Creekstone Farms Recalls Ground Beef in 10 States Over E.Coli Fears
March 14th, 2011
WalletPop.com
By: Linda Doell
Creekstone Farms Premium Beef recalled 14,158 pounds of ground beef because it may be tainted with the e. coli bacteria, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service said.
So far, there have been no reports of illnesses from people eating the beef, which was shipped in bulk packages to processing companies in Arizona, California, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington. The USDA said the bulk meat may have been repacked into smaller consumer-sized packages and sold under different retail brand names.
Creekstone Farms said it supplies meat to a number of groceries and restaurants nationwide as well as in Europe, Latin America and Asia.
The USDA released a partial list of retailers that received the recalled beef including some Price Cutter, Price Cutter Plus, Country Mart and Ramey supermarkets in Missouri. Information on stores in other states wasn’t yet available.
E. coli can cause a potentially life-threatening infection in young children, seniors or those with weakened immune systems. Symptoms include bloody diarrhea and dehydration.
The possible contamination was discovered when lab tests showed positive for e. coli, the USDA said.
In January, organic beef sold at some Harris Teeter, Costco and Price Chopper stores also was recalled for possible e.coli contamination.
Included in the Creekstone Farms recall are 40-pound cases of:
- 40-pound cases of Beef Fine Grind 81/19 Natural in 10-pound chubs with a product code of 80185
- 40-pound cases of Beef Chuck Fine Grind 81/19 Natural in 10-pound chubs with a product code of 80285
- 40-pound cases of Beef Sirloin Fine Grind 91/9 Natural in 10-pound chubs with a product code of 80495
- 40-pound cases of Beef Fine Grind 90/10 Natural in 5-pound chubs with a product code of 85165
- 60-pound cases of Beef Fine Ground 93/7 in 10-pound packages with the product code 86191.
The USDA said each case has the establishment number “EST 27″ in the USDA inspection mark. The beef was produced on Feb. 22.
The USDA urged consumers to make sure they thoroughly cook their beef to a temperature of 160 degrees Fahrenheit so harmful bacteria is killed. Consumers with questions can call Creekstone Farms marketing vice president Jim Rogers at (620) 741-3352.
Creekstone Farms has built a reputation selling Black Angus beef to upscale and trendy restaurants including Balthazar and Porterhouse New York in New York City, according to the New York Times. The Shake Shack burger chain also uses Creekstone Farms beef.
UPDATE: The USDA announced Friday March 11 more stores which received the recalled beef including some Bel Air Markets in northern California, some Nob Hill Foods stores in California and some Raley’s stores in California and Nevada. The updated retail list didn’t specify which stores sold the recalled ground beef.
Click here for the full report from WalletPop.com
Coffee May Lower Stroke Risk in Women
March 14th, 2011
AOL Health
By: AP
Women who enjoy a daily dose of coffee may like this perk: It might lower their risk of stroke.
Women in a Swedish study who drank at least a cup of coffee every day had a 22 to 25 percent lower risk of stroke, compared to those who drank less coffee or none at all.
“Coffee drinkers should rejoice,” said Dr. Sharonne N. Hayes, a cardiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “Coffee is often made out to be potentially bad for your heart. There really hasn’t been any study that convincingly said coffee is bad.”
“If you are drinking coffee now, you may be doing some good and you are likely not doing harm,” she added.
But Hayes and other doctors say the study shouldn’t send non-coffee drinkers running to their local coffee shop. The study doesn’t prove that coffee lowers stroke risk, only that coffee drinkers tend to have a lower stroke risk.
“These sorts of epidemiological studies are compelling but they don’t prove cause,” said Dr. David S. Seres, director of medical nutrition at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York.
The findings were published online Thursday in the American Heart Association journal Stroke.
Scientists have been studying coffee for years, trying to determine its risks and benefits. The Swedish researchers led by Susanna Larsson at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm said previous studies on coffee consumption and strokes have had conflicting findings.
“There hasn’t been a consistent message come out,” of coffee studies, said Dr. Cathy Sila, a stroke neurologist at University Hospitals Case Medical Center in Cleveland.
For the observational study, researchers followed 34,670 Swedish women, ages 49 to 83, for about 10 years. The women were asked how much coffee they drank at the start of the study. The researchers checked hospital records to find out how many of the women later had strokes.
There were a total of 1,680 strokes, including 205 in those who drank less than a cup or none. Researchers adjusted for differences between the groups that affect stroke risk, such as smoking, weight, high blood pressure and diabetes, and still saw a lower stroke risk among coffee drinkers. Larsson said the benefit was seen whether the women drank a cup or several daily.
“You don’t need to drink so much. One or two cups a day is enough,” she said.
Larsson, who in another study found a link between coffee drinking in Finnish men who smoked and decreased stroke risk, said more research needs to be done to figure out why coffee may be cutting stroke risk. It could be reducing inflammation and improving insulin sensitivity, she said, or it could be the antioxidants in coffee.
Larsson and others point out that those who want to reduce their chances of a stroke should focus on the proven ways to lower risk: Don’t smoke. Keep blood pressure in check. Maintain a healthy weight.
Click here for the full report from AOL Health
Foreclosure Activity Slows Sharply In February
March 14th, 2011
Business Week
By: Alex Veiga
The number of U.S. homes receiving a foreclosure-related notice fell to a 36-month low last month, as lenders delayed taking action against homeowners amid heightened scrutiny over banks’ handling of home repossessions.
Some 255,101 properties received at least one of the notices in February, down 14 percent from January and 27 percent versus the same month last year, foreclosure listing firm RealtyTrac Inc. said Thursday.
The firm tracks notices for defaults, scheduled home auctions and home repossessions — warnings that can lead up to a home eventually being lost to foreclosure.
While severe winter weather was likely a contributing factor, the sharp drop-off was primarily due to lenders taking a more measured approach to their foreclosure processes since the industry came under fire last year.
State and federal officials launched investigations last fall into foreclosure procedures used by mortgage servicers and lenders after evidence surfaced that some major banks pushed through hundreds of foreclosures a day without giving many borrowers a fair shot at keeping their homes.
Several large banks, including Bank of America, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, have been in talks to settle a probe launched by 50 state attorneys general over their handling of foreclosures.
Many lenders temporarily froze foreclosures last October while they reviewed and, in some cases, re-filed foreclosure documents. That process has continued this year, but in less-than-speedy fashion due to backed-up court dockets and other procedural road bumps.
Initial default notices fell 16 percent from January and 41 percent from a year ago, while scheduled foreclosure auctions declined 10 percent versus last month and 21 percent from February last year, RealtyTrac said.
Meanwhile, lenders repossessed 64,643 homes last month, down 17 percent from January and 18 percent from the same month last year. Repossessions declined 35 percent in states where courts play a role in the foreclosures process.
The decline in foreclosure notices has slowed not only the pace of homes lost to foreclosure, but also stemmed the tide of additional properties potentially at risk for repossession.
That’s good news for homeowners in trouble, but it’s unlikely to portend fewer foreclosures in the long-run.
“The issue isn’t whether we’ll see the repossessions — it’s when,” says Rick Sharga, a senior vice president at RealtyTrac.
Should the foreclosure process slowdown continue for several months, it’s likely foreclosure notices and bank repossessions will remain artificially low, Sharga says.
That could help stem home price declines and the number of homes taken back by banks, which hit a high of more than 1 million last year.
Such a reprieve would only be temporary, however.
“Even though foreclosure activity would look better, it would take the housing market and the economy longer to recover,” Sharga said. “We might not see the market come back until 2014 or 2015.”
However, if banks’ foreclosure paperwork issues get resolved sooner, rather than later, foreclosure activity is likely to spike again, Sharga added.
Around 5 million borrowers are at least two months behind on their mortgages, and experts say more people will miss payments because of job losses and loans that exceed the value of the homes they are living in.
RealtyTrac’s data captures new foreclosure-related filings on a given property, not repeat filings. As a result, some 70,000 notices that mortgage servicers re-filed on properties in some stage of foreclosure were excluded from February’s data.
Factor in those re-filed notices, and the month’s foreclosure activity comes closer to the monthly rate seen last year before the banks’ foreclosure documentation problems came to light.
At a state level, Nevada posted the nation’s highest foreclosure rate for the 50th consecutive month in February, with one in every 119 households receiving a foreclosure notice.
Arizona had the No. 2 spot, while California held the third-highest rate of foreclosure.
Rounding out the top 10 states with the highest foreclosure rate in February were: Utah, Idaho, Georgia, Michigan, Florida, Colorado and Hawaii.
Click here for the full report from Business Week
Wisconsin Republican Lives Outside District With Mistress
March 14, 2011 by Andrew
Filed under Government
March 14th, 2011
The Raw Story
By: David Ferguson
Protesters who marched at the home of Wisconsin state senator Randy Hopper (R-Fond du Lac) were met with something of a surprise on Saturday. Mrs. Hopper appeared at the door and informed them that Sen. Hopper was no longer in residence at this address, but now lives in Madison, WI with his 25-year-old mistress.
Blogging Blue reports that the conservative Republican’s much-younger new flame is currently employed as a lobbyist for right-wing advocacy group Persuasion Partners, Inc., but was previously a state senate staffer who worked on the Senate Economic Development Committee alongside Mr. Hopper. Her bio has been scrubbed from the Persuasion Partners’ website, but a screen-grab is available here.
Sen. Hopper has worked closely with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to implement the state’s new anti-labor laws and enact policies favorable to the interests of big business. Like Walker, Hopper is one of the Republican politiciansnamed in a massive recall effort spearheaded by Wisconsin Democrats.
According to Wisconsin law, state elected officials who have served at least one year of their current term are eligible for recall by voters. Hopper was elected state senator for district 18 in the fall of 2008, making him eligible for recall, whereas Governor Walker will not be eligible until 2012.
Blogging Blue also reports that Mrs. Hopper intends to sign the recall petition against her husband. The petition has already been signed by the family’s maid.
Click here for the full report from Raw Story
Devastation In Japan Leads To Drop In Gas Prices
March 14, 2011 by Andrew
Filed under Government
March 14th, 2011
CBS Chicago
Gas prices are still hovering around $4 per gallon in Chicago, but the disaster in Japan could actually bring them down a bit.
As CBS 2’s Susanna Song reports, the average price of regular unleaded in Chicago is $3.71, about 1 cent cheaper than a week ago. At the Des Plaines Oasis Mobil station Monday morning, the price was $3.73 for regular, and $3.97 for super unleaded.
Now experts say in the short-term, the prices could continue to fall because of the devastation in Japan.
The tragedy of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan last Friday has halted the fast-paced Japanese society, leading to a decline in the demand in oil there, and thus, a drop in worldwide oil prices and gas prices here at home.
AAA says Japan is the third largest consumer of crude oil.
Back in the U.S., in the past month, gas prices have surged up 37 cents, as a result of anxiety over unrest in the Middle East and North Africa.
While gas prices are starting to fall now, U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is also calling on President Obama to help bring gas prices down in the long-term.
“As families and businesses are facing these high gas prices, I’ll be working with President Obama to urge him to release the strategic petroleum reserves so we can start stabilizing and bring these gas prices down,” Durbin said.
Experts say this week, prices will likely drop about 1 to 2 cents because of the woes in Japan. But it’s unclear how the prices will look in the coming weeks.
Click here for the full report from CBS Chicago
Nuclear Disaster ‘Will Have Political Impact as Great as 9/11′
March 14, 2011 by Andrew
Filed under Government
March 14th, 2011
Spiegel.de
The nuclear disaster in Fukushima makes it hard to ignore the vulnurabilities of the technology. It could spell the end of nuclear power, German commentators argue on Monday. The government in Berlin may now cave in to mounting pressure to suspend its 12-year extension of reactor lifetimes, they say.
The nuclear accident at Japan’s Fukushima plant following Friday’s earthquake and tsunami has led to anxious questions in Germany about the safety of its own nuclear reactors and is putting the government under intense pressure to rethink its decision to extend plant lifetimes by an average of 12 years.
German media commentators across the political spectrum are saying the accident in a highly developed nation such as Japan is further evidence that nuclear power isn’t safe. One commentator in the conservative Die Welt went as far as to liken the global impact of the Fukushima explosions to that of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition of conservatives and the pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP) reversed the planned phaseout of the 17 nuclear reactors by 2021, amending a decision taken by a previous center-left government in 2002 to end nuclear power generation in Germany.
She argued that nuclear power was needed as “bridge technology” to ensure the supply of affordable power as Germany converts to renewable energy generation. She plans to increase the share of renewable generation to 80 percent by 2050, from a current level of only 16 percent.
A majority of Germans are opposed to nuclear power and the Fukushima accident is becoming a campaign issue ahead of state elections, the most important of which is being held in the conservative-ruled and wealthy state of Baden-Württemberg on March 27. Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party has held the state since 1953, and a defeat would be a major psychological blow to the chancellor and her party.
It would also make it harder for her to pass legislation because the opposition parties would gain power in the country’s upper legislative chamber, the Bundesrat, which represents the interests of the states and has the right of co-determination on many important laws.
On Monday, support in Merkel’s coalition for extending nuclear lifetimes started to crumble. Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, the leader of the FDP, called for a safety review at all German nuclear plants. Power stations whose cooling systems were found to lack multiple safety levels would have to be switched off “until the situation is totally clear.”
Other members of the coalition have also been calling for a rethink.
German media commentators say Fukushima may force Merkel to shut German reactors down sooner.
Center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:
“The events in Japan, which geographically couldn’t be much further from Germany, will influence politics in this country. They could soon start changing majorities and make governing even harder for the center-right coalition. The decision it made on nuclear power in September 2010 could be its undoing.”
“There are few issues that can fire up people’s emotions and mobilize them politically as much as nuclear power can. That’s not good news for a government that supports nuclear power. Especially ahead of important regional elections, which won’t affect the balance of power in national politics but which could well influence the morale of party workers to preserve that power.”
“It’s not good news because in the end, for example in Baden-Württemberg, it will only take a few percentage points more or less to determine the election outcome. Doubts among the supporters of the conservatives or the FDP could keep a few thousand voters from the ballot boxes — or drive them into the arms of the center-left parties.”
“For Merkel, it is hard to imagine a greater accident at present than the loss of a CDU governor in Baden-Württemberg.”
“The safety precautions (at the Japanese nuclear plant) weren’t just insufficient; the operating company TEPCO systematically breached them, as the government ascertained in 2002. TEPCO falsified security reports in more than 200 cases.”
“Japan is a democracy, but so far the control of the government by the voters has hardly worked. Things only got a little better after the Democratic Party came to power two years ago. Before that, the often incompetent and corrupt governments were never voted out of office. The perestroika that Japan so urgently needs has scarcely begun.”
“The unpopular government of Prime Minister Naoto Kan has been on the brink of collapse in recent weeks. It seemed paralyzed, distracted, disoriented and divided. Now it has to lead the country through what may be its worst disaster since 1945. Can it? In the Soviet Union the Chernobyl disaster accelerated the downfall of a broken, paralyzed political system.”
Left-wing Die Tageszeitung writes:
“It was always said that danger only came from rickety old reactors in former Eastern Bloc states — while conveniently ignoring that Sweden, France or the United States kept on narrowly avoiding maximum credible accidents. The disaster of Fukushima has made clear: There are situations in which even triple safety systems fail.”
“The weak argument offered by the nuclear lobby that Germany isn’t prone to heavy earthquakes and tsunamis doesn’t apply. If a chain of serious events and stupid coincidences cause prolonged power outages, if the access routes are blocked or if the control room is destroyed by a plane crash, German reactors too will overheat. ”
Conservative Die Welt writes:
“The earthquake of March 11 was no terrorist attack. But its political and psychological consequences will be as great as 9/11 because it has shown what a terrorist attack on nuclear plants would look like.”
“The photos of burning buildings being swept away are disturbing enough, but nuclear power makes the decisive difference. The shockwave that went out from Fukushima may have only reached three kilometers in physical terms. But in mental terms it went around the whole world.”
“Chernobyl was a special case. Nuclear energy was viewed with suspicion but it was accepted as long as modern democracies harnessed it with security precautions.”
“That is over now. Faith in redundant, coincidence-proof security precautions has been wiped out by Fukushima. The high-tech democracy Japan has shown what could happen if an Internet attack on German or French nuclear reactors were to happen as it did with the ‘Stuxnet’ program against the Iranian nuclear program. Or if a determined, technologically skilled terrorist group were to seize control of a power station. One knew it before. Seeing it has made the difference.”
Click here for the full report from Spiegel.de
Diet Soda Linked to Strokes and Vascular Disorders
March 14th, 2011
Natural News
By: Megan Heimer
Recently, every major media outlet reported on the “Northern Manhattan Study” which linked diet soda to strokes and vascular disorders. This study consisted of 2,564 individuals over the age of 40 who were followed for ten years. The results of the study showed that those who drank diet soda daily increased their risk of stroke by 48% and vascular disorders by 61% compared to those who did not drink diet soda. These media reports were also quick to point out that the study was preliminary, largely unsupported and lacked biological evidence; they explained how diet soda could possibly cause strokes, but it was not cause to change nutrition or dietary advice. However, it’s not hard to see how one famous ingredient in diet soda could be to blame.
Aspartame is just one of the many harmful ingredients found in diet soda. Aspartame is an artificial sweetener that is 200 times sweeter than sugar. This sweetener is dangerous because it is not stable in a liquid solution, and it consists of methanol which breaks down into formaldehyde and diketopiperazine – two neurotoxins known to wreak havoc on the nervous system. In addition, isolated aspartic acid and phenylalanine, two other components of aspartame, react with the breakdown of methanol, become toxic, and dangerously increase phenylalanine levels in the brain. The approval of Aspartame by the FDA in 1981 was controversial and highly opposed even by those on the panel because studies showed that aspartame produced seizures and brain tumors in lab animals. In one report, six out of seven monkeys fed aspartame-laced milk for a year developed seizures after every feeding, and the seventh one died.
In 1994, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a report which showed that 75% of all adverse reactions reported through the FDA’s Adverse Reaction Monitoring System were due to aspartame. Per the FDA, only about 1% of the population reports a problem with something they consume. Thus, in 1994 alone, it is estimated that there were actually one million adverse reactions due to aspartame products with 39% of the complaints coming from diet soda. Prior to 1994, the Center for Disease Control reviewed many aspartame complaints consisting of neurological, gastrointestinal, and allergic reactions.
In addition, the 1994 “Official FDA Document” listed 92 symptoms associated with aspartame consumption, including 290 people who reported seizures and convulsions after consuming a product containing aspartame. Because this number is estimated to reflect only 1% of the actual number, the true number of seizures in 1994 could have been as high as 28,710. Today, adverse effects continue to rise as people increase their consumption of diet soda.
A vast amount of scholarly research has been conducted since the 1980′s linking aspartame in diet soda to various conditions including: aspartame poisoning, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, osteoporosis, arthritis, birth defects, tooth decay, dehydration, obesity, seizures, strokes, cardiovascular disease, eczema, sleeping problems, hair loss, muscle tremors, heart palpitations, memory loss, high blood pressure (another leading cause of stroke), chronic fatigue, menstrual problems, loss of libido, and joint pain.
These questions remain: Why are the studies, physician and consumer complaints, and research regarding the toxicity of this diet soda ingredient being overlooked, covered up, and brushed aside? Could it be because the truth about aspartame could discourage consumers from drinking diet soda, resulting in billion dollar losses? Or, could it be that aspartame research is funded largely by those with a stake in this money-making industry? Regardless of the answers, there is 30 years of extensive research linking aspartame to strokes and vascular disorders. Is diet soda worth the risks?
Click here for the full report from Natural News
Untested Nanoparticles Showing Up In Thousands Of Consumer Products
March 14th, 2011
Natural News
By: Ethan A. Huff
Since 2006, the use of nanoparticles in consumer products has skyrocketed by over 600 percent. Nanotechnologies, which involve the manipulation of elements and other matter on the atomic and molecular scale, are now used in over 1,300 commercial and consumer products. And that number is expected to jump nearly three-fold by 2020. But are these nanoparticles safe for humans and the environment, particularly when used in food-related applications?
According to data provided by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN), a group formed in 2005 for the purpose of “creat[ing] an active public and policy dialogue” on nanotechnology, nanoparticles are now used in everything from car batteries and appliances, to aluminum foil and non-stick cookware. The “Food and Beverage” section of PEN even includes various vitamin and mineral supplements that contain nanoparticles, as well as McDonald’s hamburger boxes.
Many people believe that nanotechnology may be “the next industrial revolution,” but is the technology really safe? Just like genetically-modified organisms (GMO), nanotechnology has never been proven to be safe for humans or for the environment. Deconstructing and reassembling molecular components and injecting these altered molecules back into our clothing, furniture, cars, and food is really more of a giant experiment in human health than it is a successful technological breakthrough.
A 2004 study found that nanoparticles cause brain damage in fish and other aquatic species exposed to them. And the ETC Group, an international organization devoted to conservation and sustainable advancement, actually called for a moratorium on the production of nanoparticles back in 2002 after a European Parliament paper warned about their toxicity.
A 1997 study put out by Oxford University and Montreal University linked titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreen to causing free radical and DNA damage in skin. And numerous other studies have found that nanoparticles are easily absorbed by cells, where they cause other untold harm within the body.
According to PEN, the majority of nanotechnology applications are in the “Health and Fitness” cateogory, which includes the use of nanoscale silver for its antimicrobial properties. Ironically, health authorities have mocked those who use colloidal silver and other similar products for antimicrobial and other health purposes, but now that silver is being used as part of nanotechnology, it is myseteriously becoming widely accepted and showing up in all kinds of products without warning.
In 2008, the National Research Council, one of the National Academies in Washington, DC, stated that none of the nation’s 18 government bodies, including the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have ever proven the safety of nanotechnology prior to its widespread use. Despite $14 billion in government and private investment, there is not one shred of basic evidence that shows how nanoparticles are even absorbed and metabolized by the body, and yet they are used in thousands of consumer products that are ingested or applied on skin
Click here for the full report from Natural News
Watch Out For Toxic Ingredients In Sunscreen
March 14th, 2011
Natural News
By: David Gutierrez
The majority of sunscreens are toxic, environmental groups have warned.
“You want to look out for sunscreens with oxybenzone,” said Jane Houlihan of the Environmental Working Group.
Research has implicated oxybenzone as a likely carcinogen, as well as a chemical that is probably absorbed into the body.
Another concern is spray-on or powdered sunscreen.
“When you spray a sunscreen, or you’re using a powder sunscreen, you’re very likely inhaling small particles and that may or may not be safe,” Houlihan said.
And while you can hold your breath while applying such sunscreens, it may be safer to forego them entirely.
A seal from the Skin Cancer Foundation does not mean that a sunscreen is safe either, EWG warns, as the foundation will place its seal on any sunscreen that has an SPF rating higher than 15, or on the product of any company that donates $10,000.
EWG recommends using sunscreens made with titanium dioxide or zinc oxide, which are believed to be less dangerous than newer chemicals.
Unfortunately, warns Friends of the Earth, the majority of such sunscreens are made with nanoparticles — particles 100,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair. Because particles of this size behave in fundamentally different ways than they do on the more familiar, macro-scale, even a safe metal may be unsafe on the nanoscale.
Evidence suggests that nano-sunscreens are in fact dangerous. Friends of the Earth cites studies showing that nanoscale zinc oxide can kill colon cells and brain stem cells, as well as penetrate the skin and travel throughout the blood and urine. The group also cites studies linking nanoscale titanium dioxide to genetic changes, Alzheimer’s disease, autism and epilepsy. Nanoparticles have even been observed to cross the placental barrier in pregnant mammals.
“These nanomaterials are being added without appropriate labeling or reliable safety information, so the public has no way of making informed purchasing choices,” Ian Illuminato of Friends of the Earth said.
Click here for the full report from Natural News
TSA to Retest Airport Body Scanners For Radiation
March 14, 2011 by Andrew
Filed under Government
March 14th, 2011
USA Today
By: Alison Young and Blake Morrison
The Transportation Security Administration announced Friday that it would retest every full-body X-ray scanner that emits ionizing radiation — 247 machines at 38 airports — after maintenance records on some of the devices showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected.
The TSA says that the records reflect math mistakes and that all the machines are safe. Indeed, even the highest readings listed on some of the records — the numbers that the TSA says were mistakes — appear to be many times less than what the agency says a person absorbs through one day of natural background radiation.
Even so, the TSA has ordered the new tests out of “an abundance of caution to reassure the public,” spokesman Nicholas Kimball says. The tests will be finished by the end of the month, and the results will be released “as they are completed,” the agency said on its website.
TSA officials have repeatedly assured the public and lawmakers that the machines have passed all inspections. The agency’s review of maintenance reports, launched Dec. 10, came only after USA TODAY and lawmakers called for the release of the records late last year.
The agency posted reports Friday from 127 X-ray-emitting devices on its website and said it would continue to release results from maintenance tests for the approximately 4,500 X-ray devices at airports nationwide. Those devices include machines that examine checked luggage. Of the reports posted, about a third showed some sort of error, Kimball said.
The TSA announced steps to require its maintenance contractors to “retrain personnel involved in conducting and overseeing the radiation survey process.”
Some lawmakers remain concerned, however.
The TSA “has repeatedly assured me that the machines that emit radiation do not pose a health risk,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said in a written statement Friday. “Nonetheless, if TSA contractors reporting on the radiation levels have done such a poor job, how can airline passengers and crew have confidence in the data used by the TSA to reassure the public?”
She said the records released Friday “included gross errors about radiation emissions. That is completely unacceptable when it comes to monitoring radiation.”
U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz also was troubled by the information posted by the TSA. Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairs a House oversight subcommittee on national security and has sponsored legislation to limit the use of full-body scans. He has been pushing the TSA to release the maintenance records.
At best, Chaffetz said, the radiation reports generated by TSA contractors reveal haphazard oversight and record-keeping in the critical inspection system the agency relies upon to ensure millions of travelers aren’t subjected to excessive doses of radiation.
“It is totally unacceptable to be bumbling such critical tasks,” Chaffetz said. “These people are supposed to be protecting us against terrorists.”
In the past, the TSA has failed to properly monitor and ensure the safety of X-ray devices used on luggage. A 2008 report by the worker safety arm of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the TSA and its maintenance contractors had failed to detect when baggage X-ray machines emitted radiation beyond what regulations allowed. They also failed to take action when some machines had missing or disabled safety features, the report shows.
Chaffetz said the TSA’s characterization of the maintenance mistakes “sounds like an excuse rather than the real facts.”
“I’m tired of excuses,” Chaffetz said. “The public has a right and deserves to know. It begs the question, ‘What are they still not sharing with us?’ These are things you cannot make mistakes with.” Chaffetz said he expects to address some of his concerns during a hearing Wednesday.
The full-body scanners, called backscatter devices, are supposed to deliver only a tiny amount of radiation — about as much as an airplane passenger gets during two minutes of a typical flight.
Peter Rez, a physics professor at Arizona State University, said Friday he wanted to scrutinize the 2,000 pages of reports the TSA posted. He has expressed concerns about the potential for the scanners to break and the importance of proper maintenance and monitoring.
“Mechanical things break down,” Rez told USA TODAY in December. Rez also has voiced fears about the potential for a passenger to get an excessive dose of radiation or even a radiation burn if the X-ray scanning beam were to malfunction and stop on one part of a person’s body for an extended period of time.
He said Friday that the contractor mistakes TSA identified only heighten his concerns.
“What happens in times of failure, when they can give very, very high radiation doses. I’m totally unconvinced they have thought that through,” Rez said of the TSA. “I just see a large, bumbling bureaucracy. Of course it’s not very reassuring.”
The TSA’s Kimball disputed such characterizations.
“Numerous independent tests have confirmed that these technologies are safe, but these record-keeping errors are not acceptable,” he said. For instance, “the testing procedure calls for the technician to take 10 separate scans” for radiation levels, “add them up and then divide by 10 to take an average. They didn’t divide by 10,” Kimball said.
“We’re taking a number of steps to ensure the mistakes aren’t repeated,” he said, “and the public will be able to see for themselves by reviewing all future reports online.”
The TSA is responsible for the safety of its own X-ray devices. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said it does not routinely inspect airport X-ray machines because they are not considered medical devices. The TSA’s airport scanners are exempt from state radiation inspections because they belong to a federal agency.
Some of the records were written by employees of the machines’ maker: Rapiscan Systems. In a written statement, the company’s executive vice president, Peter Kant, said, “The mistakes were the result of calculating and procedural errors that were identified by Rapiscan management and have been corrected. In actuality, the systems in these airports have always been well below acceptable exposure limits.”
Rapiscan Systems said in a Dec. 15 letter to the TSA that company engineers who tested the backscatter machines were confused by inspection forms and instructions, leading them to make mistakes on the forms that vastly inflated the radiation emitted by the machines.
Rapiscan vowed to redesign its inspection forms and retrain its engineers.
The TSA released inspection reports from 40 backscatter machines, and reports for 19 of those machines had errors, including six that were deemed “considerable.”
In a written statement sent to USA TODAY, TSA Administrator John Pistole said the equipment is safe.
“Independent third-party testing has confirmed that all TSA technology is safe,” Pistole said. “We are also taking additional steps to build on existing safety measures in an open and transparent way, including commissioning an additional independent entity to evaluate these protocols.”
Click here for the full report from USA Today
