Airport Full Body Scanners And Increased Incidence Of Lesions

fixerforhirefixerforhire Mr. Not Sure.
edited December 2015 in Biohacker Banter

peanuts, gluten, shellfish, penicillin, etc.


people have allergies and certain susceptibilities 


fortunately I can consume all of the aforementioned things.


 


I do have a fair skin condition. 


redheads when exposed to sun develop freckles.


when I get a good dose of sun I develop moles and freckles.


having gone a period of life with sun exposure and not flying I know from experience if I get in the mood to go on hikes or spend time in the sun I develop moles and freckles.


 


If i remain indoors and stay away from the sun I don't really notice any new skin lesions.


 


i've noticed this year that i've had significant occurrence of moles and freckles. i've also flown several times this year. several for me anyhow, 10 flights / body scans.


 


what i've noticed is every time i've flown this year i have developed rather large moles that present aggressively within a week or less of a flight, they erupt from the skin and what has really drawn my attention to them is they itch, and i end up scratching the heck out of them and they bleed so I really notice them.


 


my last flight this month I was strongly considering requesting a personal screening at the tsa checkpoint, but I decided against it.


This morning two days from my return flight I started scratching an itch just at the edge of my armpit thinking it was a zit or something.


I thought better of it and looked in the mirror and sure enough, a new mole.


 


so, I will now opt for manual screening. i'm gonna be that weird paranoid dude.


the lesions could be due increased exposure to cosmic radiation during flight or many other things I haven't considered. I suppose it's a process of elimination.


 


these scanners are probably relatively safe for most people but I have a suspicion it could be problematic for a low percentage of people.


as to whether it's a cosmetic issue or something more i'll have to wait and see what the Doc says.


 


with technology today, it'd be easy to track something like this. a full body optical scan to map lesions might just be prudent for people susceptible to negative outcomes from increased sun exposure. it could also shed light on other events or at least make tracking better.


 


i hate things like this. it's all intuition.


no preponderance of evidence, carefully recorded data or solid testing methodology.


it's like getting stuck in a "why" loop with a 7 year old.


 


*edit: I forgot to mention increased size and prominence of existing lesions, in addition to development of new ones.

Comments

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    peanuts, gluten, shellfish, penicillin, etc.


    people have allergies and certain susceptibilities 


    fortunately I can consume all of the aforementioned things.


     


    I do have a fair skin condition. 


    redheads when exposed to sun develop freckles.


    when I get a good dose of sun I develop moles and freckles.


    having gone a period of life with sun exposure and not flying I know from experience if I get in the mood to go on hikes or spend time in the sun I develop moles and freckles.


     


    If i remain indoors and stay away from the sun I don't really notice any new skin lesions.


     


    i've noticed this year that i've had significant occurrence of moles and freckles. i've also flown several times this year. several for me anyhow, 10 flights / body scans.


     


    what i've noticed is every time i've flown this year i have developed rather large moles that present aggressively within a week or less of a flight, they erupt from the skin and what has really drawn my attention to them is they itch, and i end up scratching the heck out of them and they bleed so I really notice them.


     


    my last flight this month I was strongly considering requesting a personal screening at the tsa checkpoint, but I decided against it.


    This morning two days from my return flight I started scratching an itch just at the edge of my armpit thinking it was a zit or something.


    I thought better of it and looked in the mirror and sure enough, a new mole.


     


    so, I will now opt for manual screening. i'm gonna be that weird paranoid dude.


    the lesions could be due increased exposure to cosmic radiation during flight or many other things I haven't considered. I suppose it's a process of elimination.


     


    these scanners are probably relatively safe for most people but I have a suspicion it could be problematic for a low percentage of people.


    as to whether it's a cosmetic issue or something more i'll have to wait and see what the Doc says.


     


    with technology today, it'd be easy to track something like this. a full body optical scan to map lesions might just be prudent for people susceptible to negative outcomes from increased sun exposure. it could also shed light on other events or at least make tracking better.


     


    i hate things like this. it's all intuition.


    no preponderance of evidence, carefully recorded data or solid testing methodology.


    it's like getting stuck in a "why" loop with a 7 year old.


     


    *edit: I forgot to mention increased size and prominence of existing lesions, in addition to development of new ones.




     


     


    Good choice. It's radiation, no two ways about it. My wife and I, when she was pregnant, decided to do the personal scan. It's not a good idea to get any kind of excess radiation if you can avoid it.


    Speaking on intuition vs. "evidence." It's all you have. If someone has the gall to call you "unscientific," ignore them. You're being as scientific as you possibly can by experimenting different outcomes from different actions. You don't need a peer-reviewed journal to corroborate that you got more lesions from being exposed to sunlight and various forms of manmade radiation. You figured that out yourself. In my opinion, that is what the Bulletproof lifestyle is all about. Dave Asprey constantly restates how he likes "citizen science." What you're doing isn't doing labs or anything, but essentially it's self-experimentation. Can't stress this enough.


    But yes, the process is frustrating with anything that involves inflammation and allergic reactions. We need a better solution that regulates immunity.

  • fixerforhirefixerforhire Mr. Not Sure.
    edited January 2016

    i've also gone from working almost exclusively in the sun 2007-12 , to mole person status. '12-'16


    i supplement with vitamin d in spurts at 5,000iu 4-5 days a week for a 1-2 months at a time with other vitamins. i cycle on and off every 3-4 months.


    so many variables, but still the near immediate formation of these prominent lesions have drawn my attention.


    given the spread of my flights through the year, IF the formations had happened just two weeks after or later or before a flight i'd chalk it up to an occurrence out of my ability to correlate it would not have occurred to me to think it might somehow be related.


     


    edit* I have to be careful the words I use. :-)


  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭
    edited January 2016


    Speaking on intuition vs. "evidence." It's all you have. If someone has the gall to call you "unscientific," ignore them. You're being as scientific as you possibly can by experimenting different outcomes from different actions. You don't need a peer-reviewed journal to corroborate that you got more lesions from being exposed to sunlight and various forms of manmade radiation. You figured that out yourself. In my opinion, that is what the Bulletproof lifestyle is all about. Dave Asprey constantly restates how he likes "citizen science." What you're doing isn't doing labs or anything, but essentially it's self-experimentation. Can't stress this enough.




    There is a major difference between self-experimentation (documented, monitored, with controls, done by an individual. i.e. n=1 experimentation) and asserting that correlation = causation without doing proper controls to verify that it is the case. More likely than not this is what people (particularly on this forum) mean when the term "unscientific" comes up in our circles. The emphasis is should be on putting up proper controls and having proper documentation to rule out false-positives, non-causal correlation, placebo, apophenia, and psychogenic effects. 


     


     


    I've fallen prey to the psychogenic false-positive myself, luckily it was not in a health-critical experiment. Since I have no way to verify that the effect I was experiencing has any mechanism outside my mind, I must follow the evidence and determine my experiment to be inconclusive no matter how strongly I feel that there was an actual effect. (The really interesting part will be when I have the opportunity to revisit the experiment in a proper chemistry lab in the future and come up with a conclusive result.)


     


     


     


    EDIT: None of this is meant to comment on @fixerforhire's original post. I have been through the TSA body scan, and also recently had x-rays taken of my hip. The body scanner is a much more intense experience, while I found that the modern medical x-ray technology is entirely unnoticeable, not even making much of a sound. I'd like to compare the radiation spectrum output, I'll ask for a machine model number when I request copies of my x-rays if it would be of interest to anyone.


  • I travel for work, I opt out 100% from the rape machines. Wait until 50% of TSA develops cancer in another 5 to 10 years from standing next to those machines every day. I'm sure the government maintains them to spec, with no excess radiation or broken parts hurting people.


     


    I'll take the VIP luggage service and full body massage every day, thank you.


  • fixerforhirefixerforhire Mr. Not Sure.

    to be fair to the full body scanner, given papers and studies available and analysis done, cosmic radiation should be who i'd point the finger at, if I was to start blindly pointing fingers


    however, I need to verify dates of implementation of the full body scanner for my next bs anecdotal submission.


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25188246


    but for every study that might suggest one thing, there is another that says it's inconclusive or the polar opposite.


    the reality in terms of proof, is even if you suggest there might be an increased incidence of something, you're a long way from showing what the cause is.


     


    it reminds me of those legal scenarios on movies where the lawyer says in a smug tone something to the effect of: we'll tie this case up in the courts for at least 10 years, the legal fees alone will be more than you make in 2 lifetimes. yada yada yada. that's what it will take to get real legal binding resolution.


     


    we hide harm knowingly or not in the statistical noise of occurrence, severity(the subtler the effect, the longer till detection) and available sampling/record. by the time, if it all anyone connects the dots, it's because the morbidity and mortality has reached a threshold of detection.


    it's like pilfering money from the change drawer. you can get away with it if it's below the casual threshold of detection.


    life is a casual glance. not everything is recorded and accounted for. well, not yet.


    there's probably a gold mine of digital data in unlinked databases that could point to a lot of things.


     


    but to also be fair, fricken everything can be harmful to somebody. we can't stifle invention because somebody dies or gets sick, but there is an obligation to disclose and not subject everyone to something that might be harmful to a few, all because it's inconvenient to not have a unilateral rollout/acceptance/use.


     


    i'm inclined to believe negative outcomes from some pharmaceuticals and other products and the resulting lawsuits really didn't begin with any ill will or conscious effort to obfuscate side effects.


    it's just flawed to believe the sampling size was sufficient to reflect a parallel outcome for the whole population or at least a significantly higher number of patients or consumers in the real world.


    boom, that's life. 


     


    there's gotta be an intersection where the burden of proof regarding safety, meets the supposition of possible danger.


     


    right now, it's really on the consumer to prove harm, rather than the manufacturer to prove safety for some things.


     


    in the end my bs post is probably much more germaine to things other than full body scanners at airports.

  • I have no idea what you're rambling on about.


     


    How about this - risk vs reward.


     


    Risk for full body scanners? Yes. Reward? None.


     


    Risk for pharmaceutical drugs? Yes. Reward? It may save your life.


     


    The moral of the story is, why subject yourself to risk with zero benefit?


     


    Opt out and take the VIP service and massage.


  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    I have no idea what you're rambling on about.


     


    How about this - risk vs reward.


     


    Risk for full body scanners? Yes. Reward? None.


     


    Risk for pharmaceutical drugs? Yes. Reward? It may save your life.


     


    The moral of the story is, why subject yourself to risk with zero benefit?


     


    Opt out and take the VIP service and massage.




    You can actually look at the scan if you want to, or at least in 2011 I was allowed to. So a free test to check and make sure nobody has stolen your skeleton is pretty cool.  ;)

  • fixerforhirefixerforhire Mr. Not Sure.
    I like that.

    Risk vs reward.

    Someone paranoid might say, submit to risk of scan or risk getting blown up.

    Good thing terrorists are stupid, because professional security firms hired to test the tsa checkpoint, successfully duped these scans and other screenings.

    I remember reading that. I could be wrong.
  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    I like that.

    Risk vs reward.

    Someone paranoid might say, submit to risk of scan or risk getting blown up.

    Good thing terrorists are stupid, because professional security firms hired to test the tsa checkpoint, successfully duped these scans and other screenings.

    I remember reading that. I could be wrong.




    Yeah, in Israel they do a sweep of your car before they even allow you onto airport property, because it is way easier to drive a car bomb up to the arrivals terminal than it is to hijack a plane.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    to be fair to the full body scanner, given papers and studies available and analysis done, cosmic radiation should be who i'd point the finger at, if I was to start blindly pointing fingers


    however, I need to verify dates of implementation of the full body scanner for my next bs anecdotal submission.


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25188246


    but for every study that might suggest one thing, there is another that says it's inconclusive or the polar opposite.


    the reality in terms of proof, is even if you suggest there might be an increased incidence of something, you're a long way from showing what the cause is.


     


    it reminds me of those legal scenarios on movies where the lawyer says in a smug tone something to the effect of: we'll tie this case up in the courts for at least 10 years, the legal fees alone will be more than you make in 2 lifetimes. yada yada yada. that's what it will take to get real legal binding resolution.


     


    we hide harm knowingly or not in the statistical noise of occurrence, severity(the subtler the effect, the longer till detection) and available sampling/record. by the time, if it all anyone connects the dots, it's because the morbidity and mortality has reached a threshold of detection.


    it's like pilfering money from the change drawer. you can get away with it if it's below the casual threshold of detection.


    life is a casual glance. not everything is recorded and accounted for. well, not yet.


    there's probably a gold mine of digital data in unlinked databases that could point to a lot of things.


     


    but to also be fair, fricken everything can be harmful to somebody. we can't stifle invention because somebody dies or gets sick, but there is an obligation to disclose and not subject everyone to something that might be harmful to a few, all because it's inconvenient to not have a unilateral rollout/acceptance/use.


     


    i'm inclined to believe negative outcomes from some pharmaceuticals and other products and the resulting lawsuits really didn't begin with any ill will or conscious effort to obfuscate side effects.


    it's just flawed to believe the sampling size was sufficient to reflect a parallel outcome for the whole population or at least a significantly higher number of patients or consumers in the real world.


    boom, that's life. 


     


    there's gotta be an intersection where the burden of proof regarding safety, meets the supposition of possible danger.


     


    right now, it's really on the consumer to prove harm, rather than the manufacturer to prove safety for some things.


     


    in the end my bs post is probably much more germaine to things other than full body scanners at airports.




     


    EMFs are a special case. There has been blatant disregard for and even bullying against any data that goes against the "scientific" assertion that small amounts of RF from cell phone and wireless router signals do any harm. This is due to the obviously extreme profitability of mobile phones and wireless technology. It is not a mystery or a surprise that the "scientific consensus" in this case is being almost completely controlled by the industry. This is the problem with having studies funded by corporations at all. Complete conflict of interest. Anyone can see this.


     


    I have personally been harmed and sensitized to these frequencies in a very real and tangible way. I have developed worsening digestive symptoms as well as suffered from impaired immunity when exposed to them in amounts starting at about 70 times higher than what I experience in my home (or safe haven). These excess amounts (for me) are nothing close to what our safety standards restrict. This, understandably, severely pisses me off, because wireless is freaing everywhere, everyone has a cell phone, and there are more and more towers being erected everyday/everywhere.


     


    I know you were talking about a different kind of radiation (that from nude perv scanners). It's really all the same to me, though. In both, subtle negative effects accrue that are very hard to pinpoint to a single exposure. With airport scanners, well obviously it really benefits "everyone" and most certainly the government to be able to have complete control and this sort of intimidation in place. However, if you really look at the statistics, these devices have prevented very little if any terrorism. They're really quite ineffective.


     

  • fixerforhirefixerforhire Mr. Not Sure.
    edited January 2016

    I'm awaiting further investigation into RF radiation and it's possible influence on voltage gated calcium channels. in the world of imaginings, it seems the most likely consequence from exposure.


    or something similar to what is proposed. the RF energy despite not having ionizing potential does have some effect somehow maybe not vgcs but something.


     


    the whole it's not ionizing radiation is bollocks.


    i hate that term with a passion.


     


    so what if it doesn't have the potential to strip electrons away. that doesn't mean it's without effect.


    reminds me of fukushima and talks about radiation and penetrative power of alpha, beta and gamma radiation.


    in what universe am I physically constrained to radioisotopes that only exist as a point source of radiation that I couldn't possible inhale or consume?


    speaking of penetrative power is pointless, unless you are in a hermetically shielded room but without considerable shielding and thanking god it's only alpha particle emitters outside.


    or wandering around in a radiation suit near radioisotopes emitting alpha, beta and gamma radiation and trying to keep a good distance from the gamma radiation, assuming you decon the suit and minimize contamination upon exit.


    ionizing radiation ain't safe, there's no rationalizing or spinning it.


    I don't care if it's natural or commonplace in certain areas or whatever.


     


    I can make points as best I can, and I have. invariably the result is a consensus of people saying shut up and sit down or being completely ignored.


    i'm like a monkey with a handgun or a delicate object.


    with about as much understanding as a primate I can pick, prod, shake and expose weaknesses.


    i'm a great beta tester. I can expose flaws, break by operation equipment designed by minds far greater than mine.


    it's easy to sling feces from the cheap seats. hehe


     


    find the weak point and keep prodding it like a chimp with a stick. 


     


    i'm digressing...


     


     


    would the CEO of a major telco carrier or the RF engineer for any one of the cellphone makers sign off on a harness that puts a cellphone 5mm above their childs heart or head


    and kept it there for 5-8 hours a day for 5 years?


    because the SAR for their device is safe?


     


    the backscatter xray machines (not the milimeter wave i spoke of)they say is the equivalent of 2 minutes of air travel exposure to radiation.


    i've taken 9 hour flights or more. would someone volunteer their child to sit in one of those machines for 4+hours non stop?


    edit* sit in the machine for 120 to 270 scans


     


    I think of messed up questions like that. when somebody counters with... well it's not the same but but but, then I say keep your mouth shut about comparing equivalent safety or exposure.


    obviously even .0000001 chance is not worth the risk to a parent. 


Sign In or Register to comment.