KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3491 times:
I did a search, but have not found anything about this.
Apparently the TSA Agents in BOS are getting cancer from operating or standing near the scanners that take whole body pictures of passengers during the TSA screening process, according to TSA union officials. The union also claims the TSA is hiding this from the public, as well as other TSA operators at other airports.
"Fearful of provoking further public resistance to naked airport body scanners, the TSA has been caught covering up a surge in cases of TSA workers developing cancer as a result of their close proximity to radiation-firing devices, perhaps the most shocking revelation to emerge from the latest FOIA documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center."
This other story indicates thje TSA is actually ignoring or trying to hide the "cancer cluster" in BOS from the flying public as well as the TSA employees.
Here is about 8 pages of e-mails from AFGE Local 2617 to the BOS FSD Heather Callahan, and the union members themselves. These pages also connect to e-mails from the TSA FSD in ATL indicating the same problem with "cancer clusters" among the TSA TSOs.
trigged From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 497 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3463 times:
Wow. I want to see where this goes. If it does cause cancer, I bet the Feds will just mandate that the screeners start wearing lead uniforms.
vgnatl747 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1492 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3283 times:
You really can't make this stuff up. Only the TSA would cover up something like this and keep telling the flying public it's perfectly safe. I've gone through them a few times, but 90% of the time I'll opt out. It's not worth the risk for those that fly frequently. I've long said that I wanted to see what the long term effects of these devices were.
kgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 3640 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3234 times:
Boston is one of the two airports where I've actually witnessed on-floor arguments between agents and supervisors -- in front of passengers -- resulting in agents actually walking off the floor during a shift (the other is Seattle).
I'm guessing this is only the tip of the iceberg for BOS's intra-TSA labor problems.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16808 posts, RR: 57 Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3211 times:
Apparently the TSA Agents in BOS are getting cancer from operating or standing near the scanners that take whole body pictures of passengers during the TSA screening process, according to TSA union officials. The union also claims the TSA is hiding this from the public, as well as other TSA operators at other airports.
Sorry, but this doctor calls bullsh!t.
The machines have been in use 1-2 years. Not nearly long enough to cause the cascade of mutations that lead to cancer.
They could be taking daily baths in ethidium bromide (very carcinogenic) and not see an uptick in cancer cases yet.
airportugal310 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3056 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3197 times:
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 4): Boston is one of the two airports where I've actually witnessed on-floor arguments between agents and supervisors -- in front of passengers -- resulting in agents actually walking off the floor during a shift (the other is Seattle).
I'm guessing this is only the tip of the iceberg for BOS's intra-TSA labor problems.
I'll second that. When I was working in BOS, I witnessed a totally unprofessional work environment day in/day out...that they even call themselves as "professionals" was a farce (for reasons that even go beyond this)
CoachClass From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 356 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3071 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2): Quoting trigged (Reply 1): If it does cause cancer, I bet the Feds will just mandate that the screeners start wearing lead uniforms.
Maybe that's why Janet Napolitano is so ugly?
Maybe it's just a flip remark, thinking it was funny, but I don't think that we need the ad hominem. The personal attack is particularly unfortunate since Janet Napolitano is a breast cancer survivor and I can only imagine that of all people, she would be most sensitive to cancer issues.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16808 posts, RR: 57 Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3049 times:
Quoting CoachClass (Reply 7): The personal attack is particularly unfortunate since Janet Napolitano is a breast cancer survivor and I can only imagine that of all people, she would be most sensitive to cancer issues.
Then why did she mandate bombarding all travelers with X-rays?
Ad homiem or not, the reactionary, insulting, ineffective, and idiotic management of transportation security lies at the hands of the DHS secretary.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7429 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3013 times:
With anything under this much control, people are going to seek protected status in order to have a nice lifestyle. The Xray machine sellers and builders, and the workers running them will claim to get cancer. It's probably about money, but if there is a real risk, hopefully it is being looked at.
N867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 974 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2989 times:
I'd bet if there is a real risk the government would either refuse to tell us the whole story or begin strip searching/more extensively feeling-up passengers for security purposes. It may seem like hyperbole now, but not long ago the porno-scanners would be seen as the obvious violation of rights and privacy that they are.
The TSA was a knee-jerk reaction and it should be dismantled as soon as possible. The bulk of its policies need to go the same way.
CoachClass From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 356 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2928 times:
re: DocLightning. Reply 8.
I don't disagree with your general scorn for the TSA and the equipment used. However, Napolitano was only appointed in 1/2009. The machines were in the works long before she got there and I think she and the administration got spooked by the underwear bomber. The Obama administration like the Bush administration absolutely won't let another national security nightmare happen if they can help it and civil liberties are pushed aside, e.g. Patriot Act.
Going thru TSA security has dissuaded me from flying for almost a year whereas I used to fly 6 to 20 r/t's a year.
tharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1778 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2910 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5): The machines have been in use 1-2 years. Not nearly long enough to cause the cascade of mutations that lead to cancer.
I'm not a doctor, but I had the same reaction. It'd be surprising for these machines to be causing a noticeable uptick in cancer so quickly. Anyway, this issue will require careful statistical work and measurements, not anecdotal suspicions.
star_world From Ireland, joined Jun 2001, 1234 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2840 times:
I am also highly suspicious of this - it is the perfect story to incite opposition to these devices, and there certainly doesn't appear to be any facts to back it up...
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2763 times:
The machines have been in use 1-2 years. Not nearly long enough to cause the cascade of mutations that lead to cancer.
They could be taking daily baths in ethidium bromide (very carcinogenic) and not see an uptick in cancer cases yet.
Then as a Doctor you do understand that cancer rates from increased radiation depends on the doseage, the time of exposure, , the amont of protection, or lack of it, and the type of radiation. Many survivors from Hiroshima (U-235 exposure) and Nagasaki (Pu-240 exposure) were diagnosed with different cancers in a few as 3 months after the blasts. Some took up to a year to a year and a half to be diagnosed with cancers. Some survivors never got cancer at all.
Quoting CoachClass (Reply 7): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Quoting trigged (Reply 1): If it does cause cancer, I bet the Feds will just mandate that the screeners start wearing lead uniforms.
Maybe that's why Janet Napolitano is so ugly?
Maybe it's just a flip remark, thinking it was funny, but I don't think that we need the ad hominem. The personal attack is particularly unfortunate since Janet Napolitano is a breast cancer survivor and I can only imagine that of all people, she would be most sensitive to cancer issues.
I am a cancer survivor too. I had Hodgkins and went through almost 8 long months of chemo every two weeks in 2007. I am happy she survived her cancer too, but she is incompetent as Sec.DHS. It was Napolitano who told the news media that veterans and conservitives are a threat to the security of the country.
"An April 2009 report suggested several factors, including the election of the first black or mixed race President in the person of Barack Obama, perceived future gun control measures, illegal immigration, the economic downturn beginning in 2008, the abortion controversy, and disgruntled military veterans' possible vulnerability to recruitment efforts by extremist groups as potential risk factors regarding right-wing extremism recruitment."
Napolitano also made the infamous "the system worked" comment about the NW (DL)-253 Christmas Day, 2009, about the 'underwear bomber'.
"What we are focused on is making sure that the air environment remains safe, that people are confident when they travel. And [b]one thing I'd like to point out is that the system worked.[b] Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action. Within literally an hour to 90 minutes of the incident occurring, all 128 flights in the air had been notified to take some special measures in light of what had occurred on the Northwest Airlines flight. We instituted new measures on the ground and at screening areas, both here in the United States and in Europe, where this flight originated. So the whole process of making sure that we respond properly, correctly and effectively went very smoothly"
goblin211 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 1209 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2658 times:
I agree with the doctor. There's simply no proof and I don't believe it since it's a fact we get the most of our radiation from the sun when we fly. I doubt cancer has anything to do with aviation. Besides, the majority of pax still use the metal detectors and I think the reds are secretly keeping them around so they can 'control' the outrage of TSA security.
bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 9 Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2601 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14): Then as a Doctor you do understand that cancer rates from increased radiation depends on the doseage, the time of exposure, , the amont of protection, or lack of it, and the type of radiation. Many survivors from Hiroshima (U-235 exposure) and Nagasaki (Pu-240 exposure) were diagnosed with different cancers in a few as 3 months after the blasts. Some took up to a year to a year and a half to be diagnosed with cancers. Some survivors never got cancer at all.
I'm sure the Doctor understands that as do I and probably most folks reading it .... interesting fact, but what does it have to do with X-Ray machines at airports???
None of those factors you mentioned are remotely similar to what is being discussed here.
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
robo65 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 167 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2184 times:
The machines have been in use 1-2 years. Not nearly long enough to cause the cascade of mutations that lead to cancer.
They could be taking daily baths in ethidium bromide (very carcinogenic) and not see an uptick in cancer cases yet.
I second that. I concur and totally agree with you.
Quoting star_world (Reply 13): I am also highly suspicious of this - it is the perfect story to incite opposition to these devices, and there certainly doesn't appear to be any facts to back it up...
{checkma
I just find it hard to believe in this case that the full body scanners are to blame for this. I don't want to see anyone being diagnosed with cancer because it is a nasty disease that I wouldn't wish upon anyone. The letter says a large amount of TSA agents have been diagnosed with cancer linked to the full body scanners. Just how can you tell that the cancer they have been dianosed with is caused by the scanners and if the scanners are supposdly at fault why isn't there outbreaks of cancer in other cities where full body scanners are in use?
So as far as a TSA coverup I don't think there is any truth to this unless there is something else that is not being released that would confirm otherwise.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6868 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2049 times:
Quoting CoachClass (Reply 11): Going thru TSA security has dissuaded me from flying for almost a year whereas I used to fly 6 to 20 r/t's a year.
Now there's a knee jerk reaction bigger than creating the TSA
Save for the first few months following 9/11, the experience of going thru airport security isn't much different now than it was before TSA. The only noticeble difference is having to take the shoes off (big deal), and different uniforms. And I live and fly out of Boston.
bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 9 Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1997 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 18): Save for the first few months following 9/11, the experience of going thru airport security isn't much different now than it was before TSA.
Actually, you can argue some of it is faster... yes, I know that seems strange!
BUT, prior to 9/11 there was a time when you actually had to power laptops on and show the screen to the agent to prove it was a real PC.
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
bond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 9 Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1851 times:
Did I miss the link to the document that shows there is a 'cancer cluster' that has been determined by any reputable scientific study, other than a 'union representative'.
It mentioned Cancer, Stroke, and Heart Attacks ... so not just cancer. Also I couldn't find where it mentioned what type of cancer???
I'll wait until we see a scientific study from an unbiased source!
Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, RR: 52 Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1721 times:
Quoting goblin211 (Reply 15): I doubt cancer has anything to do with aviation.
Airplane radars (weather, attack, etc.) are all known to cause cancers if you are within a certain distance (depending on type). Microwave communications between ATC facilities also cause cancers.
Quoting bond007 (Reply 20): It mentioned Cancer, Stroke, and Heart Attacks ... so not just cancer. Also I couldn't find where it mentioned what type of cancer???
It does mention strokes and heart attacks, which are serious health problems, but not related to cancer. I also looked in the stories for the type(s) of cancers, but did not find anything.
This story gives names of two scientists, and says cancers are possible, but does not mention which cancer types.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11705 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jun 2001, 1234 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
