Airport Radiation And Your Health

Airport security check point with metal detector

A new threat, using another level of security scare, is being used to expose the flying population to either excessive ionizing radiation or ultra high frequency radiation. Thanks to the attempted airliner bombing on Christmas 2009, TSA Security Laboratory Director Susan Hallowell recently announced the agency’s intent to use back-scatter X-ray machines for passenger surveillance.

Obviously we need to refine our screening techniques to provide maximum safety for our air travel. However, these X-ray machines penetrate a few centimeters into the skin and reflect back a naked body image. While some will view this as a privacy violation, this is not the immediate problem. Thomas Wiggins, a radiation company engineer, admits that before 9/11, proposing such a system would be like ordering his own death sentence. He has changed his mind and now states that they could “scan a pregnant woman 200 times without a health risk.” This is a scientifically fallacious statement.

Those implementing this near-sighted agenda have deliberately ignored the outstanding research of Dr. John Gofman (Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley) showing that THERE IS NO SAFE DOSE OF IONIZED RADIATION. This statement is based on years of serious unbiased research. Ionizing radiation in the X-ray spectrum damages and mutates both chromosomal DNA and structural proteins in human cells. If this damage is not repaired, it can lead to cancer. X-rays also damage the interior walls of the arteries.

These cells are then unable to process lipoproteins correctly, resulting in atherosclerotic plaques and mini tumors in the arteries, stimulating atherosclerosis and heart disease. Dr. Gofman’s studies indicate that radiation from medical diagnostics and treatment is a causal co-factor in 50% of America’s cancers and 60% of our ischemic (blood flow blockage) heart disease. He stresses that the frequency with which Americans are medically X-rayed “makes for a significant radiological impact.” The more people are exposed to these higher doses of radiation, the greater their risk of real, life-threatening cancer and heart disease.

A report in the British medical journal Lancet noted that after breast mammograms were introduced in 1983, the incidence of ductal carcinoma (12% of breast cancer) increased by 328%, of which 200% was due to the use of mammography itself. A Lawrence Berkeley National Lab study has demonstrated that breast tissue is extremely susceptible to radiation-induced cancer, confirming warnings by numerous experts that mammograms can initiate the very cancers they may later identify. Dr. Gofman believes that medical radiation is a co-factor in 75% of breast cancer cases. With this information, it would not be very intelligent to expose your breasts to radiation from X-ray machines at airports. This is an explicit danger to American women. (Infrared mammography is a far safer diagnostic tool.)

Yes, we should improve security, but these procedures must not introduce a scientifically proven, life-threatening hazard to our health. America’s cancer rates are already rising in every category. Airline pilots and cabin crews suffer more skin and breast cancer due to higher levels of radiation while flying. Dr. Abram Petkau has uncovered significant statistical research showing that a pregnant woman flying in an airplane in her first trimester exposes her baby to enough radiation to increase its risk of leukemia sixteen times.

The other source of surveillance being considered is ultra high frequency radio waves. There are scanners available that produce a frequency 1000 times higher than is healthfully advisable. Some examples include radar, producing a wide variety of radiations and causing cancer and neurological problems; microwaves, which are also noted to cause cancer; and even ultrasound: Swedish research on the use of ultrasound technologies on fetuses indicate that it may cause subtle brain damage and be associated with delayed development and learning disorders.

The attempted terrorist attacks are cause for concern, but we need to think about appropriate security without creating a screening system lethal to our population. In addition to effectively enforcing those systems already in place, there are many other forms of security screening that could work.

I am urging you to start expressing your concern now. We must strongly protest to convince authorities that this is a dangerous and thoughtless approach, which will increase the risk of cancer, atherosclerosis, heart disease, and brain damage to our population. The risk/benefit analysis does not justify these measures, which are at best foolish and at worst genocidal.

Blessings to your health and spiritual wellbeing.

Gabriel Cousens, M.D.

TurkeyUSA