Another expert weighs in on the safety issue …
Since I’ve written to you before about politics, I should start by saying that I am something of an expert on radiation risk assessment. I was a member of a National Academy of Sciences committee on radioactive wastes, among other things. However, my expertise is NOT in the molecular mechanisms of cancer induction, which is at the core of the disagreement here, so all I can do is try to clarify what the issues are. In any case, I haven’t read anything more than the letter to Holdren and the FDA reply, so please repeat these comments only anonymously (and change the initials).
Motor Trend editor to Rush Limbaugh: “Driving and Oxycontin don’t mix.”
Some pre-holiday fun during the long afternoon to your long weekend: Read More
A moment like this reminds me of the moment in the late 30s when the Nazis started with security pat-downs but no one protested until it escalated into genocide.
Minnesota State legislator Tom Hackbarth tells cops: I wasn’t trying to shoot up that abortion clinic; I was stalking my online girlfriend.
TPM Reader TT chimes in on the safety issue. Before getting to TT’s comments, let me say that despite the fact that there are no levels of radiation with zero potential health consequences it’s also true that there are various sorts of x-rays we’ve decided as a society are acceptable levels of risk versus what’s gained — dental x-rays, medical x-rays, going high in the atmosphere, etc. What I would say, based on reading several articles about this, is that while the total amounts of radiation are less than what people get from other kinds of exposure we believe are innocuous, there are knowledgeable people saying that the comparisons the TSA is making involve apples to oranges comparisons between how different sources of radiation are absorbed by the body.
I just wanted to weigh in on several points on the new TSA scanners and procedures as a scientist and as someone that frequently works on homeland security topics. First, as any scientist can attest, that one of the major training messages in radiation safety courses is to always minimize the dose of ionizing radiation. There is NO safe level of ionizing radiation (there are three major types of ionizing radiation: alpha particles [helium nucleus], beta particles [electrons], and gamma rays [short wave, high energy electromagnetic waves]). Nada. Zip. None. Argonne National Lab did studies in the 1950s-1960s on many generations of beagle dogs to determine if there was a safe, minimum exposure level. The theory was that radiation exposure was like chemical exposure in that at some point the dose is so low that no damage occurs. The evidence proved otherwise. Also, the damage from ionizing radiation is cumulative, so frequent or repeated exposures have much longer lasting effects. The US and other governments have set some standards to limit radiation exposure for workplace and health safety, but there is no lower threshold dose that does no damage.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the premier organizations tracking hate groups and racist organizations in the country, has placed the Family Research Council on its list of hate groups that it tracks.
Joe Klein reassesses and repents for supporting Bush’s Social Security privatization plan back in 2005.
Here’s a good, measured run-down of some of the possible safety concerns about those backscatter x-rays. The issue isn’t that there’s clear evidence they’re unsafe but rather than this particular technology operates somewhat differently and may be used somewhat differently than the x-rays used in the studies that supposedly prove their safety.
Interestingly, there’s another technology, millimeter-wave scanners, that doesn’t use x-rays at all and seems not to have any health concerns tied to it at all. They’re in use in a few airports but not many. Ironically, for those worried about junk-exposure, they seem to produce slightly more revealing images than the backscatter junk detectors.
It was pretty audacious for former Florida Republican Party chairman Jim Greer to file suit against the party for failing to pay him severance after it fired him for allegedly defrauding the party of hundreds of thousands of dollars. But then Greer — currently awaiting trial on criminal charges related to the alleged fraud — took it a step further and invoked his right against self-incrimination in refusing to be deposed in his own lawsuit. So the judge has thrown the lawsuit out.