Millimeter Wave Safety Report, Need Help!
 

Dear Fellow Travelers,

I am an independent health writer, and I am doing an article on the TSA's millimeter wave scanners. Personally I find it highly unethical that the public is being experimented upon when there are not safety studies to prove that it is safe for humans. Conversely there is clear evidence that low dose microwave radiation does effect the cells and microorganisms in our body. That is why I am writing the article, to shed light on the subject.

The scanners should be called microwave scanners because that is what they are. If you are a professional or lay scientist I need your help evaluating the data I have collected. Please private message me or contribute to the forum. I also want to emphasize that I have contacted numerous experts on the subject and have received no help at all. I have also requested documents from the TSA, DHS, and FDA. I did receive one reply from the TSA. Further questions have been ignored. So if you can help in this matter, or have friends who have connections. Please help.

Here is a brief summary of what I have, and need help with:
The millimeter wave scanners (the ones were you stand in a hollow plastic tube and the machine rotates around you) operate in the High Frequency Microwave Range of 24GHz to 30GHz . The radio wave of 30GHz = 1 centimeter = 10 millimeters (mm) and 24GHz = 1.25 centimeters = 12.5 millimeters (mm).

This technology is similar to what is used for military radar, as well as police radar. (http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofreque.../fnradpub.html)

The scan is said to last 1.5 seconds.
Question 1: The power level of the scan is 2-3 orders of magnitude less than the IEEE maximum allowable power of this radiation scan of 10 mW/cm2.
What is the range of this power per mW/cm2?

Question 2: The preferred beam with is 30 degrees. Is that useful?

Question 3: My understanding of the patent of the old version of the machine is that the scanners operate using an array of antennas that shoot out multiple beams, collect the data and render an image. Would the newer scanners also require an array of beams? If so might the radiation absorbed be much more than listed? For example, they can say, our scanner uses a low power beam, but forget to mention that the person is zapped with 128 beams.

Question 4: I am looking for safety or health data related to low dose radiation exposures at 24-30GHz. In particular, the military may have this data in their related journal articles, etc. I need help locating such data. In particular, I have already found that these beams do penetrate the skin. My question in particular is data regarding affect on eyes, lymph nodes, pregnant animals, and testes. BTW, millimeter technology being used was developed at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Operated for the U. S. Department of Energy

Question 5: I am attempting to locate the following document - "Final Report of Work Under Interagency Agreement HSHQDC-10-x-00495 Between the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Homeland Security”
This is supposed to have the safety data on the scanner.

If you have any other thoughts, comments or ideas, please post here or private message me. thank you
your traveling friend.
:)

Data References:
Original Scanner Patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/US5455590
and

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...ery=PN/5455590

Millimeter Wave Threat Detection
https://info.publicintelligence.net/spie2dms.pdf
(you might get a browser warning, but the file is there)

Welcome to Flyertalk!

I don´t specifically know of any human studies on consequences of millimeter waves, but there are a few hundred papers indexed on pubmed.gov on the subject, many of them with cell cultures, and many of them showing effects in the cell cycle (the cell´s "program" to live, proliferate or die). Sifting through them, you will probably locate a few within the range you are looking for.

Welcome to FlyerTalk!

You have indeed chosen an incendiary subject on which to begin. Put on your Nomex coveralls. I will start.

While I would be interested in the results, beginning with an anticipated predetermined result and seeking data for verification is an investigative study, not a scientific one. You admit your bias in the first paragraph. Will you still publish if you find they are safe?

It is the responsibility of the FDA, DHS, and TSA to responsibly use technology that has been scientifically proven safe. Instead, they hide the "safety" reports they have created. In the absence of legitimate, 3rd party verified scientific reports from the government, it is up to the citizens to stop the government from irresponsibly microwaving the public. It is So bad that a US senator has to create a law to force an independent safety review of the x-ray scanners. Unfortunately she is probably not even aware that the millimeter scanners may be equally or more dangerous. http://politics.slashdot.org/story/1...-body-scanners

I already have a report that summarizes the effects of millimeter waves on cells. The question is I am looking for data in the 24Ghz to 30Ghz wave spectrum. Millimeter wave studies generally are 30 GHz +.

I have posted extensively on this subject in this forum over the years, and if you search on my username and some key words like "frequency" or "microwave" you will probably find what I've written before.

I am a professional radiocommunications engineer specializing in the physics of radio transmission and in allocation of radio frequencies for different purposes. Much of this work involves predicting whether one radio system will interfere with another, which in turn involves predicting the behaviour of radio waves in complicated environments. While I do not have a biology background, I have followed the discussion on the safety of radiocommunications systems (and the development of health standards for radio transmitters) for many years.

Like Ink, I sense that you've already made up your mind before you do the research, especially when you say things like:
(Affect. :rolleyes:)

On your first point, where is this "clear evidence" of damage from "low dose" microwave energy? To the best of my knowledge, there are some studies relating to, for example, mobile phones which show some possible effect (not necessarily harmful) which, when followed up with larger scale studies, cannot be replicated. The results of a single study, or even a handful of studies, is rarely considered conclusive.

On your second point, if you are a health reporter, you should know that no technology (or drug, or procedure, or chemical) is ever "scientifically proven safe." It is possible to prove something dangerous (e.g. "Rat drank arsenic. Rat died. Arsenic is poisonous.") When numerous studies fail to prove something dangerous, it is considered to be "safe enough" or "safe for now." Further, do you believe that TSA, DHS, FDA or anyone else has performed scientific studies to prove that the metal tables at the checkpoint, or the carpet, or the light fittings in the ceiling over the checkpoint? Isn't that a case of TSA using technology that has not been "proven to be safe"?

On your third point, on what basis do you believe that the millimetre wave scanners are as dangerous or more dangerous than the x-ray scanners? Reputable scientists have publicly criticized the use of x-ray scanners as a health hazard. I am not aware of a single reputable health scientist doing the same for the MMW scanners.

I have covered this ground many times before and I am not really interested in doing it all again, but here are some answers to your specific questions.

Fine. :rolleyes: Electromagnetic energy occurs along a continuum of frequencies. There are some we call "radio", there are some we call "microwave", there are some we call "millimeter wave", (infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-ray, gamma, etc). There is no stark dividing line between "microwave" and "millimeterwave" (there are conventions for the sake of convenience) nor is there a sudden change in the behaviour of waves from one frequency to the next.

To the general public, "microwave" means "microwave oven" which operates at 2.5 GHz. As you correctly note, the scanners operate at 24 - 30 GHz. One convention for defining "millimeter wave" is 30 - 300 GHz. Clearly the scanners, while in the microwave range, are closer to the MMW band than they are to microwave oven frequencies. (Think of it as living in Newark and telling an Australian that you live in New York - you're actually in a different state but it's close enough to something they recognize.)

This is where you need to be careful. A quiet note on the violin from the next room is "similar" to an airhorn against your ear, in that they are both sound energy. But the difference in power makes the difference between "imperceptible" and "damaging." Note that being farther away from something reduces the power that you are exposed to. I don't have time to read the police radar study but I know that some studies determined that, rather than holding the radar gun at arms length pointing away from themselves (as intended), police officers were riding around with the active device in their laps, pointing straight into the crotch. Ouch.

I used some numbers provided to the FCC (which is concerned about whether the scanners emit enough to cause interference to other radio systems) and get a value of 0.013 mW/cm2. (I think your exposure limts above are wrong, though. The FCC quotes the IEEE and ANSI that the occupational exposure level for 1.5 - 100 GHz is 5 mW/cm2 and the general population limit is 1 mW/cm2. See http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf )

That probably applies to police radar but the beam wiDth of the MMW scanner would be much smaller. It doesn't matter; the estimation of the energy at the surface of the body (and the exposure threshold set by the IEEE, ANSI, etc) take into account the beamwidth of the antenna - that is, it accounts for the fact that the energy is concentrated in one direction rather than going everywhere.
No. An array of antennas is used, not for "multiple beams" but to create a single narrow beam. These are then phased to steer that beam in different directions, back and forth across the body and up and down. (Imagine studying a statue in a pitch-dark room with an LED flashlight by waving the flashlight beam back and forth across it.) But it doesn't matter, because the effect of focusing the beam has to be taken into account in calculating the exposure (my number of 0.013 mW/cm2 above, for example.)

Effect. :rolleyes:

Military radars are not "low dose" (most of us would use the term "low power"; "dose" is more often associated with x-ray exposure, not microwave.).

(Look, I know this is going to sound scary, but it's not.) All electromagnetic energy penetrates the skin. (Television transmissions, WiFi, CB radio, garage door opener, satellite signals, UV, all of it.) The questions are: how far does it penetrate, how much energy penetrates, and what can that energy do. One of the fundamental calculations in electromagnetics is calculating the "skin depth" which depends only on frequency and on the material properties of the object in question. "Skin depth" measures the distance at which the energy level is ~36.8% (1/e) of what it was at the surface. The higher the frequency, the smaller the skin depth. Second, if the energy hitting the surface is small, the amount that penetrates to "skin depth" is smaller. So yes, there is energy "penetrating" but if it's a fraction of an already small amount, so what?

So there's nothing magical (or sinister) about the fact that the energy from the scanner "penetrates the skin."

I've estimated the exposure levels from the MMW scanner and find that, in general, they are consistent with the quoted comparison of ~1/100,000 of a cell phone (and yes, that takes into account that they're "beaming the energy right at you" and that you're "in an enclosed space" and everything else people here have worried about). If a manufacturer can prove that their product is 1/100,000th as dangerous as something that is used as widely as cell phones, it would be a waste of taxpayer money to insist on "exhaustive tests to prove they're safe." I don't believe that they're covering up anything, I just believe there's nothing there to cover up.

Obligatory disclaimer: I don't trust the TSA either. In the case of x-ray scanners, where scientists agree that there is no safe level of exposure, I believe the TSA should come clean about the exposure levels and get independent testing. I oppose both kinds of scanners because they violate the 4th amendment, are unnecessarily invasive, ineffective, slow, expensive, and offer the opportunity for theft while the passenger is posing like a criminal. I oppose them because they unnecessarily create embarrassing situations for people with breast implants, ostomy bags and insulin pumps. But I don't believe that there is a strong case to be made that the MMW scanners pose a health hazard, and I believe that posing that argument weakens our credibility.

Great post, RadioGirl. ^

^^

Thank you for your comments, they are helpful.

Response To Radio Frequencies Harmless
 

"While I do not have a biology background, I have followed the discussion on the safety of radiocommunications systems (and the development of health standards for radio transmitters) for many years."

I appreciate your comments. I want to emphasize that I second your comments about the TSA, privacy invasion, etc. I think what they are doing is a disgrace. And I would like it to end.

"Like Ink, I sense that you've already made up your mind before you do the research, especially when you say things like:"

Likewise you have made up your mind that blasting radio frequencies at humans is a good idea and smart, even without any testing.

"On your first point, where is this "clear evidence" of damage from "low dose" microwave energy?"

Clear evidence that cellular structures are effected, sometimes permanently from low dose, or high doseages of radiation.
Here is one link:
http://www.physto.se/~ljvi4037/Proje...meterWaves.pdf

Here is just one example. This is an actual study on an animal. These are RARE, as far as I can see.
“Further, some studies of MMWs have demonstrated the radiation can cause cataracts on the eyes of animals. Research published in 1998 reported thresholds for corneal damage at 94 GHz in rhesus monkeys. The energy necessary to produce a corneal lesion at 94 GHz was measured at 6 J cm-2 (three-second exposure to 2 W cm-2 ).” http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...7questions.htm

"To the best of my knowledge, there are some studies relating to, for example, mobile phones which show some possible effect (not necessarily harmful) which, when followed up with larger scale studies, cannot be replicated. The results of a single study, or even a handful of studies, is rarely considered conclusive."

I suggest you review this false conclusion by looking up experiments in journals. Here is just one short example:
http://www.mobiledia.com/news/91401.html

"On your second point, if you are a health reporter, you should know that no technology (or drug, or procedure, or chemical) is ever "scientifically proven safe." "

This is denialism. Sure, everything has some inherent risk. Waking up in the morning could be dangerous. "When numerous studies fail to prove something dangerous, it is considered to be "safe enough" or "safe for now.""

What are the numerous studies showing that 24GHz - 30GHz waves blasted from a short distance are safe for humans, and safe for the TSA employees standing next to the machines?

"Further, do you believe that TSA, DHS, FDA or anyone else has performed scientific studies to prove that the metal tables at the checkpoint, or the carpet, or the light fittings in the ceiling over the checkpoint?"

I thought you wanted to argue from reason and logic? I do not get your point here.

"On your third point, on what basis do you believe that the millimetre wave scanners are as dangerous or more dangerous than the x-ray scanners? Reputable scientists have publicly criticized the use of x-ray scanners as a health hazard. I am not aware of a single reputable health scientist doing the same for the MMW scanners."

This is because there are numerous scientists who use x-rays in their studies, or in their medical research. MMW is a newer technology, and not commonly used in the medical field. So there are very few, perhaps no experts who are familiar with how these technologies will affect humans because it has never been used before on humans in this way.

"Electromagnetic energy occurs along a continuum of frequencies. There are some we call "radio", there are some we call "microwave", there are some we call "millimeter wave", (infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-ray, gamma, etc). There is no stark dividing line between "microwave" and "millimeterwave" (there are conventions for the sake of convenience) nor is there a sudden change in the behaviour of waves from one frequency to the next."

For the sake of convenience, it is not accurate to call scanners that use the microwave spectrum, millimeter wave scanners. This was done to hide that these things can be dangerous and hazardous. The military doesn't call their radars, millimeter wave radars, because they don't have to hide / lie about any health effects. Especially when the radars are not pointed at people.

"Note that being farther away from something reduces the power that you are exposed to."

And big people who walk into the microwave phone booths, are going to be very close to the source of frequencies.

"I don't have time to read the police radar study but I know that some studies determined that, rather than holding the radar gun at arms length pointing away from themselves (as intended), police officers were riding around with the active device in their laps, pointing straight into the crotch."

"2. Older hand-held devices that do not have a "dead-man switch" should not be placed with the radiating antenna pointed toward the body, whether it is held in the hand or placed near the officer."

Even without conclusive evidence, OSHA recommended that the RADAR never be pointed at the police officer. "if the antenna is at all times directed away from the operator"

"I used some numbers provided to the FCC (which is concerned about whether the scanners emit enough to cause interference to other radio systems) and get a value of 0.013 mW/cm2."

Would that be 2 - 3 orders of magnitude below 10mW cm2?
And are you certain those numbers are from the correct device?
Can you post the numbers from the FCC on the MMW scanners?

"That probably applies to police radar but the beam wiDth of the MMW scanner would be much smaller."

No it doesn't. I took it out of the patent. I put the reference at the end of the article.

"But it doesn't matter, because the effect of focusing the beam has to be taken into account in calculating the exposure (my number of 0.013 mW/cm2 above, for example.)"

This data is missing, I am trying to locate it.

All electromagnetic energy penetrates the skin.

The TSA says it bounces harmlessly off our skin.

"I've estimated the exposure levels from the MMW scanner and find that, in general, they are consistent with the quoted comparison of ~1/100,000 of a cell phone (and yes, that takes into account that they're "beaming the energy right at you" and that you're "in an enclosed space" and everything else people here have worried about). "

Show me your data.
And why hasn't the TSA provided their data?

thank you.

Radiogirl provides pretty good information on the subject.

At one time, I was in roughly the same field as she is. In addition to that (or as a part of that, which are not mutually exclusive), some of my clients had me do exposure testing at their transmitter sites. While it was generally non-ionizing radiation, some of the testing involved ionizing radiation testing. (Long story, but in certain circumstances high voltage power supplies & transmitting tubes can emit ionizing radiation - much the same way old TV picture tubes could). I have testified as an expert witness in several legal proceedings.

I haven't seen enough data (or had the time/inclination) to study the TSA's scanners in depth.

Having said that, I am most concerned about the backscatter machines, which DO use ionizing radiation. There is cumulative effect to ionizing radiation, and the TSA is trying to sweep the real risk under the carpet.

I am less concerned about the MMW machines, which are generally acknowledged to emit non-ionizing radiation. As RG notes, there is (still, sigh) some debate over cellphones despite years of testing. Many of those studies are epidemiological in nature, which makes them harder to validate. Nonetheless, with respect to non-ionizing radiation, the Federal government has established exposure standards, which vary by frequency & exposure time. While no test data has been released on the MMW machines, the stated power levels & exposure times are low enough that I think it's unlikely that there's an issue.

I haven't given you any hard data from my end, but as a personal practice I avoid both types of machines. BXKS for potential exposure & privacy concerns, MMW for privacy concerns. Until adequate data is provided, I intend to continue that practice.

How about MMW with ATR?

I avoid that as a matter of practice, too, because 1) in many places you can't tell until after you've gone through the machine (I don't trust TSA to tell the truth), and 2) because in my observations an extraordinarily large number of people get groped anyway. If I'm going to be groped anyway, I might as well do the opt-out.

At my home airport, I know it is the ATR system and I do not opt out. When I travel to another city I always check the TSA CP from the sterile side to see which it is. If it is the non-ATR (it's been a while since I've seen one) I opt out. BSX: Always opt out.

I surrendered to the ATR for one reason, the value of the tools I carry. I see the personal risk of the MMW as much lower to that of losing my tools. I have been through the ATR at least a dozen times now (I still get ample SDOO's) and I have gotten "Green" every time. I wear pleated pants. I am overweight so I have "pleated" skin in places. I have forgotten tissues, change and earplugs and still get the "Green." I must be invisible to the darn thing.

I still carry a four-fold objection, (five for the BSX): Privacy, my belief that it is outside the bounds of a constitutional search, cost, and the way the lines back up when it is used as a primary screening device.

I don't have the depth of knowledge into radio frequency science that RadioGirl has. I do know that her facts are correct and her rationale sound. I would caution the OP on two specific points as you press forward with your article:

1. Be technically accurate. This is the least we can do, because the TSA is neither technical or accurate. It's not in their best interests to come clean. The absolute best you can do is to make sure your assertions are based on scientific fact which has been peer-reviewed and published. If you are technically wrong or make unsupported assertions, this becomes the issue and, as a result, the rest of your arguments have no credibility.

2. A NoS is a NoS is a NoS. Regardless of technology, it is still an electromagnetic stripsearch, is a gross violation of privacy, arguably violates the reasonableness provisions of the 4th Amendment, and is unresponsive to the threat. Please don't conclude that one type is bad but the other is OK, because that is clearly where the TSA is headed. Full-body scanners of any & all types need to be argued against and, we hope, defeated as a class of search apparatus.

I wouldn't care if a body scanner irradiated us vapors from the Fountain of Youth. I would still be strongly opposed to them.