By BRMI Staff
When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate explosives hidden in his underwear on a flight to Detroit, the TSA seized the opportunity to tighten security measures, permanently altering the freedoms of air travelers. Exploiting the incident to its fullest, they used it as a pretext to expand their control over passenger privacy and rights.
Security Over Safety
This raises a broader question: Why does the government act swiftly and aggressively in response to certain threats while allowing other risks to persist unchecked?
Take, for example, airport security. In the wake of 9/11 and the 2009 "Underwear Bomber" attempt, the U.S. radically transformed passenger screening. The TSA initially deployed backscatter X-ray scanners, later replacing them with millimeter-wave scanners capable of detecting non-metallic explosives. This shift happened rapidly, with little public debate, under the guise of national security.
Meanwhile, when it comes to everyday health risks, the government’s approach is starkly different. Consider Red Dye #40, an artificial food additive banned in several countries due to potential health risks but still widely used in the U.S. Many American food products contain additives and chemicals that their international counterparts do not—despite growing concerns over their long-term effects.
Red Dye #40 is just one example of an FDA-approved ingredient with potential health consequences, yet it remains on shelves without the same urgency or sweeping regulations that define airport security policies.
This contrast forces us to ask: Why does the government impose extreme security measures in response to potential threats while showing far less urgency when it comes to long-term health risks? And more specifically, when it comes to TSA scanners—are they truly safe?
Let’s dive in!
TSA Scanners Utilize Millimeter Waves
When learning about TSA scanners from agencies like the TSA, FDA, and CDC, their focus is striking—not on what these scanners are, but rather on what they are not. (Hint: They are non-ionizing and do not use X-ray technology.) So, that means they’re safe… right?
Here’s What These Agencies Say:
TSA: "Safety: Advanced imaging technology is safe and meets national health and safety standards. This technology uses non-ionizing radio-frequency energy in the millimeter spectrum with no known adverse health effects. It does not use X-ray technology." Source: TSA
CDC: "The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) uses body-scanning units in airports across the United States. These body-scanning units traditionally use millimeter-wave technology. Millimeter-wave technology uses non-ionizing radiation in the form of low-level radio waves to scan a person's body. A millimeter-wave body scanner uses two antennas that rotate around a person's body. The scanner constructs a 3-D image that resembles a fuzzy photo negative. The image is sent to a remote monitor. Millimeter-wave technology does not use x-rays and does not add to a person's ionizing radiation dose."
FDA: "Millimeter wave security screening systems use non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. There are two types of millimeter wave security systems: active systems that expose the person being screened to small amounts of millimeter wave energy and passive systems that sense naturally occurring millimeter wave emissions from warm bodies." Source: FDA
EPA
“Millimeter wave machines use non-ionizing radiofrequency waves to detect threats. The machine bounces the waves off the body and back to the machine. Millimeter wave scanners emit far less energy than a cell phone…”
The repeated emphasis on "non-ionizing" radiation is meant to reassure the public by drawing a clear line between "safe" and "harmful." But is this distinction as clear-cut as it seems?
Over the past century, we've learned about the dangers of ionizing radiation—often through early, unchecked exposure and later scientific study. Now that we recognize its harmful effects, it is used as a benchmark against which non-ionizing radiation is contrasted. However, just because we understand ionizing radiation to be harmful does not automatically make non-ionizing radiation safe.
Is the Comparison to Cell Phones Misleading?
One commonly cited claim is that millimeter-wave scanners emit thousands of times less energy than a cell phone. But this comparison is misleading.
Understanding the Energy Difference
If a cell phone transmitted for the same duration as a TSA millimeter-wave scanner (typically a few milliseconds), the TSA scanner would emit more energy per unit of time due to its higher frequency. Here's why:
Energy Comparison Over the Same Duration
Photon Energy: (E = hf, where h = Planck’s constant, f = frequency):
Millimeter waves (TSA scanners) operate around 100 GHz.
Cell phones typically operate around 1 GHz.
Since energy per photon is directly proportional to frequency, a single millimeter-wave photon has 100 times more energy than a typical cell phone photon.
Power Output:
A cell phone transmits at 0.1 to 2 watts continuously when in use.
A TSA scanner operates at very low power, but since its frequency is much higher, it delivers more energy in a short burst.
Total Emission Over a Few Milliseconds:
If a cell phone were to transmit for only a few milliseconds, it would release only a tiny fraction of its normal energy output.
A TSA scanner, during its short burst, emits concentrated millimeter waves that interact with the body differently—primarily at the skin level.
The Unknown Risks
The argument that scanners emit less total energy than a cell phone does not necessarily mean they are harmless—it simply means their effects are not fully understood. Radiation exposure risks are often cumulative, and studies on long-term exposure to millimeter waves remain limited.
The real question is not just about total energy output, but how the human body interacts with these frequencies—particularly at the skin level. Until more research is conducted, the assumption of safety remains just that—an assumption.
What Are Millimeter-Waves?
Before assessing the potential dangers of millimeter-wave technology, it's important to understand what millimeter waves actually are.
Millimeter waves occupy the 30 to 300 GHz range of the electromagnetic spectrum, with wavelengths between 1 and 10 millimeters. Due to their high frequency and short wavelength, they can transmit large amounts of data at high speeds, making them valuable for 5G networks, high-speed wireless communication, and radar systems.
Also referred to as high-frequency radio waves, millimeter waves fall under the category of "extremely high frequency" (EHF) waves, as classified by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). This places them at the upper end of the radio frequency spectrum, just below infrared waves. Specifically, EHF waves sit at the highest end of the microwave band, right before the far-infrared region begins.
So, yes—millimeter waves are a form of ultra-high frequency radio waves. They also belong to the microwave category and are classified as non-ionizing radiation.
Now, let’s break down what we know about their safety.
Safety Concerns of High-Frequency & Extremely High-Frequency Radio Waves
High-frequency waves, including millimeter waves, have a shallow penetration depth, primarily affecting the skin and eyes.
Penetration Depth: For frequencies above 3 GHz, the penetration depth in human skin is approximately 1–2 mm. This makes the eyes and skin the most vulnerable to potential damage.
Thermal Effects: Extremely high-frequency (EHF) waves can cause localized heating of biological tissues. At high intensities or with prolonged exposure, this could lead to tissue damage or increased body temperature.
Ocular Damage: The eyes are particularly sensitive to EHF radiation due to their limited blood supply and inability to dissipate heat effectively. This could increase the risk of cataracts or other forms of eye damage under extreme conditions.
Surface Burns: Because EHF waves do not penetrate deeply, they primarily cause surface burns rather than internal heating.
Non-Ionizing Radiation
Non-ionizing radiation has enough energy to move atoms within molecules and cause them to vibrate, but not enough to remove electrons from atoms. Examples include radio waves, visible light, and microwaves.
Two Types of Non-Ionizing Radiation Effects
Scientists evaluate microwave radiation exposure in two ways:
Thermal Effects – Heat-related changes in biological tissue.
Non-Thermal Effects – Potential biological effects that occur without significant heat.
In 1990, after studying the biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs)—frequencies lower than those emitted by TSA scanners—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended classifying EMFs alongside formaldehyde, DDT, dioxins, and PCBs as a Class B carcinogen. Some researchers suggest that extremely low-frequency EMFs (ELF-EMFs) may reduce melatonin levels, a hormone believed to help suppress certain tumor growths. Source: National Cancer Institute
Imagine this analogy…you’re freezing inside your house. You have two options to warm up:
Be microwaved for 20 seconds
Wait 20 minutes for the room’s heat to rise naturally
Both methods may bring your body temperature to the same level, but are they equally safe? While one is gradual and external, the other directly agitates molecules inside you. The long-term impact of the former remains uncertain.
Similarly, millimeter waves are often assumed to harmlessly bounce off the skin, causing no immediate effects. However, consider sunburn—the damage isn’t obvious at first, but over time, the skin reveals the impact of prolonged radiation exposure.
Could millimeter-wave exposure have a similar delayed effect on our cells? If so, detecting potential harm may be far more difficult because the damage is not immediately visible.
This raises an important question: Are we truly assessing TSA scanners for all possible risks, or only the most obvious ones?
Given these concerns, TSA’s millimeter-wave scanners should be thoroughly evaluated—not just for their heat-related effects, but also for their potential to disrupt cellular communication and interfere with biological processes.
What Scanner Technology is Being Used?
Leidos is the primary provider of millimeter-wave scanners used in TSA PreCheck and standard security lanes across U.S. airports. Specializing in defense, security, and technology solutions, the company supplies screening systems for both aviation and government facilities.
The latest model, the Leidos Pro: Vision 3, boasts “new wideband millimeter-wave and deep-learning AI algorithms to improve detection and reduce false alarm rates during the security screening process.”
However, no human or animal studies have been published regarding the effects of prolonged or repeated exposure to these scanners.
How Safe Are They Keeping Us?
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has conducted internal "Red Team" tests to assess airport security measures. In these covert operations, agents attempt to smuggle weapons and fake explosives past security undetected.
A 2015 report revealed that TSA agents failed to detect prohibited items in 67 out of 70 tests, resulting in a 95% failure rate. (CNN)
Subsequent tests reported failure rates of approximately 80%. (Heritage Foundation)
These findings raise serious concerns about the actual effectiveness of TSA’s screening technology.
The Illusion of Safety: From Underwear Bombers to Facial Scanners
The 2009 “Underwear Bomber” incident was the catalyst for a massive expansion of airport security, but was it truly about safety—or was it about control? In the aftermath, invasive body scanners became the new normal, introduced under the guise of protection. Yet, years later, TSA’s own testing has revealed staggering failure rates, proving that these measures are more about security theater than real security.
Now, history is repeating itself. Just as we were told to accept body scanners, facial recognition technology is quietly creeping into airports across the country. We are assured it is for “convenience” and “efficiency,” just as we were once told millimeter-wave scanners were for our own good. But every time we surrender a piece of our privacy in the name of security, we never get it back.
The reality is clear: our freedoms are eroded not in one sweeping motion, but in small, seemingly justifiable steps. First, it was taking off our shoes. Then, it was full-body scans. Now, it’s facial recognition. If we do not push back, what will come next?
Real safety isn’t found in government overreach or invasive surveillance—it lies in an informed and vigilant public willing to question authority and push back against unnecessary intrusions. Opt out of body scanners. Reject facial recognition. Every freedom we surrender, no matter how small, paves the way for greater losses. Once we give up our rights, we become complicit in their erosion.
References:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “Airport Passenger Screening Using Millimeter-Wave Technology.” Accessed [date]. https://www.cdc.gov/.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Millimeter Wave Machines and Radiation Exposure.” Accessed [date]. https://www.epa.gov/.
Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “Millimeter Wave Security Screening and Public Safety.” Accessed [date]. https://www.fda.gov/.
Leidos. “Pro: Vision 3 Advanced Imaging Technology.” Accessed [date]. https://www.leidos.com/.
National Cancer Institute. “Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer Risk.” Accessed [date]. https://www.cancer.gov/.
TSA. “Advanced Imaging Technology.” Accessed [date]. https://www.tsa.gov/.
CNN. “TSA Fails 95% of Security Tests in Red Team Report.” Published [date]. https://www.cnn.com/.
Heritage Foundation. “TSA Screening Ineffectiveness and Security Threats.” Published [date]. https://www.heritage.org/.
Bioregulatory medicine is a total body (and mind) approach to health and healing that aims to help facilitate and restore natural human biological processes. It is a proven, safe, gentle, highly effective, drugless, and side-effect-free medical model designed to naturally support the body to regulate, adapt, regenerate, and self-heal. BRMI is a non-commercial 501(c)(3) foundation and will expand and flourish with your support. Our goal is to make bioregulatory medicine a household term.
This article is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for the direct care of a qualified health practitioner who oversees and provides unique and individualized care. The information provided here is to broaden our different perspectives and should not be construed as medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.