Airport Scanners ~ What The TSA Is Hoping To Conceal

By Theodora Filis

The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) X-ray scanning
machines are a sci-fi fan's dream. Lower-energy beams penetrate clothing and the topmost layers of skin, exposing any explosives concealed under clothing. 

The TSA has set up 172 full-body image scanners at 68 airports across the United States. 

According to a group of scientists and professors, low-energy rays do a "Compton scatter" of tissue layers just under the skin, possibly exposing some vital areas and leaving the tissues at risk of mutation.

Scientists from the University of California San Francisco wrote to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy expressing concerns that the scanners might expose the skin to high doses of X-rays that could increase the risk of cancer and other health problems, particularly among older travelers, pregnant women and people with weak immune systems.

Tests in Italy raised questions about airport body scanners following field tests at international airports in Rome, Milan, Palermo, and Venice. The Italian civil aviation authority concluded that airport body scanners were inaccurate and inconvenient.

The European Commission has stated that body scanners have “raised several serious fundamental rights and health concerns,” and recommended using less intrusive measures. Governments have been advised to consider other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation. 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration acknowledges that the X-ray technology used in the scanners poses a cancer risk, albeit one they say is "so low it presents an extremely small risk." 

"A person receives more radiation from naturally occurring sources in less than an hour of ordinary living than from one screening with any general-use X-ray security system," writes FDA Engineer Daniel Kassidy.

So… how much is too much?  Most body scanners deliver less radiation than a passenger is likely to receive from cosmic rays while airborne. That sounds reassuring, but there have been no studies to date indicating what repeated exposure to the X-rays means to frequent air travelers.

Unfortunately, we won't really know what exposing millions of people to X-ray scanners will do until we actually expose millions of people to X-ray scanners.

Until the long-term studies on the use of these machines are concluded, you get to choose between irradiation and being felt up by a non-doctor.

This gives the United Airlines slogan "Fly the friendly skies" so much more meaning! 

Shake, Quake & Roll With The Earth’s Punches

By Theodora Filis

Our Earth is changing and not in little, insignificant ways. It is warming and cooling and quaking and shaking in ways we have never known before. 

There are more earthquakes in areas where one wouldn’t think a quake might be. Storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, and blizzards cause severe devastation and drought. 

As many as half of Republican members of Congress "deny the existence of man-made climate change" while 86 percent oppose any climate change legislation.

Scientists involved insist their goal is not to influence public policy but to present the facts when needed.

"I think it is important for scientists to assure that the public and policymakers have a clear view of what scientific findings are and what the implications of those findings are," said Princeton University scientist Michael Oppenheimer.

"To the extent that some members of the new majority in the House have exhibited a contrarianism to science, I think it is a good way to have a scientific community there to help keep its facts clear."

“One group of about 40 scientists has been mobilized as a "rapid response team" to dive into the often hostile media environment and try to correct misinformation about global warming.

We did not form this to take a stance against climate change skeptics. However, if a skeptical argument is put forward that doesn't agree with science, we will refute that," said John Abraham, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota.

John Abraham, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota, said "There was a wide gulf between what the majority of scientists accept as fact about climate change and what the American public believes."

"This is in response to a real disconnect between what is known in the scientific community and the consensus among the general public," he said.

"Ninety-seven percent of top scientists are in agreement, but the public is split about 50-50," said Abrahams

Halloween’s Carbon Footprint… A Real Treat?

By Theodora Filis

As one of the world's oldest holidays, Halloween is still celebrated today in several countries around the globe. North America and Canada maintain the highest level of popularity. 

However Halloween, like so many North American holidays, has a steep carbon footprint and a serious environmental impact. 

Americans use more than 380 million plastic bags and more than 10 million paper bags every year. Plastic bags end up as litter, kill thousands of marine mammals annually, and break down slowly into small particles that continue to pollute soil and water. During production, plastic bags require millions of gallons of fossil fuels that could be used for fuel and heating; paper bag production consumes more than 14 million trees annually in the U.S.

Cloth or canvas shopping bags, or even pillowcases, make terrific eco-friendly alternatives to paper or plastic bags, or to the molded plastic jack-o-lanterns so many kids use to collect candy at Halloween.

Aside from all that plastic packaging, most, if not all, of the main North American Halloween candy products, have genetically modified ingredients included in the candy but not shown on the label. Genetically modified products can increase the risk of allergic reactions from unlabeled, genetically engineered ingredients.

Avoid candy altogether and give trick-or-treaters useful treats, such as colorful pencils, small boxes of crayons, erasers in fun shapes, or other inexpensive items you can find at your local dime store or dollar store. Whenever possible, buy locally produced treats from local merchants. Buying locally supports your local economy, and also reduces fuel consumption and pollution associated with transporting products.

Pumpkins are a Halloween centerpiece for many North American families. Children carve pumpkins with scary faces and place them at the entrance to a home. Although this might seem like a quaint, harmless tradition, the reality is that Halloween pumpkins are grown in a chemically intensive manner. Numerous fields are devoted to pumpkin growing prior to the Halloween season and the majority of North American pumpkins are grown with pesticide applications. To make a better choice for the planet consider purchasing a pesticide-free or organic pumpkin.

Purchase just one pumpkin per household. Although pumpkins might seem like decoration only, pumpkins are a food crop for both humans and animals and to throw out millions of pumpkins each year is excessive and unnecessary. If you do opt to use a pumpkin, remember to compost your pumpkins as they take up valuable space in the landfill as well as release greenhouse gases as they decompose. Grow your own organic pumpkins: http://www.pumpkingrowingtips.com/organic.htm

Halloween decorations are made of either plastic or Styrofoam. Both products are made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource. Soft plastics and Styrofoam are often very difficult to recycle, the majority of Halloween waste often ends up in the landfill. As an alternative, decorate with things from your garden like fallen tree boughs, pinecones, cornhusks, and apples. The fruit can be eaten at the end of the night and the other items can go into the compost.

A scary ghost can be made from a simple white sheet with a face drawn using a non-permanent pen. The sheet can be washed at the end of the evening. Scary music and soy (not petroleum-based) candles help create spooky, but environmentally friendly Halloween magic.

Fireworks are made from chemicals and most of their ingredients have a negative impact on the environment. Environment Protection UK reports fireworks emit light, heat, and sound energy along with carbon dioxide and other gases and residues. Studies have documented an increase in air and water pollution levels after fireworks displays in China, the UK, and the USA. Aside from the high cost of toxicity in the air when fireworks are used, many of the toxic remnants end up in landfills where the chemicals leach into the earth and waterways.

North Americans spend more than $6.5 billion dollars on Halloween. Americans spend an estimated $5 billion dollars on costumes, candy, and decorations. Canadians spend about $1.5 billion dollars each year; the largest expenditure is for Halloween candies. If North Americans opted to take their $6.5 billion dollars and spend their money on more eco-friendly Halloween options, it would have an enormous impact on reconfiguring the environmental impact of this holiday.