Matching Grant Challenge
alexPureWhen I met Alexander Cockburn, one of his first questions to me was: “Is your hate pure?” It was the question he asked most of the young writers he mentored. These were Cockburn’s rules for how to write political polemics: write about what you care about, write with passion, go for the throat of your enemies and never back down. His admonitions remain the guiding stylesheet for our writers at CounterPunch. Please help keep the spirit of this kind of fierce journalism alive by taking advantage of  our matching grant challenge which will DOUBLE every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, CounterPunch will get a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate. –JSC (This photo of Alexander Cockburn and Jasper, on the couch that launched 1000 columns, was taken in Petrolia by Tao Ruspoli)
 Day 19

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Whole-Body Scanners Will Compound the Risk

Flying and Radiation Exposure

by ROBERT ALVAREZ

In the aftermath of the foiled "underwear bomber" attack on Christmas day, there’s a major push to install whole-body x-ray scanning machines at airport screening areas.

The effort is being led by former Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, now a paid consultant for a manufacturer of these x-ray machines. He’s calling for their "large-scale deployment." Estimated to cost $3 billion over the next eight years, the Homeland Security department plans to have 1,800 scanners in place at U.S. airports by 2014.

In a Washington Post op-ed on New Year’s Day, Chertoff dismissed objections raised about these devices. "The ‘safety’ concern’" he claimed "is particularly specious, because the technologies expose people to no more radiation than is experienced in daily life."

Not quite. Whole body x-ray scanning machines were developed and first used to detect theft at gold and diamond mines on and inside the bodies of workers in Africa. They are fluoroscopic x-ray machines that provide a real time image of a person’s body using "back-scatter" or "soft" X-rays. They emit much less penetrating energy than machines found in a medical setting, such as CAT scanners.

However, like all machines, if their design, manufacture, calibration, maintenance are defective, then doses to passengers and security staff could be larger than claimed. The recent reporting of dozens of cases of harm to patients from the misuse of CAT scans should serve as a cautionary warning.

Unfortunately, the doses of radiation experienced in every-day life, especially flying long-distances in jet aircraft, pose risks we should also carefully heed.

The earth’s atmosphere is a massive shield protecting life on earth from cosmic radiation. At sea level, this atmospheric radiation shield is roughly equivalent to a wall of water about 33 feet thick. With the rise in altitude, atmospheric shielding decreases and radiation doses increase. At 30,000 feet above sea level, radiation doses increase by 90 times. Solar flares can increase doses by a factor of 100 above that. For this reason, flight crews, are considered by the United Nation’s Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation as radiation workers who, because of exposure to cosmic radiation, are the most highly exposed group in the world.

According to UN data, in 2000, air crews made up about 3% of the radiation workers in the world, but received about 24% of the total collective dose for all exposed workers, which include people employed at uranium mines, nuclear weapons sites, and nuclear power plants. The average estimated annual dose to flight personnel, and frequent international flyers such as professional couriers, is about 2.5 times higher than the combined average for all radiation workers.

Aircrew and frequent long-distance passengers are chronically exposed to more biologically damaging forms of radiation, such as neutrons, than the majority of nuclear workers.

Women who are pregnant have a heightened risk of cancer to their embryos. During the early part of the first trimester, when radiation sensitivity is the highest, some women may not know they are pregnant. This is why European airlines ground pregnant aircrew to prevent overexposure.

Over the past decade, at least 11 studies of military and commercial air crews show significant increased risks of dying from cancers considered to be radiogenic. The aircraft environment includes other potential and multiple risk factors which are not as well understood as radiation, such as electromagnetic fields, changes in body hormones, time zone changes, pesticides, pressure changes, chronic fatigue, and life styles.

Given the economic problems airlines face, this problem is the last thing that they want to surface. But, if crew members and passengers already face largely unreported radiation risks from long-distance flying, we should have the right to know just how whole-body radiation scanning machines are part of this risk.

ROBERT ALVAREZ, an Institute for Policy Studies senior scholar, served as senior policy adviser to the Energy Department’s secretary from 1993 to 1999. www.ips-dc.org

This article originally appeared on The Huffington Post.

 

 

 

WORDS THAT STICK