deploy airport scanners that use x-rays and other technology to detect explosives, guns and other contraband. The U.S. and European countries including the U.K. have been deploying more scanners at airports after the attempted bombing on Christmas Day of a Detroit-bound Northwest airline flight.

“There is little doubt that the doses from the backscatter x-ray systems being proposed for airport security purposes are very low,” Health Protection Agency doctor Michael Clark said by phone from Didcot, England. “The issue raised by the report is that even though doses from the systems are very low, they feel there is still a need for countries to justify exposures.”

3-D Imaging

A backscatter x-ray is a machine that can render a three- dimensional image of people by scanning them for as long as 8 seconds, the report says. The technology has also raised privacy issues in countries including Germany because it yields images of the naked body.

The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Most of the scanners deliver less radiation than a passenger is likely to receive from cosmic rays while airborne, the report said. Scanned passengers may absorb from 0.1 to 5 microsieverts of radiation compared with 5 microsieverts on a flight from Dublin to Paris and 30 microsieverts between Frankfurt and Bangkok, the report said. A sievert is a unit of measure for radiation.

European Union regulators plan to finish a study in April on the effects of scanning technology on travelers’ privacy and health. Amsterdam, Heathrow and Manchester are among European airports that have installed the devices or plan to do so.

The U.S. Transportation Security Administration has said that it ordered 150 scanners from OSI Systems Inc.’s Rapiscan unit and will buy an additional 300 imaging devices this year. The agency currently uses 40 machines, which cost $130,000 to $170,000 each, produced by L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. at 19 airports including San Francisco, Atlanta and Washington D.C.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jonathan Tirone at jtirone@bloomberg.net

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

further reading:

http://noworldsystem.com/2009/12/31/full-body-scanners-to-fry-travelers-with-radiation/

http://www.medgadget.com/archives/2010/01/study_looks_into_potential_side_effects_of_terahertz_full_body_scanner_technology.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

http://www.rense.com/general41/airporttravelerstoget.htm

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/

http://www.examiner.com/x-26624-Miami-Air-Travel-Examiner~y2010m1d2-Health-Risk-Fears-Raised-Over-Airport-Body-Scanners?cid=exrss-Miami-Air-Travel-Examiner

man-made noise killing whales

.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6870399.ece

From The Times

October 12, 2009

Man-made noise is blamed for driving whales to their deaths

Frank Pope, Ocean Correspondent

Scientists say man-made noise equipment, including anti-seal sonar devices used in fish farms, is driving deep-water animals such as whales to shore, where they die. A northern bottlenose whale was washed up dead on a beach in Prestatyn, North Wales, on Saturday morning, the tenth of the species to become trapped or stranded on British shores this year.

Scientists are blaming not just military sonar, but a large range of man-made noises that they fear are driving the normally deep-water animals to shore.
The week before, another of the 10m (33ft) whales became trapped in a small Scottish loch. Rescuers managed to push the distressed animal out of Loch Eil and halfway to safety but on Friday morning the whale was found dead.
“The whales are migrating at this time of year, so we normally do see more of them, but to have so many washing up is a little strange. There’s an enormous amount of man-made noise out at sea off the northwest of Scotland, and we can’t rule out that this is what causing them to come ashore,” said Mark Simmonds, Director of Science for the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society.
Northern bottlenose whales are acutely sensitive to sound, for like other beaked whales they use sonic pulses for hunting. The noise of oil exploration (which uses loud underwater explosions to help geologists search for undiscovered reserves), wind farm construction and shipping are all possible culprits.
“It seems military activities caused the mass beaching of dolphins we saw in Cornwall last year, but this is different,” said Dr Simmonds. Once close to shore, northern bottlenose whales are easily disoriented, Mr Simmonds believes. Lochs can act as “whale traps”, which confuse the animals into swimming into ever more enclosed waters. This time last year another whale of the same species got trapped in Loch Eil.
“There’s some kind of phenomenon in this loch that is funnelling them in. Once in, it seems that other noises may have prevented the whale from leaving,” said Mr Simmonds.
Fish farms use ’Acoustic Harassment Devices’ in an effort to dissuade seals from looting from their nets. While designed to be used intermittently, it appears that at least some fish farms leave theirs running continually.
“It’s an awful siren sound — very, very loud,” said Dr Patrick Miller of the Sea Mammal Research Unit in St Andrews. “There’s quite a bit of research that says they have more effect on cetaceans than seals. It may very well be that the seal-scarer had a big effect on keeping the animal inside the loch."
"Standing on the shore of a Scottish loch it might seem silent, but stick a microphone in the water and it’s now an incredibly noisy environment,” said Mr Simmonds. “Sound travels 1,000 times faster underwater than it does through air.”
The Loch Eil whale was only persuaded to leave when a nearby fish farm had turned off its seal-scaring device. Volunteers from the Marine Life Rescue Unit then used underwater loudspeakers to play sounds of their own – including a recording of a hunting killer whale — to push the 10-metre whale back out to sea.
“Although we think of these as open ocean animals, for so many to come in there may be something we’re missing,” said Dr. Millar. “Maybe they’re looking for food. We just know so little about the animals it’s difficult to make strong conclusions.”
A study found that 109 northern bottlenose whales had stranded on the coasts of the UK and Ireland between 1800 and 2002. September was the month that saw most incidents, and coincides with their annual migration southwards. Although the number of reported strandings is increasing, Mr Simmonds cautioned that heightened public awareness and concern may mean dead whales are more likely to be reported.

eu transport policy: grey

http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/communication-future-transport-09-06-17#

Greenpeace comment: Commission communication on the future of transport policy

17 June 2009

Brussels, Belgium — The European Commission has today put forward its vision on the future of the European transport sector. The Commission communication prominently features comfort and safety considerations. However, calls for "more sustainable transport" and "further action in particular on noise, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions" only appear as secondary objectives. The communication is also expected to focus on "smart prices" for transport, while issues such as reducing demand and controlling speed are largely ignored.

"Official EU data shows that the damage on the climate from cars, airplanes and ships is increasing, but the Commission fails to recognise the need to set transport emission targets," said Franziska Achterberg, Greenpeace EU transport policy adviser.

The EU transport sector is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases after the power sector, with 22% of total EU emissions. According to a European Environment Agency report released this year, transport emissions increased by 28% between 1990 and 2006, while, overall, emission from all sectors have decreased by 3%.[1]

"We just can't achieve sustainability if we continue to have an ever-expanding transport sector. If the Commission does not tackle this burning issue, the growth of EU transport will continue undermining climate efforts in other sectors," said Achterberg.

[1] See: http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/europe-needs-to-steer-transport-policy-in-the-right-direction

Franziska Achterberg – Greenpeace EU transport campaigner:
+32 (0)498 36 24 03 (mob.), +32 (0)2 274 19 18, franziska.achterberg@greenpeace.org

Mark Breddy – Greenpeace EU communications manager:
+32 (0)2 274 1903, +32 (0)496 156 229 (mobile), mark.breddy@greenpeace.org