'"Good reason to believe these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and..."

[CreekDog]

...and other vulnerable populations."

This is from a letter to the White House from John Sedat, a UCSF researcher.

"it appears that real independent safety data do not exist." In addition, the authors say: "There has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations."

"Air travelers over 65 years old are especially susceptible to the "mutagenic effects of the X-rays," they say, as are HIV and cancer patients, children and adolescents, pregnant women, and men (because the X-rays can penetrate skin and put the testicles "at risk for sperm mutagenesis"). Eyes could also be at risk because X-rays can penetrate the cornea."

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20022541-281.html#ixzz15f5VIUnz

[pnwmom]

1. The professor is a biochemist and a member of the prestigious

National Academy of Sciences -- an institute whose members are chosen based on their long contributions to science.

He's not, in other words, some "quack." We should take his warnings very seriously.

[DavidDvorkin]

2. I'm quite worried about those damned things

I'm 67 and have had skin cancer. My wife is 64 and has had breast cancer.

We drive when possible, but there are cases when that's just not feasible. I suppose we'll grit our teeth and request the alternative to the scanner, when one of those unavoidable flying trips comes up.

[pnwmom]

3. That's what I will do. I can't see how any pat-down

will be worse than a mammogram. And I've had plenty of those . . . .

[Mimosa]

4. "it appears that real independent safety data do not exist."

That's what my med prof buddy said.

[lostnfound]

5. First trimester of pregnancy..who can guarantee we won't be regretting

this when large numbers of teratogenic effects appear?