Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Scanner Scam? / Airports face mounting pressure / Head-mounted cameras / Antennas on mosques / POLLUTED BY EMR

Scanner Scam?
    I think the privacy issues and cost issues are not the most important aspects of the controversy over use of whole body scanners at airports.  I think the News media deliberately fail to bring up health issues.  Either low level x-rays or RF radiation will be used for scanning to detect substances associated with explosives.  Dr. John Gofman, former Professor at University of California at Berkeley and Director of the Biomedical Division when I worked at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in the early 1970's has written many papers about overexposure of the public to sometimes unnecessary diagnostic X-rays.  Dr. Gofman and his colleagues had many arguments with the US Atomic Energy Commission about whether there was a threshold for biological damage by ionizing radiation.  The AEC and its successors (ERDA and DOE) have always contended that there is a threshold value of REM (dose in Roentgen equivalent man) below which there were no significant bioeffects.  However, I think that the current view of most scientists is that the dose response curves extrapolate down to zero dose.  In other words, there is some biological damage at any radiation level.  This is Dr. Gofman's contention and he and his supporters at Livermore paid a price for holding onto that poin of view.  His Division was abolished by the AEC and the AEC tried to get him fired by the management at Livermore, but he was a scientist of international reputation, so he was protected as a Professor at Large in the University of California system.
    Fast forward to the present and we find that the FCC and its advisory engineering groups believe that there is a threshold for biological damage by RF radiation (including mm waves).  The late Dr. Neil Cherry in New Zealand showed that a statistical model of bioeffect dose response is better fit by an assumption of no threshold than by any threshold behavior that he tried to include in his model.  Once again, the cognizant government agencies bend to the commercial and economic interests, instead of public health concerns.  Now, to try to detectect explosives on passengers, the FAA is about to require airline passengers in the US to submit to whole body X-Ray scans - or as a possible alternative, the use of whole body mm wave scans has also been mentioned.  If mm waves or other RF radiation scans were employed, other health problems must be considered.  A few years ago, a clinical research group at Graz University in Austria demonstrated that at least 2 % of the population at large is electromagnetically hypersensitive to RF radiation (Bioelectromagnetics 24:387-394 (2003)).  Thus, we seem to have the same dilemna as was true a few years ago.  How can we protect fragile human beings from enormous vested commercial interests?  I personally think that much biophysical research needs to be done before either of these whole body scanning techniques are unleashed on a vulnerable public conditioned to accept any defense available against the horrors of terrorism.
If you want to hustle a program like the 'whole body scanners' just
arrange for a "terrorist" without a passport to board a plane and no one
will complain about installing the scanners.  I wonder who has the
contract to build them.
October 2009, Ontario:  Polls showed that the majority of people in
Ontario where not getting the flu vaccine.  So what happens?  They give a
kid meningitis , he dies, they tell everyone he died from flu complications.
A panic ensues and people rush to get vaccinated.

Just like:

December 2009:  Airport screening devices have been created.  People don't want
them.  So what happens?  Gee --- this is creative --- some guy --- allegedly
--- has a bomb --- in his underwear!!   is he stopped?  despite the fact
that he does not have luggage or a passport?  no, of course not!  the farce
has to be played out.   So canny passengers stop him before he can do
damage, but like the panic in Ontario, people freak out and might even re
consider the violations of privacy these devices will create.   Do you
think people would figure it out?

I totally believe this was a set up job.  like the flu nonsense.

  - Marilyn -


Airports face mounting pressure to introduce hi-tech scanners

By Jerome Taylor

Wednesday, 30 December 2009

State of the art "millimetre wave" scanners and "backscatter x-ray" machines use extremely high frequency radio waves or electromagnetic radiation to see through layers of clothing, and can help spot items which ordinary metal detectors might miss. But governments have been reluctant to adopt the machines because they are 10 times more expensive than metal detectors and raise privacy issues.

At Amsterdam's Schiphol airport, where Abdulmutallab changed from his Lagos flight to one destined for Detroit, 15-millimetre wave scanners are already in operation. But they can only be used by people who volunteer to be searched, because the images they produce show the person naked.

Security heads know that any attempt to make the use of such scanners compulsory would upset many travellers. Germany balked at introducing the scanners last year after a public backlash. But a number of governments, led by the US, have started trials in key airports and train stations.

The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, has suggested that Britain should be prepared to place the scanners at all of its airports. But after a four-year trial of the machines at Heathrow between April 2004 and July 2008, the airport decided not to install the machines.

A spokesperson last night declined to elaborate on the reasons behind this decision, but it is thought that Heathrow favours using machines that can detect traces of explosive chemicals rather than penetrate clothing.

Security companies that make the machines have seen their stocks rise considerably this week. Some of the smaller firms, such as ICX Technologies and OSI Systems, have seen their shares rise by as much as 10 per cent.

But experts say that although the technology can help to tighten security, it cannot eliminate risks altogether.

When Abdulmutallab checked in for his flight at Lagos, he was carrying only a shoulder bag for a long-haul flight across three continents. Had an alert check-in desk clerk asked why a lone man would want to travel to America without any baggage, the young Nigerian might not have made it onto a plane in the first place.

Hi All
As a retired police officer, I will state that any police officer who is stupid enough to wear this device (story below), deserves to face the risk of brain, eye and other cancers.  If the cancer risk is not bad enough, the device could easily damage the skull during a vehicle accident or during a fight.  This should be filed under 'stupid and dangerous' electrical and electromagnetic products.
Martin Weatherall
California police test head-mounted cameras

Police in California are testing out a new head-mounted camera system. Police would be required to activate the camera before coming into contact with suspects, according to the L.A. Times.

The device resembles a Bluetooth earpiece and is attached by a band that runs around the back of the officer's head.

It can be connected to an on-and-off button on the officer's chest, and from there to a video screen on a holster. In San Jose, officers are required to switch on the cameras for even routine investigations, such as vehicle stops. 




- EFE: "Imams against mobile phone relay antennas in mosques"


- All Next-up News:






EMILY WEBBER investigates ways of protecting yourself against everyday radiation

HANNAH HUGHES was a bubbly and energetic child, so when the 11 year old began to fall ill every Wednesday after school her family were mystified.
"I didn't understand why she was coming home sick, " recalls her father Glynn Hughes who at the time worked as a telecommunications consultant.

"Shortly after she moved to her secondary school she would complain of headaches every Wednesday. She'd also vomit and look very pale."

A friend thought it could be radiation sickness and asked Glynn if his daughter, now 16, spent any time in the part of the school which had a mobile phone mast. It transpired that each Wednesday she had a class just eight feet away from a mast. This was eventually moved from the school but Glynn from Preston Lancashire began looking into mast emissions and how to shield against them.
Hannah Hughes who's electrosensitive
Soon local residents turned up at his door concerned they or their children were being made ill by radiation and wanting his expertise. Eventually he devoted himself full-time to the issue, setting up his company Wireless Protection.

He now receives calls for help from around the world. "I think there is a much higher percentage of people with electrosensitivity than diagnosed, " he says. "As soon as you remove or reduce the levels of radiation they are exposed to they feel much better, which is evidence in itself."

Electrosensitivity is the name given to the condition suffered by people who in varying degrees claim to be made ill by connection to electricity.

Particular hazards are thought to include pulsed microwaves or high-frequency radio waves given off by devices such as mobile phone masts, cordless phones, mobiles, WiFi, baby monitors and burglar alarms. Symptoms include fatigue, nausea, headaches, earache, skin tingling, chest pains, gritty eyes, joint aches, lack of concentration, anxiety and depression.

Intrigued, I decide to see if my home is awash with electro pollution. On the internet I discover you can buy or hire devices that monitor electricity levels. I hire an electromagnetic frequency (EMF) reader, used to measure emissions from electrical sources. I also rent an electrosmog detector, a pleasingly sci-filooking gadget which converts pulsed microwaves into an audible sound. Armed with my new gizmos, I search my home.

MY MOBILE phone and computer don't seem to register on the electrosmog detector but it gives off an alarming sound around my cordless phone. The EMF meter gave more predictable responses, registering high levels next to lamps or any electrical equipment left on or switched on at the plug.

According to Glynn the most important place to check is your sleeping area. While the body can cope fairly well with radiation throughout the day, it needs deep sleep to recover from radiation overload and restore the immune system.
Once you have established where in your house you are getting high readings, the next step is to remove all electrical equipment from near your bed.

You can stop any incoming radiation (from a neighbour's WiFi or nearby mast, for instance) by using special shielding material.

The material most commonly used is netting impregnated with silver-plated copper fi bre which reflect back radio frequency emissions. It can be bought as curtains, bed canopies or tunics.

You can even buy an antielectrosmog hood which look like a beekeeper's headnet.

The subject of whether electro pollution is harmful or not divides scientists. The European Environment Agency (EEA) has called for urgent action to reduce exposure to radiation from WiFi, mobiles and masts after an international science review concluded safety limits for radiation were "thousands of times too lenient".

The German government advises its citizens to use wired internet and landlines instead of WiFi and mobiles. Earlier this year a group of Dutch health specialists and scientists called on their government to minimise exposure to electromagnetic fields after noticing a sudden increase in chronic diseases with uncertain causes.

ELECTROMAGNETIC radiation has also been linked to cancer. Dr Andrew Goldsworthy, retired lecturer in biology at Imperial College, London, says calcium ions - the cement holding cell membranes together - can be pulled away from cell walls by pulsed microwaves. "There are indications people are getting brain cancer from frequencies in mobile phones, " he says.

However, the public health watchdog the Health Protection Agency claims research shows no harmful effects on living tissue.

"There is no evidence to back up the claims when tests are carried out in laboratory conditions, " said a spokesman.

An electromagnetic frequency reader is £25 for a week's rental and £374.50 to buy. An electrosmog detector is £15 to rent for a week and £58.99 to buy. Both are available from Healthy House,