Cancer Alert for Travelers

A few weeks ago, I had the honor of speaking at the annual conference of the American College for Advancement of Medicine. The conference was held out in Las Vegas, which for me meant a direct flight from Miami. But when I hit Miami International Airport, I was in for a nasty surprise – body scanners.

Have you heard of our government’s plans? I went to the TSA website and found there are already 385 of these units at 68 airports across the country. And they have plans to install lots more…

They say these units are harmless… but I’m not convinced.

The people we trust to look out for us over at the TSA claim the dose of radiation from these machines is less than 10 microREM of emission, or about one-ten-thousandth of a chest X-ray. Experts believe it’s more likely 10 times higher than TSA estimates.(1)

Dr. David Brenner, head of Columbia University’s center for radiological research, said the dose absorbed by the skin may be up to 20 times higher than earlier estimates.(2) And Peter Rez, a physics professor at Arizona State University in Tempe, did his own calculations and found the exposure to be about one-fiftieth to one-hundredth the amount of a standard chest X-ray.(3)

For those of us who travel a lot, that doesn’t sound too good to me for a couple of reasons.

First, an X-ray from a doctor is spread out over your whole body, but most of the energy produced by these machines is delivered directly to the skin and the underlying tissue. I worry the dose to the skin could be dangerously high.

Another thing that’s got me really worried is they’re dosing gonads with radiation and not protecting them. Even when you take a chest X-ray they give you a lead shield to put over your groin area. Are you going to carry one of those with you to the airport?

They’re dosing a woman’s ovaries with radiation, and I’m worried about the effect on the unborn. And it’s even worse for men because a man doesn’t have his body to protect his gonads because they’re located externally.

Your head’s getting as rigorously scanned as the rest of the body with these machines … though it’s unlikely people would hide explosives in their ears or nose. In people over 50, this could be a very serious cancer risk. In older folks, basal cell carcinomas normally occur in the head and neck area. Plus, the effect on the eyes and cornea has not been established.

And some people are more sensitive to radiation than others. Dr. Brenner has specific concerns about passengers with gene mutations. That’s about 1 in 20 (or 5 percent) of the population. These people are more at risk as they are less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA. This is especially worrisome when it comes to breast and ovarian cancer.

And here’s another thing to keep in mind. The effects of radiation are cumulative. Frequent flyers, airline pilots and flight attendants will be exposed regularly. And what about the TSA folks who operate the scanners? They’ll get many thousands of times the dose that travelers get just by standing next to the machines all day every day. That puts them at especially high risk for cancers.

The husband of my colleague Elizabeth Blackburn recently raised many of these points in a letter to President Obama. You may remember me mentioning Elizabeth before … we’ve worked together for years. And just last year she was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for her work in telomeres.

Her husband, John Sedat, is a biophysicist with expertise in imaging. He and his team of experts are concerned because:

  • People who have HIV or cancer may be at higher risk due to the high doses of skin radiation.
  • Further research needs to be completed when it comes to pregnancy and the risk that may be imposed on the fetus.
  • Any glitch in power that stops the device could cause an intense radiation dose to a single spot on the skin.
  • The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents hasn’t been fully evaluated.

The whole thing is offensive. You’re being herded like cattle, and it’s all done without asking. Shouldn’t it be your choice?

So here’s the bottom line. If you’re going to fly, here’s what to do.

1. Refuse to allow yourself to be scanned. You can still fly… but you may have to opt for the body search or seek out airports without the body-scanner machines. It may take some doing but you can plan a route that bypasses airports with the new scanners. This way you can map out your route and skip the scanners. That’s what I plan on doing as much as possible.

2. Take CoQ10. This nutrient interferes with radiation absorption, so a week to 10 days before you fly, start taking the ubiquinol form of CoQ10. It’s eight times more powerful than regular CoQ10. Normally, I recommend getting 50 mg daily but you can quadruple the dosage before you fly.

3. Load up on vitamin D. It’s the one nutrient proven to reduce the risk of all cancers by 77 percent.4 Spend 20 minutes in the sun and your body will produce thousands of units of vitamin D. If you can’t get out in the sun, I recommend 2,000 IU per day. If you’re going to fly, I recommend a double dose.

References:

1 “Statement on Airport Full-body Scanners and Radiation.” American College of Radiology. www.acr.org. Retrieved Dec. 9, 2010.

2 “Airport body scanners ‘could give you cancer’, warns expert,” Daily Mail, www.dailymail.co.uk. Retrieved Dec. 8, 2010

3 Roach, John, “Are Airport X-ray Scanners Harmful,” Cosmic Log, www.msnbc.com, Nov. 16, 2010

4 Lappe, Joan M., et al, “Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk,” Am. J. Clinical Nutrition June 2007;85,6:1586-1591

5 Guhaa, Manti, Basuraya, Shyamali, Sinhaa, A. Kumar, “Preventive effect of ripe banana …” Nutrition Research August 2003;23(8):1081-1088

Share/Save/BookmarkPrinter-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

About the author

author-picture

Dr. Al Sears is fast becoming the nation's leading authority on longevity and heart health.  His cutting edge breakthroughs and commanding knowledge of alternative medicine have been transforming the lives of his patients for over 15 years.

Learn more at http://www.alsearsmd.com


Comments

Anonymous's picture
1

esarah bearden

The astaxanthin found in krill oil is also supposed to be helpful especially in protecting the skin against radiation.

Anonymous's picture
2

Mercedes Lackey

You had better believe I am opting out of these scanners. TSA "officers" have very little training on these machines. The techs that maintain them have no medical x-ray training. There is no way to tell until it is too late if the thing has jammed and you have just gotten a concentrated burst in one line. There is no way for you to tell if it has been properly calibrated in the first place. The response of a tech to the "problem" of fuzzy scans is very likely going to be to up the radiation output! After all, they're just a tech, not a medical tech, they don't know (or likely care) that they are going to be increasing radiation into peoples' bodies, that's not their job. Their job is to get a good picture. These machines have not been tested as medical devices. The few tests that were conducted have not been peer-reviewed. And of course we are relying on the government to tell us the truth about them. Yeah, right.

No way. I am opting out every single time.

Anonymous's picture
3

Leveles

The article is quite informative, and useful. It leaves out a game changing fact. There were 2 scanners in development, and there are 2 scanners now for use. One type is the x-ray machine discussed. X-rays have enough energy to disrupts biological molecules, and they do. If your body does not succeeds repairing the damage done, later you suffer the consequences.
Then there is the terahertz scanner. That is nothing, but a fancy name for a scanner working in the high frequency microwave region, but below light and infrared. Such frequencies are too weak to disrupt molecules, they just cause a minor amount of heat. No big deal.
So, why is this not used at the airports? After all, the pictures are equally good?
Well, federal agencies are required to take the lowest bid in a competitive bidding. Even if, later the cumulative cost of that choice is much higher. Can it be overridden? You bet, it can. The head of the agency can find ways, or the congressional oversight can order it done.
Hint: the X-ray scanners still can be used for packages, they need not be wasted.
Think about that, and come to your own conclusions.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <p> <strong> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h2> <h3> <u> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.