Featured Post

Nutrition and Hormonal Balance

  Good Morning,  Nutrition and Hormonal Balance As an acupuncturist in the area of fertility, I realize tha...

Subscribe Updates via email

Subscribe Updates via email

Enter your email address:

Sunday, November 28, 2010

[AlternativeAnswers] Russell Blaylock, M.D., Body Scanners More Dangerous Than Feds Admit


Dr. Blaylock: Body Scanners More Dangerous Than Feds Admit
Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:58 AM
By Dr. Russell Blaylock

Dr. Russell Blaylock is a nationally recognized board-certified
neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, lecturer, and editor of _The Blaylock
Wellness Report_ (http://www.blaylockreport.com/) .

The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administrations new
policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and enhanced pat-downs
brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: The nine most
terrifying words in the English language are: Im from the government and
Im here to help you.

So, what is all the concern really about - will these radiation scanners
increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and
professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their
concern to Obama's science and technology adviser John Holdren in a
well-stated letter back in April.
The group included experts in radiation biology, biophysics, and imaging,
who expressed serious concerns about the dangerously high dose of radiation
to the skin.

Radiation increases cancer risk by damaging the DNA and various components
within the cells. Much of the damage is caused by high concentrations of
free radicals generated by the radiation. Most scientists think that the most
damaging radiation types are those that have high penetration, such as
gamma-rays, but in fact, some of the most damaging radiation barely penetrates
the skin.

One of the main concerns is that most of the energy from the airport
scanners is concentrated on the surface of the skin and a few millimeters into
the skin. Some very radiation-sensitive tissues are close to the skin - such
as the testes, eyes, and circulating blood cells in the skin.

This is why defenders using such analogies as the dose being 1,000-times
less than a chest X-ray and far less than what passengers are exposed to
in-flight are deceptive. Radiation damage depends on the volume of tissue
exposed. Chest X-rays and gamma-radiation from outer space is diffused over the
entire body so that the dose to the skin is extremely small. Of note, outer
space radiation does increase cancer rates in passengers, pilots, and
flight attendants.

We also know that certain groups of people are at a much higher risk than
others. These include babies, small children, pregnant women, the elderly,
people with impaired immunity (those with HIV infection, cancer patients,
people with immune deficiency diseases, and people with abnormal DNA repair
mechanism, just to name a few).

As we grow older, our DNA accumulates a considerable amount of unrepaired
damage, and under such circumstances even low doses of radiation can
trigger the development of skin cancers, including the deadly melanoma. I would
also be concerned about exposing the eyes, since this could increase ones
risk of developing cataracts.

About 5 percent of the population have undiagnosed abnormal DNA repair
mechanism. When exposed to radiation, this can put them at a cancer risk
hundreds of times greater than normal people.
It also has been determined that when skin is next to certain metals, such
as gold, the radiation dose is magnified 100-fold higher. What if you have
a mole next to your gold jewelry? Will the radiation convert it to a
melanoma? Deficiencies in certain vitamins can dramatically increase your
sensitivity to radiation carcinogenesis, as can certain prescription medications.

As for the assurances we have been given by such organization as the
American College of Radiology, we must keep in mind that they assured us that
the CT scans were safe and that the radiation was equal to one chest X-ray.
Forty years later we learn that the dose is extremely high, it is thought to
have caused cancer in a significant number of people, and the dose is
actually equal to 1,000 chest X-rays.
Based on these assurances, tens of thousands of children have been exposed
to radiation doses from CT scanners, which will ruin the children's lives.
I have two friends who were high-ranking Environmental Protection Agency
scientists, and they assure me that in government safety agencies, politics
most often override the scientists real concerns about such issues.

This government shares House Speaker Nancy Pelosis view when she urged
passage of the Obamacare bill sight unseen - Lets just pass the bill, and we
will find out what is in it later.
When the real effects of these scanners on health become known, Secretary
of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and the rest of the gang who insist
the scanners are safe will be long gone.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Recent Activity:
Peacefulmind.com Sponsors Alternative Answers-

HEALING NATURALLY- Learn preventative and curative measure to take for many ailments at:


-To INVITE A FRIEND to our healing community, copy and paste this address in an email to them:


To ADD A LINK, RESOURCE, OR WEBSITE to Alternative Answers please Go to:


Community email addresses:
  Post message: AlternativeAnswers@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:    AlternativeAnswers-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
  Unsubscribe:  AlternativeAnswers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  List owner:   AlternativeAnswers-owner@yahoogroups.com
Shortcut URL to this page:

Post a Comment